32000 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 10:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Tiika Vis. XIV, 71, Htoo Dear Htoo, op 05-04-2004 20:34 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: H: Can upacaya exist at cuti? N: Cuti-citta, dying-consciousness is the last citta in life. When cuti-citta falls away, rupa produced by kamma falls away. Cuti-citta is very weak and it does not produce rupa, thus no rupa produced by citta. Nutrition also stops producing, it does not produce any rupa in a corpse. Only temperature or heat element goes on producing rupas. The corpse is like dead matter outside, originated by temperature. This is recollection of death, maranasati. Reckoned backward from cuti-citta, sixteen moments of citta before the cuti-citta kamma produces rupa for the last time. The characteristic of origination of rupa applies at that moment. Thus, not at the moment of cuti-citta, the rupa falls away together with cuti-citta, that is the characteristic of impermanence of rupa. H: Can aniccata exist at patisandhi? N: At the moment the patisandhi-citta arises, kamma produces, when birth is in the human plane, three decads: of bodysense, of heartbase and of sex. Thus, thirtythree rupas. They arise in three groups of ten each. That is the moment of their arising, thus, the characteristic of origination applies here. And the characteristic of origination has to be followed by continuation, decay and impermanence. This is nyama, the fixed law of Dhamma. Nobody can change this. > H: Can all 4 lakkhana rupa exist in a rupa? N: All four characteristics of rupa are to be applied to each rupa as it comes into being, develops, decays and breaks up, one after the other, and this happens unthinkably fast. All during the seventeen (or fiftyone) moments of citta. We cannot imagine how fast. And when thinking of the last moments of life, we cannot imagine how fast all that happens. Before we realize it, another life has begun, and if that is in a plane where there are nama and rupa, again the four characteristics of rupa apply. You give me a good meditation on death! Nina. 32001 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 10:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] classification of rupas Hi Howard, op 05-04-2004 23:51 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > I'm writing only to ask about the relation between the four principle > rupas and the derived rupas. > My question is whether or not it is detailed anywhere in the > Abhidhamma or in the Abhidhammic commentaries *in what manner* the derived > rupas are > derived - that is, in what manner they depend on the four primary elements. I > presume they are not *composites* of them in some sense, but merely arise with > principle rupas among the conditions for their arising. Is there more that can > be said on this? N: We can go straight to the Abhidhamma: Dhammasangani, p. 181: Patthana, taken from U. Narada Guide to Conditional Relations, Ch II, under conascent-condition:Great Primaries to Great Primaries and Derived Matter. One of the four Great Elements is a condition to the other three, and also to the derived rupas in that group by way of conascence (p. 29), Thus, they arise together. Tiika: For example about eyesense being dependent on the four great elements: You like Ledi Sayadaw, see Synchrony of Relations. He explains that there are groups of rupas, This makes it more understandable that there are groups of rupa. An example, using conventional terms, when one smells the odour of a rose, it is odour which is the derived rupa. But odour does not float by itself in the air. It needs the four great elements as a support: solidity is a foundation, cohesion holds the group of rupas together, heat maintains it, motion distends it, the other three derived rupas also have a function in assisting it. I do not know whether this answer is sufficient? You may say: give me a sutta. As said before: the four great elements are explained in the suttas, and derived rupas are given but not under that name. We read in the ³Discourse on the Manifold Elements² (Middle length Sayings, no 115, P.T.S.edition) that the Buddha said to Ananda: ³There are these eighteen elements, Ånanda: the element of eye, the element of material shape, the element of visual consciousness; the element of ear, the element of sound, the element of auditory consciousness... " etc. We see here the derived rupas mentioned that are the conditions for the sense-cognitions. H: (I'm omitting any comments I might have on the > rest of the material, as I view some of the so called subtle rupas, the > asabhava rupas, and the "rupas that are characteristics of rupas" as (largely well > grounded) pa~n~natti, but only pa~n~natti nonetheless, and I see little virtue > in reopening that aging can of worms. ;-)) N: need not be. You are not alone, many find this difficult. A debate becomes wearisome when different people mean different things by the words used. Concept: an idea *or* a term. A term can represent what is real, or what is not real. I think your explanation is good: < It has become experientially clear to me that I don't "hear rain," I hear sound. I don't "see a tree," I see a (patterned) sight. I don't "feel my body," I feel bodily sensation. But I do *think* of hearing rain, seeing trees, and feeling my body. After a while, when direct looking is practiced along with clear comprehension of what one actually experiences, the theory does not remain as theory.> The main thing is, is there any understanding of what is dhamma? Through insight rupa can be realized *as rupa*, not a person or thing, nama can be realized as only an experience, no person who experiences. But we do not have to call them nama and rupa. Thus, even when we think about the coarse rupas now, they are only concepts, we think about them. However, these concepts do represent realities. The thinking in the right way is a good foundation for insight. Coarse rupas are difficult to understand as rupa, and even more the rupas that are characteristics. They can only appear clearly to insight. See Ledi Sayadaw, the four lakkhana rupas, the three vikara rupas, rupas of changeability. Lightness, etc. We can notice when they are there, and thus, I find it understandable that they are real, contained in the list of rupas. They are not illusions or imaginations. I can add more about them, I do not get tired of the subject, but too long for this mail. Just one more thing. The sutta on "the all" was quoted. This is explained in detail elsewhere, in the suttas, also in the Patisambidhamagga, the Path of Discrimination (p. 10). And in Co. Is this in contradiction with the sutta, where the Buddha said that nothing should be added? In many suttas we read about the five khandhas: these include the eye and objects, all nama and rupa. The aayatanas: the same and in addition nibbana. The elements: the same and in addition nibbana. The Path of Discrimination: all that is real, nothing else. Nothing imaginary is added. What is the all? Is there any understanding of it now? When we understand seeing and visible object that present themselves now we begin to understand the all, not otherwise. There are many methods of teaching realities, this is because of the different capacities of people to be taught (Veneya satta). Just now I read them again in the Vis. Tiika. I see in these words great compassion. As Rob K often says: nowadays we need more details. We think that we understand the sutta, but do we? Actually through insight all the texts will become clear and alive. Then we shall understand more what Abhidhamma means: nothing else but dhamma now, no theory. But, insight cannot be brought about immediately, on command. Nina. 32002 From: Jeffrey Brooks Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 10:42am Subject: What is Enlighenment? While conducting my daily practice of study and reflection upon the discourses of the Buddha (sutta pitaka) I recently came accross this really excellent sutta. This sutta seems to discusses the ten qualities in a teacher of the dhamma that inspiring confidence, however it seesms to really be talking about the qualities that one would find in an enlighened teacher, not just any old teacher of the dhamma. Since the concept of enlightenment,and the path to enlightenment seems to be of central importance to this list I thought I would post portions of this sutta, because I found this sutta seems to focus very precisely upon what the historic Buddha had found in his enlightenment. Gopaka Moggallana Sutta, MN 108 Moggallana the Guardsman Ten Qualities in a teacher of the dhamma that Inspiring Confidence Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. For free distribution only. "When asked, 'Is there, Master Ananda, any one monk you now honor, respect, revere, & venerate, on whom -- honoring & respecting -- you live in dependence?' you said, 'Yes, brahman, there is a monk we now honor, respect, revere, & venerate, on whom -- honoring & respecting -- we live in dependence.' Now how is the meaning of what you have said to be understood?" 13. "Brahman, there are ten inspiring qualities expounded by the Blessed One -- the one who knows, the one who sees, worthy & rightly self-awakened. In whoever among us those ten qualities are found, we now honor, respect, revere, & venerate him; honoring & respecting him, we live in dependence on him. Which ten? [1] "There is the case where a monk is virtuous. He dwells restrained in accordance with the Patimokkha, consummate in his behavior & sphere of activity. He trains himself, having undertaken the training rules, seeing danger in the slightest faults. [2] "He has heard much, has retained what he has heard, has stored what he has heard. Whatever teachings are admirable in the beginning, admirable in the middle, admirable in the end, that -- in their meaning & expression -- proclaim the holy life entirely perfect & pure: those he has listened to often, retained, discussed, accumulated, examined with his mind, and well-penetrated in terms of his views. [3] "He is content with robes, alms food, lodgings, & medicinal requisites for curing the sick. [4] "He attains -- whenever he wants, without strain, without difficulty -- the four jhanas that are heightened mental states, pleasant abidings in the here-&-now. [5] "He experiences manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, & mountains as if through space. He dives in & out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting crosslegged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches & strokes even the sun & moon, so mighty & powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds. [6] "He hears -- by means of the divine ear-element, purified & surpassing the human -- both kinds of sounds: divine & human, whether near or far. [7] "He knows the awareness of other beings, other individuals, having encompassed it with his own awareness. He discerns a mind with passion as a mind with passion, and a mind without passion as a mind without passion. He discerns a mind with aversion as a mind with aversion, and a mind without aversion as a mind without aversion. He discerns a mind with delusion as a mind with delusion, and a mind without delusion as a mind without delusion. He discerns a restricted mind as a restricted mind, and a scattered mind as a scattered mind. He discerns an enlarged mind as an enlarged mind, and an unenlarged mind as an unenlarged mind. He discerns an excelled mind [one that is not at the most excellent level] as an excelled mind, and an unexcelled mind as an unexcelled mind. He discerns a concentrated mind as a concentrated mind, and an unconcentrated mind as an unconcentrated mind. He discerns a released mind as a released mind, and an unreleased mind as an unreleased mind. [8] "He recollects his manifold past lives (lit: previous homes), i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction & expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he remembers his manifold past lives in their modes & details. [9] "He sees -- by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human -- beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings -- who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, & mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views -- with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings -- who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views -- with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus -- by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human -- he sees beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma. [10] "Through the ending of the mental fermentations, he remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & made them manifest for himself right in the here & now. "These, brahman, are the ten inspiring qualities expounded by the Blessed One -- the one who knows, the one who sees, worthy & rightly self-awakened. In whoever among us these ten qualities are found, we now honor, respect, revere, & venerate him; honoring & respecting him, we live in dependence on him...." 27. "And what sort of mental absorption did he praise? There is the case where a monk -- quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation -- internal assurance. With the fading of rapture, he remains in equanimity, mindful & alert, and physically sensitive of pleasure. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress -- he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is the sort of mental absorption that the Blessed One praised. Kindest regards, Jeff Brooks The Fruits of the Path Bell Springs 100 Day Summer Rains Retreat May 27 - Sept. 7, 2004 http://www.bellsprings.org .o0o.o0o.o0o.o0o.o0o.o0o.o0o.o0o.o0o.o0o.o0o.o0o. 32003 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 3:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Illusion of Control Dear All, Don't be surprised if you're having any delays with posts showing up on list - the one I wrote on 'Illusion of control' thread (to RobM) before several others was delayed quite a while and a note to Chris at around 9pm Hong Kong time still hasn’t shown up at 6.30am as I leave. Just post as usual and reflect on the illusion that you have any ultimate control in the matter.....;-) Metta, Sarah ===== 32004 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 5:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Illusion of Control Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear All, > > Don't be surprised if you're having any delays with posts showing up on > list - the one I wrote on 'Illusion of control' thread (to RobM) before > several others was delayed quite a while and a note to Chris at around 9pm > Hong Kong time still hasn't shown up at 6.30am as I leave. > > Just post as usual and reflect on the illusion that you have any ultimate > control in the matter.....;-) > > Metta, > > Sarah > ===== How come this one came through before the others?!! Do you have some special powers?!! Control?!! ;-)) Metta, Sukin 32005 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 6:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Antony in Hospital Hi Christine (& Antony), --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hello Sarah, > > As you will see in this forwarded message, Antony may not reply for a > short time. .... Thanks for letting us know and Antony, if you see this anytime, I'm sure we all hope you get well very soon. (Also, apologies for spelling yr name wrong). Chris, you must be getting ready for your trip. Is it Friday you leave, I forget? If you're not too busy, do you have any favourite sutta links on the courage and patience theme? Talking of favourite suttas, please do add the commentary/other notes which accompany the Bhaddekaratta Sutta you quoted as I know not everyone has the text and as it's so often referred to on DSG it now has its own spot in U.P. (No hurry;-)). Metta, Sarah ======= 32006 From: connie Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 10:49pm Subject: Re: Robber Guests p.s Connie, hope you don't mind me robbing this thread of yours and Jon's. you're welcome to fine me;-) ===== You're fine, Sarah! Nothing really to say, but I'll say it anyway. About attachment to views and (mis)interpretations of Buddha's 'views'/vision, whether we start out agreeing or disagreeing with our understanding of what he taught, it's still 'me and mine' that bring us to consider them at all. In my case, the arrogance to think "Buddha agrees with me" when I really hadn't the slightest idea what he was saying. Or when I did, it really was slight now that I think back. I guess that's a good thing! But there's always someone/group out there to back up any opinion we might have... all those pegs. Thanks to everyone who's ever helped me see any or taken me down one. peace, connie 32007 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 11:03pm Subject: Impermanence & Impersonality ! Friends: The Subtle Fact of No-Self: Since all phenomena inevitably change & become otherwise: This all cannot be 'Mine', This all cannot be 'Me', This all is not 'My-Self' ! This all; whether internal or external, whether past, present or future, whether fine or gross, high or low, far or near - all this - 'I Am' Not !!! With the Noble purpose of eliminating false Egoism, Pride & Arrogance, this subtle teaching of No-Self, uniquely declared by only the Buddhas, is therefore to be given constant & close Attention ! Why ? Because clinging to a mere idea of an 'Ego', creates mental dependence. For one who is dependent, there is the instability of wavering. Relinquishing all ideas, opinions & assuming, produces independence. For one who is independent, there is neither instability nor wavering. When there is no wavering, there is stilled & stable tranquillity. When stilled & stable, there is neither inclination, attraction nor drifting. Neither inclined, attracted nor drifting, there is neither coming nor going. When there is no coming nor going, there is no passing away & reappearing. When there is neither passing away nor being reborn there cannot possibly be neither any 'Here' nor any 'There' nor any 'In Between' ... Only this itself, is the very End of Suffering !!! --ooOoo-- Source: The grouped sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya IV [59] http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/index.html Comments: Please (re)consider: When changing, how can there be any identity ? When dependent, how can there be any freedom ? When unborn, how can there be any death ? When death-less, how can there be any sorrow ? When sorrow-less, how can there be any suffering ? Bold is such repeated Sweep! All yours in the Dhamma. All Constructions Decay & Vanish. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. 32008 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 1:29pm Subject: Re: Pannatti (Concept) Friend Ken O, Ken: Since me and mine are also concepts so concepts are big deals when clung to ;-). James: Yes, that is what I wrote. Concepts cause a problem when clung to as `me' or `mine'. In that case, it would be adding mental shading to the concept that comes from the taint of delusion. For example, an unenlightened bhikkhu would know water falling from the sky as `rain'; the Buddha would also know water falling from the sky as `rain'. However, the bhikkhu would cling to the concept of `rain' in terms of `me' and `mine' while the Buddha wouldn't. This is anatta. Ken: In fact, ill will by itself is not the problem, it is ill will that goes along with me and mine and that is where all the big deals starts ;-)). James: I'm sorry but I can't quite follow you here. I don't know of a situation where ill will could even exist without the delusion of me and mine. To my understanding, they support and feed each other. Ken: The whole of satipatthana is getting rid of me and mine and is about rejecting, relinquishing the me and mine, hence the object of satipatthana cannot be concept since we wish to get rid of it in the first place. James: Can you quote to me where it says this either directly or indirectly in the Satipatthana Sutta? From my reading, one is to have mindfulness of concepts and, as you would say, ultimate realities in increasing levels of subtlety, penetration, and insight. The goal of Satipatthana isn't to rid the mind of all concepts; it is to rid the mind of all defilements, to my understanding. Thanks for writing. Long time no chat! ;-)) I have been enjoying your kind posts of late. Metta, James 32009 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 3:05am Subject: Re: Illusion of Control Hi Rob M, Thanks for starting this new, important, thread. My contribution to it has become lost in the internet ether. This has turned out to be a good thing because I am only now beginning to understand what you wrote. So, if my first post does eventually turn up, please ignore it. You were saying that unwholesome action – action with ignorance and self-view, in particular – can condition wholesome action by object condition and by natural decisive support condition. I think, also, you were saying that prompted cittas are conditioned in the second way (natural decisive support). This understanding of yours leads you to believe that unwholesome action, now, is OK -- virtually wholesome, in fact -- if it is designed to condition wholesome consciousness in the future. Rob, doesn't this sound totally wrong to you? You are saying, in effect, that the way to enlightenment is by unwholesome action. (!!!) What sort of teaching would that be? I have a draft of my first message (saved in MS Word) which I will now snip severely – taking out the bits where I didn't quite grasp the enormity of your theory :-) I will repeat the remainder where I thought you were going dangerously close to advocating the `merits of akusala. ' (Little did I know!): ----------------- RM: > Intellectually, I know that I must abandon this raft after I have crossed the river, but for now the delusion of a self that has control serves a good purpose. > -------------------- Self-view can never be a raft for crossing over. The view of a self who strives to cross, or of a self who stands still, can never get us out of samsara. So it is not easy for an ignorant worldling to see the way out. Our only way of avoiding the two extremes is to learn the Buddha's Middle Way. And the only time for learning it is now. --------------------- RM: > Somebody recently coined the phrase, "DSG - Non Action Group (NAG)". -------------------- :-) It's a good name but totally inappropriate. While an Action Group would be one that supports a self who can strive, a Non-Action Group would be one that supports a self who can do nothing. Neither tag applies to the group that values Right Understanding (of anatta) first, foremost and now. ------------------------ RM: > I suspect that it was a joke, but it shows that a focus on "no self to control" can possibly lead to inaction and fatalism - clearly contrary to the Buddha's teaching. ----------------------- I think fatalism is conditionality as seen from the perspective of self. Are any of the NAG's in DSG fatalistic? Do any of them do nothing? Aren't they, in fact, our most active members? -------------------- RM: > The Buddha often encouraged monks to take action. The last words of the Buddha (SN VI.15) were, ---------------------- Now hang on Rob; the Buddha spent his life teaching a doctrine of anatta (no-self); wouldn't it be horribly inappropriate to interpret his last words as an endorsement of self-belief? :-) ------------------ RM: > "I exhort you, monks: All fabrications are subject to decay. Bring about completion by being heedful." ----------- There is no conflict with anatta: "I exhort you, monks" describes right speech and wise attention to that speech; the rest describes how the Eightfold Path conditions escape from samsara. --------------- RM: > The sixth step of the Noble Eightfold Path is "Right Effort". Consider SN XLV.8 which is full of exhortations to take action: "And what, monks, is right effort? [i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. --------------------- Bad example, Rob :-) Even at its most superficial level, this language is descriptive, not prescriptive. But I see your point; some of the Buddha's language does appear prescriptive. However, when we know how to interpret the designations "I" and "you," all of the Buddha's statements -- even those beginning with "I exhort you" - - can only be understood as descriptive. The Dhamma is there to be understood, not to be acted out with ignorance. Right effort and right action will follow immediately from right understanding. --------------------- RM: > The Buddha never said that "Right Effort" was only for those who had abandoned self-view. --------------------------- Well, Right Effort – as a factor of the Eightfold Path -- is literally for those (sotapanna and above) who have abandoned self- view. Even mundane right effort (in a moment of satipatthana) it is never accompanied by self-view. (Though there may be a latent tendency for it). ----------------------------- RM: > As worldlings, we will travel the Noble Eightfold Path with self-view; the delusion that there is a self. --------------------------- I know what you mean, but we should be precise: we, well intentioned worldlings do not travel the Eightfold Path -- that is exclusively the path of the Ariyans. In any case, the path – whether ariyan eightfold or mundane fivefold -- never arises in a moment of self-view. -------------------------- RM: > Of course, when a Sotapanna performs "Right Effort", it is done without self-view and the kammic weight is much greater. --------------- Hmmm. Again, I know you saying (rightly or wrongly) that right effort can be `prompted' by self view, but the way you say it sounds dangerously close to, `can be *with* wrong view' -- which, of course, it can't. ---------------- RM: > Some DSG members have challenged the idea of meditation because it is rooted in an idea of a self that can control. ------------------ To be fair, I think that they (we) only say that about `formal meditation,' not about meditation per se. ----------------- RM: > I accept the idea that meditation can be rooted in an idea of a self that can control, but I reject the premise that this is justification for not meditating. ---------------------------- We are not talking here about `prompted and unprompted.' As I understand the argument against formal meditation, it has akusala roots in the sense that it has ignorance (moha) as its root- condition (hetu, mula). If you come to accept that, then I think you, too, will lose interest in formal meditation, don't you? ----------------------- RM: > Meditation is one form of mental development (bhavana); it is not the only form of bhavana but it is one form. If one has the accumulations for this form of bhavana, then it should be encouraged and supported. Even if this form of bhavana is performed with self-view (almost inevitable), it still brings good results. ----------------- Oh, maybe I spoke too soon. :-) But seriously, I have just read Sarah's comment on your statement. So I will cut-and-paste: "S: Mental development (bhavana) refers to the citta (consciousness or state of mind) with understanding of some degree and kind at the present moment. The highest form of bhavana is that of vipassana which eradicates defilements and begins with the wisdom which understands seeing, visible object, lust, hatred, delusion, wrong view and other realities for what they are regardless of time and situations which are merely conventional ideas about bhavana (meditation) as I see it." (end quote) So, meditation (bhavana, mental development), yes; formal meditation (conventional ideas about bhavana), no. :-) Looking to your further comments. Kind regards, Ken H 32010 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 6:37am Subject: Re: Illusion of Control Hi Rob M, Don't worry, this post is not as long as it looks – it includes most of your previous post unsnipped. --------------------- RM: > Ken H (and members of DSG - NAG), The subject of the illusion of control has found its way into a number of our exchanges (meditation, free will and most recently mudita), so I am going to start a new thread to focus on this subject. Let us start by finding common ground with which we are both comfortable. There are actions, but the actor is an illusion. There is kamma but there is no creator of kamma. There is result of kamma (vipaka) but there is none to receive the vipaka (see SN XII.17). I think that we agree so far. ---------------- KH: Yes, although I'd like to point out that the first two sentences say the same thing. The only real action is kamma (as in the second sentence). Conventional action, that persists from moment to moment, is illusory – just like the actor. ----------------------- RM: > Now let us move from theory to practical. Each week, the five aggregates commonly called 'Rob M' studies the Dhamma. There are two motivations for this study: 1. A love of the dhamma (this could be called unprompted, spontaneous, automatic; asankharikam) 2. Fear of being unprepared to teach his Abhidhamma class on Sunday morning (this could be called prompted, sasankharikam) ---------------- KH: Yes, but I'm wondering how this effects the question of control and free will. A prompted citta (one that occurs after deliberation or after advice from others) is weaker than an unprompted one, but it is no more (or less) controlled for that. It arises purely when the conditions for its arising are present. -------------------- RM: > As it says in the Bhumija Sutta (Mn 126), results come from proper practice, not from intentions. As noted in Vism XVII 102, akusala actions can lead to kusala mental states (through both object condition and natural decisive support condition). > -------------------- KH: I keep meaning to look for that sutta on the net but haven't done so yet, sorry. Does the Vissudhimagga refer to it? In any case, I'm sure there is no suggestion that the way to enlightenment is by akusala action. :-) For the record, I think we agree: 1. Akusala cetana (like all cetasikas) can become the object of right understanding and 2. Some concepts (including conventional action) can, in a manner of speaking, condition citta. That is to say; in the past, dhammas (that actually condition citta) have occurred in perceptible patterns, or sequences (known as concepts). So, by reoccurring in those same patterns, dhammas can condition a response similar to those conditioned in the past (in the manner of a habit). (I hope I've got that right.) Here again, there is no evidence of control or free will. ----------------- RM: > Now since the act (studying the Dhamma) is the same, the nature of the kamma (kusala or akusala) will be the same. The "weight" of the kamma created will depend on the motivation: 1. Unprompted cittas create weightier kamma than prompted cittas 2. Cittas with pleasant feeling (piti) create weightier kamma than cittas with neutral feeling Based on the points above, it seems that: 1. Wholesome actions, even if they arise because of a delusion of a self that has control, still create good kamma > ------------------------------------ KH: You are not talking about good kamma at the level of satipatthana, are you? Advice or deliberation, that rejects the Buddha's teaching, cannot prompt Right Understanding, surely. (?) -------------------------- RM: > 2. Weightier kamma may be created if the wholesome actions arise without the delusion of a self that has control > ---------------------- KH: You mean, of course, "without having been prompted by advice or deliberation that contained the delusion of self." Sorry to be pedantic, but we mustn't give the impression that kusala cetana can sometimes arise *with* delusion (let alone with wrong view). -------------------- RM: > Though intellectually I know that there is no self that has control, I have not yet uprooted self-view (I have not yet reached Sotapanna stage). This means that the good kamma accumulated is not as "weighty" as it might have been. Nevertheless, it is still good kamma. I hope that we agree so far. > --------------------- KH: Well, I'm learning. I haven't really considered this topic from the angle of `prompted/unprompted' before. Are you saying that all the prompting a worldling receives – from his own deliberations and from others – contains self-view? I don't see why. Are you saying that all the good kamma he has accumulated has been prompted – none unprompted? Again, I don't see why. ----------------- RM: > The recent tongue-in-cheek examples of shaving my head to improve my lap-time as a competitive swimmer, or the novice Dhamma teacher getting stuck on how to proceed without words are meant to express that I have a long way to go on my journey. For now, I can accept wholesome actions, even if they arise because of a delusion of a self that has control, because they still create good kamma. Intellectually, I know that I must abandon this raft after I have crossed the river, but for now the delusion of a self that has control serves a good purpose. > -------------------- KH: Self-view can never be a raft for crossing over. The view of a self who strives to cross, or of a self who stands still, can never get us out of samsara. So it is not easy for an ignorant worldling to see the way out. Our only chance of avoiding the two extremes is to learn the Buddha's Middle Way. And the only time for learning it is now. --------------------- RM: > Somebody recently coined the phrase, "DSG - Non Action Group (NAG)". -------------------- KH :-) It's a good name but totally inappropriate. While an Action Group would be one that supports a self who can strive, a Non-Action Group would be one that supports a self who can do nothing. Neither tag applies to the group that values Right Understanding (of anatta) first, foremost and now. ------------------------ RM: > I suspect that it was a joke, but it shows that a focus on "no self to control" can possibly lead to inaction and fatalism - clearly contrary to the Buddha's teaching. ----------------------- KH: I think fatalism is conditionality as seen from the perspective of self. Are any of the NAG's in dsg fatalistic? Do any of them do nothing? Aren't they, in fact, our most active members? -------------------- RM: > The Buddha often encouraged monks to take action. The last words of the Buddha (SN VI.15) were, ---------------------- KH: Now hang on Rob; the Buddha spent his life teaching a doctrine of anatta (no-self); wouldn't it be horribly inappropriate to interpret his last words as an endorsement of self-belief? :-) ------------------ RM: > "I exhort you, monks: All fabrications are subject to decay. Bring about completion by being heedful." ----------- KH: There is no conflict with anatta: "I exhort you, monks" describes right speech and wise attention to that speech; the rest describes how the Eightfold Path conditions escape from samsara. --------------- RM: > The sixth step of the Noble Eightfold Path is "Right Effort". Consider SN XLV.8 which is full of exhortations to take action: "And what, monks, is right effort? [i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. --------------------- KH: Bad example, Rob :-) Even at its most superficial level, this language is descriptive, not prescriptive. But I see your point; some of the Buddha's language does appear prescriptive. However, when we know how to interpret the designations "I" and "you," all of the Buddha's statements -- even those beginning with "I exhort you" - - can only be understood as descriptive. The Dhamma is there to be understood. Right effort will follow immediately from right understanding. --------------------- RM: > The Buddha never said that "Right Effort" was only for those who had abandoned self-view. --------------------------- KH: Well, Right Effort – as a factor of the Eightfold Path -- is literally for those (sotapanna and above) who have abandoned self- view. Even mundane right effort (in a moment of satipatthana) is never accompanied by self-view. (Though there may be a latent tendency for it). ----------------------------- RM: > As worldlings, we will travel the Noble Eightfold Path with self-view; the delusion that there is a self. --------------------------- KH: I know what you mean, but we should be precise: we (well intentioned) worldlings do not travel the Eightfold Path -- that is the exclusively path of the Ariyans. In any case, the path – whether ariyan eightfold or mundane fivefold -- never arises in a moment of self-view. -------------------------- RM: > Of course, when a Sotapanna performs "Right Effort", it is done without self-view and the kammic weight is much greater. --------------- KH: Hmmm. Again, I know you saying (rightly or wrongly) that right effort can be `prompted' by self view, but the way you say it sounds dangerously close to, `can be *with* wrong view' -- which, of course, it can't. ---------------- RM: > Some DSG members have challenged the idea of meditation because it is rooted in an idea of a self that can control. ------------------ KH: To be fair, I think that they (we) only say that about `formal meditation,' not about meditation per se. ----------------- RM: > I accept the idea that meditation can be rooted in an idea of a self that can control, but I reject the premise that this is justification for not meditating. ---------------------------- KH: We are not talking here about `prompted and unprompted.' As I understand the argument against formal meditation, it has akusala roots in the sense that it has ignorance (moha) as its root-condition (hetu, mula). If you come to accept that, you, too, will stop (formally) meditating, will you not? ----------------------- RM: > Meditation is one form of mental development (bhavana); it is not the only form of bhavana but it is one form. If one has the accumulations for this form of bhavana, then it should be encouraged and supported. Even if this form of bhavana is performed with self-view (almost inevitable), it still brings good results. ----------------- KH: Oh, maybe I spoke too soon. :-) But seriously, I have just read Sarah's comment on your statement. So I will cut-and-paste: "S: Mental development (bhavana) refers to the citta (consciousness or state of mind) with understanding of some degree and kind at the present moment. The highest form of bhavana is that of vipassana which eradicates defilements and begins with the wisdom which understands seeing, visible object, lust, hatred, delusion, wrong view and other realities for what they are regardless of time and situations which are merely conventional ideas about bhavana (meditation) as I see it." (end quote) So, meditation (bhavana, mental development) yes; formal meditation (conventional ideas about bhavana) no. :-) Looking to your further comments. Kind regards, Ken H 32011 From: abhidhammika Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 7:02am Subject: Re: Sankhaarupaadaana, for Nina and Suan Dear Mike, Nina, Chris, Sarah and all How are you? Mike, when you wrote "sankhaarupaadaana", did you mean "sankhaarupekkhaa"? Sankhaarakhanda could be translated as the activation aggregate because it refers to activation (cetanaa cetasika). However, even though cetanaa cetasika is used as the head term (siisena), the activation aggregate covers all the remaining mental associates (cetasikas) as well - that is to say, those mental associates excepting feeling (vedanaa) which is covered by the feeling aggregate, and memory (saññaa) which is covered by the memory aggregate. On the other hand, the term "sankhaara" in the expression "sankhaarupekkhaa" covers all the five psychosomatic aggregates, and is the same term that occurs in the famous statements of the Buddha on three characteristics "Sabbe sankhaaraa aniccaa, sabbe sankhaaraa dukkhaa, sabbe sankhaaraa suññaa, sabbe dhammaa anattaa." "All phenomena are impermanent." "All phenomena are misery." "All phenomena are empty (of self)." With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "mlnease" wrote: Hi Nina and Suan, If you have the time (and the inclination) would you please compare and contrast your translations of sankhaarakhanda, especially in the context of sankhaarupaadaana? Thanks in advance. mike 32012 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 10:44am Subject: tiika Vis 72, part 1. tiika Vis 72, part 1 Intro to Tiika Vis. 72 (part I). The Tiika explains all the expressions of the Vis. used for: being without roots. This part seems very technical, but it is truly about life. Vis text: Vis. Pali: na hetu, ahetuka.m, hetu-vippayutta.m. Tiika explains: non-root, na-hetu, rootless, ahetuka.m, dissociated from roots, hetu-vippayutta.m. N: Sampayutta is associated with and vippayutta is dissociated from. These expressions are used in the classifications of cittas. Kusala citta, for example, can be associated with or dissociated from pa~n~naa. Akusala citta can be associated with or dissociated from wrong view. Rupa is na-hetu, meaning, non-root. Rupa it is not one of the akusala roots that are attachment, aversion, ignorance; or one of the sobhana (beautiful) roots that are: non-attachment, non-aversion and wisdom. In the Abhidhamma all realities can be classified as: root (hetu) and non-root (na-hetu). Citta, all the cetasikas other than these roots and nibbana are non-root. In Pali the terms ahetuka, without roots, and hetu-vippayutta, dissociated from roots are used. The term ahetuka is used for citta without roots, ahetuka citta. In the English translation the meaning of these terms cannot be rendered justice. It seems that there is a mere repetition of the same terms. However, the Tiika text emphazises with all these synonyms that rupa is entirely different from nama, that it is not associated with any of those roots. Rupa does not know anything. How could the Element of earth, solidity or hardness, be angry or attached? How could eyesense or visible object be attached? This seems obvious, but in the development of insight doubts are bound to arise when they actually appear. For example, the root of dosa, anger or fear, conditions bodily phenomena, such as hardness. Sati can be aware of one object at a time, but we may be confused as to the object that presents itself: is it the nama which has aversion or is it the rupa that is just hardness? Hardness is non-root. When visible object is seen, we can be reminded that it is only rupa, not a person. Visible object cannot be angry or attached, it is non-root. When we burn ourselves the element of heat impinges on the bodysense. Heat and bodysense are rupas, they are non-root, they cannot be accompanied by aversion. Painful bodily feeling and mental unhappy feeling may arise closely one after the other. It is difficult to distinguish these different dhammas. Painful bodily feeling is ahetuka vipakacitta and unhappy feeling is sahetuka, it accompanies the root that is dosa. At the first stage of insight nama and rupa are clearly distinguished from each other. It is beneficial to reflect on this concise text of the Tiika, it can remind us that understanding of the difference between nama and rupa should be developed. The word veneyya, people to be taught, is used in this text. Because of people¹s different capacities to absorb the Dhamma, different methods of teaching are used. We see the Buddha¹s great compassion in using different terms and different approaches. **** Tiika of Vis. 72. Sampayuttadhammaraasi hinoti etena pati.t.thahatiihi hetu, muula.t.thena lobhaadiko, alobhaadiko ca, taadiso hetu na hotiiti nahetu. As to the group of associated dhammas, this is the term for the roots that are foundations, meaning the roots of attachment etc., and non-attachment, and so on, and non-root means that there are not such roots. Naassa hetu atthiiti ahetuka.m, sahetukapa.tiyogibhaavato hetunaa saha na uppajjatiiti attho. Rootless (ahetuka) means that there is no root for it (rupa), meaning, it does not arise with a root .... Ahetukameva hetunaa vippayuttataaya hetuvippayutta.m. Since it is indeed rootless (ahetuka) it is because of its dissociation from roots, thus, it is dissociated from roots (hetuvippayutta). Dhammanaanattaabhaavepi hi saddatthanaanattena veneyyavasena dukantaradesanaa hotiiti dukapadavasena ceta.m vutta.m. Also, because there are different kinds of dhammas, different kinds of faithful and different people who are capable of being taught, there is the teaching of additional compounds, and thus this was expressed by way of compound words *. **** English: As to the group of associated dhammas, this is the term for the roots that are foundations, meaning the roots of attachment etc., and non-attachment, and so on, and non-root means that there are not such roots. Rootless (ahetuka) means that there is no root for it (rupa), meaning, it does not arise with a root ... Since it is indeed rootless (ahetuka) it is because of its dissociation from roots, thus, it is dissociated from roots (hetuvippayutta). Also, because there are different kinds of dhammas, different kinds of faithful and different people who are capable of being taught, there is the teaching of additional compounds, and thus this was expressed by way of compound words *. _________ *Hetu-vippayutta, dissociated from roots is a compound. ***** Nina. 32013 From: Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 3:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] tiika Vis 72, part 1. Hi Nina, I have been wondering about the cetasikas that arise with functional (rootless) consciousness. What cetasikas cannot arise with a functional consciousness and what cetasikas cannot arise with a great-functional consciousness (mahakiriya)? Is an arahant without wisdom and virtue? How can he or she function without understanding and values? Larry 32014 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 0:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Beings and Their Cittas Hi KenO, I meant to thank you for kindly reporting back so promptly after meeting up with RobM. It sounds like you had a good dinner and discussion. --- Ken O wrote: > I asked about assisted killing especially when medically we are > declared brain dead. He told me of a story where he heard during the > annual World Religion Conference in KL that a lady was in coma and > the doctor considered her brain dead and the doctor advise her son to > pull out the plug. The lady said she heard every single word that > converse between her son and doctor. He son did not do it. Luckily > for her and her son, she broke out of the brain dead situation and > become alive again. .... S: There has been a similar case here - the H.K./Taiwanese reporter involved in a horrific train accident in England in which all her colleagues were killed. She was declared brain dead, but her family took her to specialists in Beijing and she's now back at work part-time. We never know... ... >Then I remember what Htoo wrote in another > list, pulling off the plug is killing for the doer even though the > person is considered brain dead. .... S: I suppose it depends on their intention and whether the person is considered to be alive? .... >I think this is true also. So > next time I meet this case, at least I know that brain dead may not > be real death of the citta. And pulling out the plug even though > compassion is still killing. .... S: Compassion can never be killing. Different moments. There have to be those conditions for it to be killing, including the perception of it being a living being, intention to kill etc. I'm also thinking of Htoo's comments about the ocean of ignorance as we wonder about particular situations. Also, again is there any understanding or is it concern for 'my' kamma and its result? Hope you have more dinner discussions and interesting reports! Maybe you can suggest Swee Boon join next time as well;-) Metta, Sarah ===== 32015 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 1:20am Subject: Re: Illusion of Control Hi Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Thanks for starting this new, important, thread. My contribution to > it has become lost in the internet ether. This has turned out to be > a good thing because I am only now beginning to understand what you > wrote. So, if my first post does eventually turn up, please ignore > it. ===== I think that it did show up (as the next message in the queue) and as per your request, I will ignore it (couldn't resist peeking at it, though :-) ) ===== > > You were saying that unwholesome action – action with ignorance and > self-view, in particular – can condition wholesome action by object > condition and by natural decisive support condition. ===== Yes ===== > > I think, also, > you were saying that prompted cittas are conditioned in the second > way (natural decisive support). > ===== Don't think so (a minor point anyway) ===== > > This understanding of yours leads you to believe that unwholesome > action, now, is OK -- virtually wholesome, in fact -- if it is > designed to condition wholesome consciousness in the future. > ===== Whoa! I don't think that I said that unwholesome actions are OK. Unwholesome actions are, by definition 'not-OK'. They have the potential to create akusala kamma. The fact that akusala mental states can act as a conditioning factor to support the future arising of kusala mental states is supported by the texts and by our own experience. Each javana mental state has the possibility to condition the arising of vipaka. The akusala mental state will only create aksuala vipaka (when other supporting conditions arise) while the kusala mental state will only create kusala vipaka (when other supporting conditions arise). So in a simplistic model where an akusala citta acts as a condition for the arising of a kusala citta, then there are two separate cittas (one akusala and one kusala) and two separate potential vipakas (one akusala and one kusala vipaka). In my previous post, I gave the example of fear being a motivator for me to study the dhamma (to make sure that I was prepared for my class). To state this does not mean that I believe the fear is kusala. After this fear arose, I did two things: - Acknowledged this mental state as aksuala (object condition) - Allowed this mental state to motivate me (natural decisive support condition) These are examples of the two ways in which an akusala citta (fear in this case) can condition the arising of a kusala mental state. ===== > > Rob, doesn't this sound totally wrong to you? You are saying, in > effect, that the way to enlightenment is by unwholesome action. > (!!!) What sort of teaching would that be? > ===== Only wholesome mental states can bring us closer to enlightenment. My observation (supported by Vism) is that akusala cittas (99.9% of our thoughts according to your estimate, with which I agree) can act as a condition to the arising of wholesome mental states. I am not advocating akusala mental states at all; I am simply observing that they can lead to kusala mental states. No value judgement, just an observation. ===== > RM: > Intellectually, I know that I must abandon this raft after I > have crossed the river, but for now the delusion of a self that has > control serves a good purpose. > > -------------------- > > Self-view can never be a raft for crossing over. The view of a self > who strives to cross, or of a self who stands still, can never get > us out of samsara. So it is not easy for an ignorant worldling to > see the way out. Our only way of avoiding the two extremes is to > learn the Buddha's Middle Way. And the only time for learning it is > now. > ===== The Buddha used the metaphor of the raft where the raft was the dhamma. I was wrong to select this metaphor as it would be easy to misinterpret me as saying that self-view was similar to the dhamma. ===== > > Are any of the NAG's in DSG fatalistic? Do any of them do nothing? > Aren't they, in fact, our most active members? > ===== You are correct; but I still feel aversion to the label "Non Action Group". ===== > > -------------------- > RM: > The Buddha often encouraged monks to take action. The last > words of the Buddha (SN VI.15) were, > ---------------------- > > Now hang on Rob; the Buddha spent his life teaching a doctrine of > anatta (no-self); wouldn't it be horribly inappropriate to interpret > his last words as an endorsement of self-belief? :-) > ===== I am not saying that the Buddha endorsed self-belief. I am observing that the Buddha often encouraged monks to take action. The Buddha encouraged action with "desire, endeavour and persistance" without endorsing self belief. ===== > > RM: > Some DSG members have challenged the idea of meditation > because it is rooted in an idea of a self that can control. > ------------------ > > To be fair, I think that they (we) only say that about `formal > meditation,' not about meditation per se. > ===== I am confused. What is meant by 'formal meditation'; how is it different from 'informal meditation' (if that is the opposite)? ===== > ----------------------- > RM: > Meditation is one form of mental development (bhavana); it is > not the only form of bhavana but it is one form. If one has the > accumulations for this form of bhavana, then it should be encouraged > and supported. > Even if this form of bhavana is performed with self-view (almost > inevitable), it still brings good results. > ----------------- > > Oh, maybe I spoke too soon. :-) But seriously, I have just read > Sarah's comment on your statement. So I will cut-and-paste: > > "S: Mental development (bhavana) refers to the citta (consciousness > or state of mind) with understanding of some degree and kind at the > present moment. The highest form of bhavana is that of vipassana > which eradicates > defilements and begins with the wisdom which understands seeing, > visible object, lust, hatred, delusion, wrong view and other > realities for what they are regardless of time and situations which > are merely conventional > ideas about bhavana (meditation) as I see it." (end quote) ===== Now I am really confused. My understanding is that bhavana is an activity (like dana and sila), not a citta accompanied by wisdom. I looked up the term in Nyanatiloka's Dictionary and it would appear to agree with my understanding. Metta, Rob M :-) 32016 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 3:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi James, A few brief comments as I don’t have much time left: --- buddhatrue wrote: > James: Sarah, I think you are missing the point of the Nikayas. It > isn't that concepts formed in the mind by way of the senses are > inherently dangerous; it is dangerous when these concepts are clung > to as `me' and `mine'. .... S: I’m not sure there is any disagreement. I clarified further: “Proliferations (papanca) or distortional thinking (ma~n~nanaa) are described throughout the Nikayas, including the section of SN on Sa.laayatanasa.myutta. These terms always point to a distorted kind of thinking with a wrong grasp of the object (whether the concept relates to a reality as a sound or not).” Whilst ‘proliferating’, we live in the world of thinking and these concepts are taken for being real, like in a dream. As you stress, it is the realities themselves, the thinking, the attachment, the wrong view etc that should be known and seen as dangerous, not the concpts or objects of the dreams. .... > We could not function without > using concepts. Even the Buddha used concepts. There is no big > deal with concepts!! ;-)) .... S: We agree. As I wrote: “An arahant still uses descriptions of the world or conventional discourse or thinks about concepts, but there is no misconstruction, perversion (vipallasa) or doubt about the realities on which these are based or about the realities whilst thinking about concepts, unlike for us ‘madmen’. I think we can also see how our ignorance, attachments and wrong views lead to more and more thinking about stories and proliferations. We look at a line in the newspaper (actually, look at visible object and then think about a line) and then wander into fantasy-land, lost in our day-dreams about what we’ve seen. The summary of the Honeyball sutta was RobM’s which I used as I was addressing him and I didn’t have a problem with it. Thx for the quote. .... > So, is this sutta speaking against concepts? No. It is speaking > against underlying craving and defilements. The Buddha described > these unwholesome states as evil, not the concepts themselves. .... S: James, when we are referring to the proliferations, distorted perceptions and so on, we’re referring to the ‘underlying craving and defilements’,especially wrong views in these cases which take concepts such as ‘self’ or ‘things’ as objects as Ken O stressed. Let us know how you’re going in that section of SN. Sorry, this one’s a bit rushed, but I wanted to get back to you as we’ll be hiking and so on over the weekend and I may not have much chance to write. Metta, Sarah p.s Do you have any problem with the section on Pa~n~natti in Karunadasa's essay? We can use that to discuss further if you'd like too. ===== 32017 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 11:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Buddha's last word Dear Htoo, RobM, KenH & All, --- Htoo Naing wrote: > Just before going into silence, Bhgava last said, '' Behold now, > bhikkhus, I exhort you : All compounded things are subjected to vanish. > Strive with earnestness! '' <...> > And We all should pay special attention to The Buddha's last word '' > Appama dena sampadetha'' ' Strive with earnestness'. > > Sati or mindfulness should be our companion. We have to bring it up all > the time. .... S: I’d also been considering these last words when I saw RobM and KenH were also discussing them: .... RM: > The Buddha often encouraged monks to take action. The last words of the Buddha (SN VI.15) were, ---------------------- KH: Now hang on Rob; the Buddha spent his life teaching a doctrine of anatta (no-self); wouldn't it be horribly inappropriate to interpret his last words as an endorsement of self-belief? :-) ------------------ RM: > "I exhort you, monks: All fabrications are subject to decay. Bring about completion by being heedful." ----------- KH: There is no conflict with anatta: "I exhort you, monks" describes right speech and wise attention to that speech; the rest describes how the Eightfold Path conditions escape from samsara. ***** S: The commentary to the Parinibbana sutta adds: “ ‘Achieve with vigilance’: You should successfully perform (sampadeyatha) all your duties (sabbakiccaani) with no absence of mindfulness. Thus* did the Blessed One, while lying on his deathbed, give (adaasi) all the advice he had given for forty-five years by putting it into the single word “vigilance” (appamaada).”** *Thus - Spk1 adds: “As a landlord of great wealth lying on his deathbed would explain to his sons the value of his property.” ** Appamaada: In the commentaries it is often explained as the presence of mindfulness (see Nyantiloka dict)..Narada (in his translation of Appamaada Vagga in Dhp) says that literally it means non-infatuation. ..... Like Ken H, I certainly don’t read these lines as being any endorsement of self-belief or self-action. Just before these last lines, the Buddha had stressed that the Dhamma-Vinaya was to be our teacher after his parinibbanae and the commentary elaborates in detail on these words, stresseing satipa.t.thaana, the khandhas, the aayatana, the dhaatu, etc. Finally it says: “Thus all of this has been told and discussed for forty-five years from my enlightenment to my parinibbaana; three baskets, five Nikaayas, nine branches (a’nga), eight-four thousand groups of dhamma: these are the major divisions. Thus these eighty-four thousand groups of dhamma remain. I alone attain parinibbaana, and now I alone advise and instruct. After I have attained parinibbaana, these eighty-four thousand groups of dhamma, will advise and instruct you.” Just before these lines, which stress the three baskets etc, it also says: “I have analysed these things in detail and taught the Abhidhamma-pi.taka, which is adorned by the Mahaapa.t.thaana with its countless methods and its twenty-fourfold complete origin (samantapa.t.thaana). All of that, the basket of the Abhidhamma, will perform the role of the Teacher for you when I attain parinibbaana.” S: As we know, the Buddha’s omniscience is said to have found its ‘opportunity’ when considering The Pa.t.thaana and thenty-four conditions and golden rays emanated from his body. U Narada who translated the Patthana(Conditional Relations) into English, wrote in his Guide: “In essence, Patthana deals with the conditioned (sappaccaya) and formed(sankhata) states that arise and cease at every instant withut a break and which make up what are said to be animate and inanimate things. These states arise dependent on root and the other conditions and are not at the will and mercy of any being. They do so, not from one cause alone, but from many causes such as the conditioning forces given in the Analytical Exposition of the Conditions. So Patthana is the teaching of anatta.” Look forward to any further comments. Are we all in agreement on the meaning of the last words? Metta, Sarah ===== 32018 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 3:48am Subject: Notes to Majjhima Nikaya 131 Bhaddekaratta Sutta 'A Single Excellent Night' note 1209: This discourse with a lengthy introduction and notes is available separately in a translation by Bhikkhu Nanananda under the title "Ideal Solitude". note 1210: In the first edition of this work I followed Nm in rendering bhaddekaratta as "one fortunate attachment". At the suggestion of Ven. Thaanissaro Bhikkhu, however, I have changed it to "one excellent night", which certainly corresponds to the original literal meaning. Ratta and ratti could be taken to represent either Skt. raatra and raatri (= night) or Dkt. rakta and rakti (= attachment). The fact that neither MA nor MT gloss ratta implies that "night" is intended; for if the word were used to mean attachment, an undesirable quality in typical Buddhist discourse, some commentarial clarification would have been offered. The Central Asian Skt., the Skt. title at the head of the Tibetan version, and the Tibetan translation itself all use bhadraka-raatri. This confirms the identification of ratta with 'night'; the change from -e to -a- can be understood as an attempt to convert a difficult reading into a more familiar one. (I am grateful to Peter Skilling for this information.) Ms. contains the following note by Nm on the expression: This term has elsewhere been translated by "true saint" and like phrases, which, however, quite miss the point. The commentary says only this: "Bhaddekarattassa means 'of one who is fortunate (bhadda) in having one (eka) attachment (ratta or ratti); this is because of his possessing application to insight. "The subcommentary resolves the compound ekaratta (one-attachment) into ekaa ratti, and says only that "bhaddekaratta means one who has a fortunate single attachment (bhaddo ekaratto etassa); it is a term for a person who is cultivating insight". There appears to be no other mention of this term elsewhere in the Canon and its commentaries. The Pali word ratta (adj.) or ratti (n.) in this instance is from the root raj, "to take pleasure in." So the "bhaddekaratta" appears to be the one who is applying himself invincibly, unshakeably, to know and to study the present state as it occurs (see verse). This application or attachment is auspicious or fortunate because it leads to liberation ... It might be supposed that the expression "bhaddekaratta" was a popular phrase taken over by the Buddha and given a special sense by him, as was not infrequently done, but there seems to be no reason to do so and there is no evidence for it in this case. It is more likely to be a term coined by the Buddha himself to describe a certain aspect of development. It should be noted that the comments in MA and MT do not have to be interpreted as referring to "attachment," but would make equally good sense if ratta and ratti are understood to mean "night". Nm's derivation of ratta and ratti from the root raj is in no way compulsory here, and to me seems unlikely in this context. note 1211: More literally the first two lines would be translated: "Let not a person run back to the past or live in expectation of the future." The meaning will be elucidated in the expository passage of the Sutta. note 1212: MA: He should contemplate each presently arisen state, just where it has arisen, with insight into its impermanence, etc. note 1213: Asa.mhiiram asankuppam. MA explains that this is said for the purpose of showing insight and repeated insight; for insight is "invincible, unshakeable" because it is not vanquished or shaken by lust and other defilements. Elsewhere the expression "the invincible, the unshakeable" is used as a description of Nibbaana (e.g., Sn v.1149) or of the liberated mind (e.g., Thag v.649), but here it seems to refer to a stage in the development of insight. The recurrence of the verb form sa.mhiirati in 8 and 9 suggests that the intended meaning is contemplation of the present moment without being misled into the adoption of a personality view. note 1214: The "Peaceful Sage" (santo muni) is the Buddha. note 1215: MA: One "finds delight" by bringing to bear upon the past either craving or a view associated with craving. It should be noted that it is not the mere recollection of the past through memory that causes bondage, but the reliving of past experiences with thoughts of craving. In this respect the Buddha's teaching differs significantly from that of Krishnamurti, who seems to regard memory itself as the villain behind the scene. note 1216: Perhaps this sentence, and all the parallel sentences to follow, should be translated: "One does not find delight there thinking, 'I had such material form in the past.'" The translation as it stands suggests that such thoughts arise but without the accompaniment of delight, while the alternative proposed here suggests that these thoughts do to arise at all. The same alternative construction can also be applied to thoughts about the future in 7. The Pali can admit either rendering. note 1217: Perhaps this phrase should be taken as an exclamation: "May I have such material form in the future!" note 1218: The verb here and in the next paragraph, sa.mhiirati, refers back to the line in the verse, "invincibly, unshakeably." MA glosses: "One is dragged in by craving and views because of the lack of insight." 32019 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 1:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] breath Dear Nina, We don’t leave till next Wednesday, so plenty of time for any qus;-) I’m enjoying your discussions with Larry and also looking forward to your reflections on your last trip. --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Sarah, a question for Bgk: I understood blowing the air out is not > breathing, it is blowing. There are questions sometimes. Breathing > through > the mouth? A lot is unclear to me. I would like to hear more about it. .... S: I know K.Sujin will ask me what you want to hear more about or what you mean. Could you elaborate further? .... N:> But > we have to differentiate breath as meditation suibject as described in > the > Vis. which is very special, very precise, so that it leads to detachment > from sense objects. > Now we are talking about breathing in a wider sense. It conditions > tangible > object at many places in the body, and sure I take these for granted, > but > they can be objects of awareness. .... S: Yes, like with ‘foulness’ which Jon was mentioning, we always have to distinguish between the concept as object, such as parts of the body, of samatha and elements or realities, such as hardness/softness as objects of satipatthana. One moment there can be samatha, next satipatthana, next ignorance or wrong view of self. It depends on conditions and understanding. ... N:>But when I start to think of this I > know > that I am thinking and selecting, and this is not awareness which is > aware > of whatever presents itself. .... S: Even then there can be awareness of that wishing and thinking, motivated by attachment or self again. Sometimes I laugh when there is such thinking again;-) In my yoga, there is a lot of focus on breathing and so one tends to be quite conscious of it (usually with lots of ignorance). Occasionally there is some wise reflection or even moments of awareness of tangible objects, but never when wishing, selecting or thinking about them;-) .... N:>There is a whole area here for discussion. > But > I think A. Sujin may answer: do not cling to words. .... S: If you can elaborate on your qus, it makes it easier for me to pursue the points, but I’ll raise them and others you’ve mentioned anyway. ***** On respect in your post to Jon: N:>I was considering listening, because in Bgk someone asked the meaning of listening with respect (doj kawrop). A. Sujin answered: listening and understanding what you hear. As always she stressed listening very much. Thus, we should not think too soon that we have understood already, that we know it all. I often consider that we should study the texts of the Tipitaka and the Commentaries with great respect. .... S: I agree and like to consider these points more. I think the emphasis here is on understanding and really considering, not just listening or reading as we tend to use these terms. Then the respect increases naturally, rather than setting any rules about how we study. These were some notes I came across from a discussion I had with K.Sujin in Bkk (‘86): K.Sujin: “One may go to the Temple or to see monks to show respect instead of going to see friends. If, however, one would like to have something in return by showing respect, then it’s not kusala citta: it’s like craving, wanting something by doing such and such action. So one has to thoroughly examine and be aware of one’s mind. If one wants something in return, it’s not wholesome, it’s not paying respect. One pays respect in different ways.” Qu (by Sarah): “What’s the highest form of paying respect?” KS: “Developing right understanding so that one can understand the Buddha and how he spoke only for the benefit of others.” Qu: “Can this kind of respect be at any time?” KS: “Even at this moment one can be aware and develop right understanding.” Qu: “If one knows that the highest form of respect is developing right understanding, what would be the purpose of lighting incense or visiting monks?” KS: “It doesn’t matter - it depends on the citta. Sometimes we like to do this, sometimes that. We don’t know from moment to moment what we’ll do. It depends on accumulations and conditions....” ..... Later quotes from the same discussion which is now about studying texts and details: Qu: “You put emphasis on direct experience and yet we know that we have to hear and consider a lot before there is any awareness of seeing and visible object or other realities. KS: ”But what is the purpose of studying the texts and details? To have more doubts and curiosity or something that conditions awareness to be aware of realities which present themselves? We don’t have to remember the details or numbers, but by having more understanding, it can condition awareness to be aware of the realities which present themselves at this moment.” Qu: “One’s motives are bound to be very mixed and unless there’s a lot of awareness already developed, one’s motives and purposes are bound to often be unwholesome.” KS: ”If one is reading the Atthasalini and there are many points that one doesn’t understand, what should be done at that very moment? Because why is one reading the text? To understand reality, especially to be aware of reality which appears. One takes visible object as masculine or feminine, but by reading the Atthasalini one can see what conditions such a thought. If there is no masculinity or femininity, can there be the idea of them? In reality, it’s just a rupa which conditions such a thought. It’s all over the body.” Qu: “Isn’t that just thinking about it?” KS: “Just to understand why one takes the visible object this way or that way. it helps one to have less attachment to visible object as a real being when it’s only a process of arising and falling away namas and rupas. One doesn’t have to hurry to get rid of all attachment and aversion because it’s impossible. “The purpose is to get rid of wrong view and ignorance. One will have lobha and dosa as usual, but less with understanding.......... “The Buddha’s teachings are concerned with one thing...developing understanding, because all dukkha comes from ignorance. It has ignorance as its root by clinging to reality which changes all the time. It seems that we can control life, but realities arise by conditions. You don’t want nice things to change, but they change all the time. You don’t want to get old, but you’re getting old all the time. You don’t want to part from things or people, but one day even this body will be scattered about. So we live very temporarily in a moment and we don’t know what will be the next moment.” ***** This is followed by a discussion on space (akasa rupa), speech intimation and other details;-) Metta, Sarah ====== 32020 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 0:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] tiika Vis 72, part 1. Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > I have been wondering about the cetasikas that arise with functional > (rootless) consciousness. What cetasikas cannot arise with a functional > consciousness and what cetasikas cannot arise with a great- functional > consciousness (mahakiriya)? Is an arahant without wisdom and virtue? How > can he or she function without understanding and values? I have time for a quick answer (Nina can correct any mistakes): The kiriya cittas are as follows: Five sense door adverting consciousness, with indifferent feeling: - 7 ethically variable universal cetasikas - initial application - sustained application - determination Mind door adverting consciousness, with indifferent feeling: - 7 ethically variable universal cetasikas - initial application - sustained application - determination - energy Smile producing consciousness of an Arahant, with pleasant feeling - 7 ethically variable universal cetasikas - initial application - sustained application - determination - energy - zest (all cittas with pleasant feeling include zest) Eight maha-kiriya cittas (play role of javana for arahants in kamavacara) that can be prompted or unprompted, associated or not associated with wisdom, with pleasant or indifferent feeling - 7 ethically variable universal cetasikas - initial application - sustained application - determination - energy - zest (zest only arises with cittas with pleasant feeling, not with cittas with indifferent feeling) - desire - 19 wholesome universal cetasikas - compassion (sometimes, must have person as object) - sympathetic joy (sometimes, must have person as object) - wisdom (wisdom only arises with cittas associated with wisdom, not with cittas not associated with wisdom) There are also kiriya cittas that play the role of javana for arahants in rupavacara and arupavacara. From this, it is clear that an Arahant can have mental states that arise without wisdom. These are still beautiful mental states (they have the 19 wholesome universal cetasikas), but at these moments, the Arahant is not thinking about the Dhamma. Metta, Rob M :-) 32021 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 3:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Illusion of Control Hi Sukin, --- Sukinderpal Singh Narula wrote: Sarah: > > Just post as usual and reflect on the illusion that you have any > ultimate > > control in the matter.....;-) ... Sukin: > How come this one came through before the others?!! > Do you have some special powers?!! Control?!! > ;-)) .... I noticed you had the magic touch too...must come from all that non-active NAG-ging leading to special powers;-) Just noticed there are still delays, but the last post I wrote to James has jumped the queue of several others I sent before. Must be influenced by his special powers too;-) Enjoying your discussions with Eznir. Keep going. See you next week. Metta, Sarah ====== 32022 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 0:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vipassanaa As A Synonym Of Anupassanaa In Satipa.t.thaana Suttam Dear Suan, I’ve been meaning to get back to our Vibha~nga thread: --- abhidhammika wrote: > > The Section 550 Pali on my CD ROM also comes with omissions > (pe "peyyaala") as follows. > > 550. "Sato sampajaano"ti. Tattha katamaa sati? Yaa sati anussati …pe… sammaasati– ayam vuccati "sati". > Tattha katamam sampajaññam? Yaa paññaa pajaananaa …pe… amoho dhammavicayo sammaadi.t.thi– idam vuccati "sampajaññam". Iti imaaya ca satiyaa iminaa ca sampajaññena upeto hoti …pe… samannaagato. Tena vuccati "sato >sampa-jaano"ti. ***** Sarah: In the English translation, it reads: 550. “Mindful and aware” means: therein what is mindfulness? that which is mindfulness, constant mindfulnes, [see para 220], right mindfulness. This is called mindfulness. Therein what is awareness? That which is wisom, understanding, [see para 525], absence of dullness, truth investigation, right view. This is called awareness. thus of this mindfulness and this awareness he is possessed, [see para 357], furnished. Therefore this is called ‘mindful and aware’.” ***** Para 220 refers to the controlling faculties (indriyas)of eye, ear, mind and so on and is very long. Paras 525 and 357 we’ve had before. We’ve already discussed how awareness is rather inadequate for sampajanno (clear comprehension, wisdom etc). I also tend to pause rather at translations using ‘constant mindfulness’ (here for anussati). What do you think? We know that no states are constant, not even for arahants (and of course only arising with javana cittas) and yet we see this suggestion of non-stop mindfulness so often. Is it a literal translation? Suan, Could you also kindly give me the Pali for 358 ‘Dwells’ and 359 ‘Ardent’ so we can consider these terms more as well. .... Suan: > Today I was reading Anguttara and Majjhima commentaries on > Aaka~nkheya Suttam (in both Nikaayas) where the term "vipassanaaya" > occurs. Aacariya Buddhaghosa defines Vipassanaa as Anupassanaa and > mentions 7 Anupassanaas. .... Sarah: If you have time to elaborate, I’d be interested. .... Suan: > The Bhaddekaratta Suttam highlights the urgency of the present > moment, so here the Buddha no longer cares about Samatha Jhaanas. > Without furhter ado, he simply asks us "to wisely observe the present > phenomenon wherever it arises (paccuppanna~nca yo dhammam, tattha > tatha vipassati)." .... Sarah: This is interesting and relates to my comment above. Nina wrote ‘Tatthaa tatthaa vipassati: he sees with insight (realities) here and there.’ This is similar to your translation. I think tatthaa means ‘there’? B.Bodhi’s words sound good(‘..with insight each presently arisen state.’), but again it may read as suggesting a constant insight. What do you think? I hope you and Nina will help us consider these favourite DSG sutta lines even more deeply. Metta, Sarah Bhaddekaratta Suttam "Atiitam naanvaagameyya, nappa.tika~nkhe anaagatam; yadatiitam pahiinam tam, appattañca anaagatam. "Paccuppannañca yo‚ dhammam, tattha tattha vipassati; asamhiiram asamkuppam, tam vidvaa manubruuhaye. "Ajjeva kiccamaatappam, ko jaññaa mara.nam suve; na hi no sa~ngaram tena, mahaasenena maccunaa. "Evam vihaarim aataapim, ahorattamatanditam; tam ve bhaddekarattoti, santo aacikkhate muni". --- abhidhammika wrote: > 32023 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 0:34am Subject: Abhidhamma in the Suttanta (was: Re: [dsg] BB4 - Space) Hi Ken O, I thought your post (a week ago) contained good points. Yesterday I replied to BB's last letter to me on this topic(which I posted) and gave links to your post, Dharmajim's on MN editions and one of Jon's on a Susima sutta and a few more comments of my own on another passage in CMA. I'll post any response if there is one. --- Ken O wrote: > Hi Sarah > > I have immerse respect for B Bodhi but I like to make a presentation > was Abdhidhamma after the Nikayas. > > To me, let see whether there are pieces of Abdhidhamma in the Nikayas <...> > --- Then again we look again at one more sutta quote > MN 32, Mahaagosinga Sutta para 8 > <<"Here friend Sariputta, two bhikkhus engage in a talks on the > Higher Dhamma* and they questions each other, and each being > questioned by the other answers without foundering, and their talk > rolls on in accordance with the Dhamma. That kind of bhikkhu could > illuminate this Gosinga Saala-tree Wood." > Then later in the same sutta we see Buddha approve of B. Moggallana. > >> > > * - the Higher Dhamma (translated from the pali word- > abhidhammakatham)- B Bodhi personal notes. < the word cannot refer to the Pitaka of that name - obviously the > produce of a phase and Buddhist thought later than the Nikayas - it > may well indicate a systematic and analytical approach to the > doctrine that served as the original nucleus of the Abhidhamma > Pitaka. In a careful study of the context which the word > "Abhidhamma" occurs in the sutta Pitakas of the early recension, the > Japanese Pali Scholar Fumimaro Watanabe concludes that the Buddha's > own disciple formed the conception of Abdhidhamma as an elementary > philosophical study that explore their mutual relations.>> .... S: I read Watanabe's paper a long time ago and forget the details, but I didn't agree with his conclusions at all. As I recall, his scholarship was not based on the ancient Pali texts, such as the ancient commentaries or Abhidhamma itself at all, but on other modern scholarship and possibly the Chinese texts. As I say, this was a while back. It may be on the net I think. In the end, I think it depends on what one wishes to use as 'authority' and one's confidence in the Patthana and other teachings included in the Abhidhamma. .... > The there arise these questions, why did the Buddha approved it if it > is not of the dhamma, so in that sense it rise doubt whether it is > philosophical. Even if Buddha did not teach it as some has said, his > mere approval has bear a lot of weight that Abhidhamma originate > during the time of Nikayas and not after it. Furthermore , it is > the other chief disciple and not Ven Sariputta who said the word on > higher dhamma because usually Ven Sariputta is known to be the main > proponent of Abhidhamma. .... Good points. Let's see if BB or anyone else responds. Metta, Sarah ======= 32024 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 2:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Beings and Their Cittas Hi Howard (& James), --- upasaka@a... wrote: > You may find it amusing in an ironic way (or you may not! ;-)) > that I > have just saved this post of yours [S: the one with all the quotes on the world] in my "filing cabinet" under the > title > 'Phenomenalism in the Suttas'!! In any case, I thoroughly enjoyed this > post of > yours, and I consider the material you quoted there well worth saving! .... S: It was certainly most encouraging to know I’d made it at long last to your sacred ‘filing cabinet’;-) Now I know the trick: 95% quote and a few comments from James and the briefest oneliners from me;-) Seriously, I’m not at all surprised you appreciate these passages. K.Sujin also refers to them in ch 23 ‘The World’, Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, translated by Nina and soon to be published by the Foundation in Bkk. http://www.abhidhamma.org/Para10.htm This is a quote from it: “It seems that there is the universe, the world full of beings, people and things. However, in reality there is citta which thinks about the shape and form of the four great Elements of earth, water, fire and wind. They appear in different combinations, they appear as beings, people, the moon, the sun, the stars, as many different things. When we experience things through touch, only cold, heat, softness, hardness, motion or pressure appear. If we know dhammas as they are, we realize what the world is: the dhammas which arise and fall away very rapidly, which are transitory. All dhammas which arise have to fall away, without exception. If one does not realize the arising and falling away of dhammas, one only pays attention to conventional truth. The cittas of the mind-door process remember a “whole”, the shape and form of what appears through the eyes, they remember the meaning of high and low sounds which appear through the ears. The names of different things are remembered, and then only concepts are known.” James, thanks for posting the footnote to the all (sabba). When it refers to the ‘all of the sense bases (ayatanasabba), i.e the phenomena of the four planes’, as Nina mentioned, we have to understand that this section of Salaayatana is always referring to these aayatana which include all realities (not concepts as I’ve discussed with Htoo). As the commentary note explains, however, sometimes nibbana is included in the ‘all’ as in the Sabba sutta and at other times, like ‘Burning’, obviously not. Also we need to distinguish in our discussions whether we’re just referring to what is experienced and can be known (as appeals to Howard) and what is known only by the Buddha’s omniscience - ie anything he put his attention on. As you suggest, Howard, this knowledge is ‘beyond range’, but it doesn’t mean it was beyond range for the Buddha;-) So I don’t think there is any problem with the commentary note James gave (also see posts under Sabba Sutta in U.P. if inclined), but let me know if so. Meanwhile, I hope James continues to post these commentary notes for you. Maybe one day they’ll make it to the ‘filing cabinet’ too;-) Metta, Sarah > Note 6: 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 (ayatanasabba), i.e. the phenomena of the four planes, > (iii) the all of personal identity (sakkayasabba), 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 is intended. 32025 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 3:52pm Subject: Patience and Courage : was[Re: [dsg] Fwd: Antony in Hospital] Hello Sarah and all, Yes, I'm getting ready for the trip to Bkk. Leave Bris. for Syd, thence Syd -> Bkk for the usual midnight arrival on Saturday night. Trying the Holiday Inn (Silom) this time - maybe we can ferry across the River for breakfast with you chaps - or vice versa? Ring when you arrive. Looking forward to seeing everyone again, and to the discussions. Hopefully I can locate Shakti, and I know Azita will role up on time. Been busy this last week - my older brother is quite ill in hospital, but on the mend now hopefully. Regarding courage and patience: Courage is also called viriya in Pali, combined with perseverance it is often translated as 'energy'. I never used to understand why energy could be seen as courage in Buddhism. But I think courage is steadfastness, endurance and not giving up. These are the outward signs of the Perfection of Energy. The first thing to decline when faced with chronic or ongoing anxiety, fear and stress is energy. What needs to be done to develop it? Energy as one of the Paramis (Perfections) http://www.abhidhamma.org/perfections%20of% 20enlightenment.htm#Chapter%206 OR http://tinyurl.com/2gudk Some DSG discussions on Courage: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/15591 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/15592 For previous posts about Patience (khanti) click on the shortened Useful Post link and then on 'P': http://tinyurl.com/2c0k "Patience is the unimpeded weapon of the good in the development of noble qualities, for it dispels anger, the opposite of all such qualities, without residue. It is the adornment of those capable of vanquishing the foe; the strength of recluses and brahmins; a stream of water extinguishing the fire of anger; the basis for acquiring a good reputation; a mantra for quelling the poisonous speech of evil people; the supreme source of constancy in those established in restraint. Patience is an ocean on account of its depth; a shore bounding the great ocean of hatred; a panel closing off the door to the plane of misery; a staircase ascending to the worlds of the gods and Brahmas; the ground for the habitation of all noble qualities; the supreme purification of body, speech and mind." Commentary to the 'Basket of Conduct' (Miscellaneous Sayings)" Patience is one of the Paramis (Perfections) http://www.abhidhamma.org/perfections%20of% 20enlightenment.htm#Chapter%207 OR http://tinyurl.com/35qzt I'm still not understanding the use of the term 'develop' on dsg - e.g. in 'we must develop' this or that quality - khanti, viriya, or any of the perfections, or panna. Isn't this requiring a 'self' to 'do something'? How would this be different to 'formal meditation'? (smile) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Christine (& Antony), > > --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hello Sarah, > > > > As you will see in this forwarded message, Antony may not reply for a > > short time. > .... > Thanks for letting us know and Antony, if you see this anytime, I'm sure > we all hope you get well very soon. (Also, apologies for spelling yr name > wrong). > > Chris, you must be getting ready for your trip. Is it Friday you leave, I > forget? If you're not too busy, do you have any favourite sutta links on > the courage and patience theme? > > Talking of favourite suttas, please do add the commentary/other notes > which accompany the Bhaddekaratta Sutta you quoted as I know not everyone > has the text and as it's so often referred to on DSG it now has its own > spot in U.P. (No hurry;-)). > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk 32026 From: Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 4:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] tiika Vis 72, part 1. Hi Rob M., Nice to see you again. Thanks for the comprehensive answer. Next question, how is it that an arahant's desire is rootless? In other words, if desire, in itself in a javana series doesn't initiate kamma, what does? Also, I was wondering if an arahant can be angry or wrathful. The Tibetans have something like this. Larry 32027 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 8:12am Subject: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Friend Sarah and All, Sarah: James, when we are referring to the proliferations, distorted perceptions and so on, we're referring to the `underlying craving and defilements',especially wrong views in these cases which take concepts such as `self' or `things' as objects as Ken O stressed. James: Who is `we'? You use this pronoun quite often and I usually have a hard time figuring out who you are referring to. Could you explain who `we' is? But back to the message, I can't assume what someone means when they write something. When you write that concepts are the central teaching of the Buddha, I have to disagree. Then you reply, "Well, when we say this we actually mean that." Huh? I can't even figure out who this `we' is much less to be able to figure out what they really mean when they write something. ;-)) Sarah: Let us know how you're going in that section of SN. James: I have been reading it, and pondering, and reading Hume and Nietzsche for additional viewpoints, but I don't think I am going to post anything- so you and others can stop waiting ;-)). I do think there is an objective reality beyond the traditional five senses and their traditional objects, which is what the Buddha was addressing in the Salayatanasamyutta, but in order to demonstrate this I would have to discuss supernormal powers, ESP (Divine Eye, Divine Ear, etc.), and the Buddha's omniscience. These topics have caused incredulity and irritation in this group in the past so I won't discuss them again. This is a purely philosophical topic anyway and not worthy of in-depth discussion. For all practical purposes, the `all' and the `world' should be considered how the Buddha described it in that sutta and there is no practical reason to consider a broader all. Sarah: Sorry, this one's a bit rushed, but I wanted to get back to you as we'll be hiking and so on over the weekend and I may not have much chance to write. James: I hope that you have a lovely time. Metta, James p.s Do you have any problem with the section on Pa~n~natti in Karunadasa's essay? We can use that to discuss further if you'd like too. James: No, I don't. But he describes pannatti much differently that K. Sujin does in her article. Remember, we were discussing how K. Sujin explains panatti. I think the appropriate question would be if you have any problem with how Karunadasa explains pannatti? Do you agree with his section on "Pannatti and the Two Truths"? If so, we can stop discussing this issue of pannatti. http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm 32028 From: Jeffrey Brooks Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 11:10am Subject: A Practice Strategy that leads to Nonmaterial Absorption A Practice Strategy that leads to Nonmaterial Absorption Arupa Jhana Practice Paths Aneñja-sappaya Sutta, MN 106 Conducive to the Imperturbable Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. For free distribution only. 3) ..."What if I -- overpowering the world [of the five senses] and having determined my mind -- were to dwell with an awareness that was abundant & enlarged? Having done so, these evil, unskillful mental states -- greed, ill will, & contentiousness -- would not come into being. With their abandoning, my mind would become unlimited, immeasurable, & well developed.' Practicing & frequently abiding in this way, his mind acquires confidence in that dimension. There being full confidence, he either attains the imperturbable[1] now or else is committed to discernment. With the break-up of the body, after death, it's possible that this leading-on consciousness of his will go to the imperturbable. This is declared to be the first practice conducive to the imperturbable. 4)..."every form, is the four great elements or a form derived from the four great elements.' Practicing & frequently abiding in this way, his mind acquires confidence in that dimension... consciousness of his will go to the imperturbable. This is declared to be the second practice conducive to the imperturbable. 5)..."perceptions in lives to come; forms here & now; forms in lives to come; form-perceptions here & now; form-perceptions in lives to come: both are inconstant. This is declared to be the third practice conducive to the imperturbable. (The Base of Nothingness) 6. ..." perceptions of the imperturbable: all are perceptions. Where they cease without remainder: that is peaceful, that is exquisite, i.e., the dimension of nothingness.' This is declared to be the first practice conducive to the dimension of nothingness. Practicing & frequently abiding in this way, his mind acquires confidence in that dimension...This is declared to be the first practice conducive to the dimension of nothingness. 7."Then again, the disciple of the noble ones, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of anything pertaining to self.' Practicing & frequently abiding in this way, his mind acquires confidence in that dimension...This is declared to be the second practice conducive to the dimension of nothingness. 8."Then again, the disciple of the noble ones considers this: 'I am not anyone's anything anywhere; nor is anything of mine in anyone anywhere'... This is declared to be the third practice conducive to the dimension of nothingness. (the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception) 9. "Then again, the disciple of the noble ones considers this: 'Sensuality here & now; sensuality in lives to come; sensual perceptions here & now; sensual perceptions in lives to come; forms here & now; forms in lives to come; form-perceptions here & now; form-perceptions in lives to come; perceptions of the imperturbable; perceptions of the dimension of nothingness: all are perceptions... This is declared to be the practice conducive to the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. (Nibbana) 10. "It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' -- obtains equanimity... What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' -- obtains equanimity. He relishes that equanimity, welcomes it, remains fastened to it. 12. "Without clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a monk is totally unbound." 13. "There is the case, Ananda, where a disciple of the noble ones considers this: 'Sensuality here & now; sensuality in lives to come; sensual perceptions here & now; sensual perceptions in lives to come; forms here & now; forms in lives to come; form-perceptions here & now; form-perceptions in lives to come; perceptions of the imperturbable; perceptions of the dimension of nothingness; perceptions of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception: that is an identity, to the extent that there is an identity. This is deathless: the liberation of the mind through lack of clinging/sustenance.' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn106.html 32029 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 6:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] tiika Vis 72, part 1. Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > How is it that an arahant's desire is rootless? In other > words, if desire, in itself in a javana series doesn't initiate kamma, > what does? ===== I used the word "desire" as a translation of the Pali term chanda. Other terms used as a translation of chanda include zeal or wish. Chanda has the characterisitic of being a desire to act. Its function is to search for an object. It's manifestation is a need for an object. It's proximate cause is the object itself. It can be regarded as the extending of the mental hand in the apprehending of an object. Chanda arises in all cittas with roots except moha-mula cittas (in other words, moha-mula cittas do not extend their mental hand to an object). All of the beautiful cittas have chanda. In rupavacara and arupavacara cittas, the cittas extend their mental hand to the meditation object. In lokuttara cittas, the cittas extend their mental hand to the object of Nibbana. Every action begins with chanda; a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Chanda is also a necessary factor for the development of calm (chanda is the beginning; the discarding of the hindrances is the middle; absorption is the end). Chanda does not create kamma, it is the cetasika cetana that creates kamma. Cetana is often translated as volition but it can also be translated as intention or will. Cetana arises in all cittas. When it arises in a citta that is not a javana citta, cetana plays the role of coordinating or organizing the citta and other cetasikas to work together. Cetana plays the role of a manager. In javana cittas, cetana is doubly energetic; in these cases, cetana is like the manager who also plays an active role in getting the work done. In AN VI.63, the Buddha said, "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect." In this case, the Pali word "cetana" has been translated as "intention". ===== > > Also, I was wondering if an arahant can be angry or wrathful. The > Tibetans have something like this. ===== It is impossible for an Arahant to have dosa-mula cittas. I guess it is possible that an uninformed person could interpret the behaviour of an Arahant as "angry or wrathful", but the underlying mental states of the Arahant cannot be dosa-based. I recall a story of a monk who had deep accumulations of speaking with a scolding voice. Even after attaining Arahantship, the monk still spoke with a scolding voice because of his deep accumulations. In other words, the observable behaviour does not always reflect the inner state of mind. Last night, my wife and I went to a Dhamma talk on compassion. The talk was given by a psychiatric doctor who worked at a government hospital. As you can imagine, he needs a lot of compassion to do his job. The talk was called, "A booster dose of Vitamin C (Compassion)"; the speaker gave 12 techniques of supporting the development of compassion. In one example, he talked of visualizing the baby inside the person crying out, "I have pain... please help me". He talked about how he used this visualization when dealing with drug addicts. On the surface, the drug addict's behaviour can be abusive and very unpleasant. However, when one considers the baby inside, karuna can arise. Again, the observable behaviour does not always reflect the inner state of mind. Metta, Rob M :-) 32030 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 8:29pm Subject: Patience and Courage : was[Re: [dsg] Fwd: Antony in Hospital] Hi Christine, To be honest, I am sending this post mainly to test a theory. If I `send' from the original (or edit) page then it will go straight through – and, in the process, free my earlier post which is stuck in the pipeline (and which was sent from the preview page). It worked last time when I didn't really want it to. My answer to your question is; we develop wholesome qualities in order to make them our own. It is all very well to appreciate -- marvel at -- the wholesome qualities (metta, patience, good cheer,) of other dsg members, but we need to develop those qualities for ourselves. As for its being like formal meditation; bite your tongue! It is nothing of the sort! :-) Kind regards, Ken H 32031 From: Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 8:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] tiika Vis 72, part 1. Hi Rob, Are you saying that there is no intention in an arahant's javana cittas? Is the cause of suffering intention? Larry 32032 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 9:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Buddha's last word Dear Sarah, I am especially moved by the words: these eighty-four thousand groups of dhamma, will advise and instruct you. The Buddha taught so that we can develop panna ourselves. Not depending on people. People are only the means through which we can hear the dhamma, who can point to the way. These eighty-four thousand groups of dhamma, they are dhammas, realities, we do not have to think of lists in a textbook. We can discover them and check them ourselves as far as we are able to. Then one will find out that the Abhidhamma that is included in these eighty-four thousand groups of dhammas is quite different from what one thought at first. There is nothing abstract here, no theory. Nina. op 08-04-2004 08:19 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > “Thus all of this has been told and discussed for forty-five years from my > enlightenment to my parinibbaana; three baskets, five Nikaayas, nine > branches (a’nga), eight-four thousand groups of dhamma: these are the > major divisions. Thus these eighty-four thousand groups of dhamma remain. > I alone attain parinibbaana, and now I alone advise and instruct. After I > have attained parinibbaana, these eighty-four thousand groups of dhamma, > will advise and instruct you 32033 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 9:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] respect Dear Sarah, Thank you for this lovely post. You have other points that I did not have, I like it. Nina. op 08-04-2004 10:45 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > Qu (by Sarah): “What’s the highest form of paying respect?” > > KS: “Developing right understanding so that one can understand the Buddha > and how he spoke only for the benefit of others.” > > Qu: “Can this kind of respect be at any time?” > > KS: “Even at this moment one can be aware and develop right > understanding.” 32034 From: Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 9:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) James: "For all practical purposes, the `all´ and the `world´ should be considered how the Buddha described it in that sutta and there is no practical reason to consider a broader all." Hi James and Sarah, Did the Buddha say anything about reason? Isn't reason a reason to reason a greater reality? Isn't the functioning of a sense-base understood (by us, james, sarah & larry) by reason? According to abhidhamma the only thing we (j, s, &l) know directly is meaningless sense data. In a way, becoming absorbed in meaningless sense data is an at least temporary end of desire just because it is meaningless. Larry 32035 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 10:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] tiika Vis 72, part 1. Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Are you saying that there is no intention in an arahant's javana cittas? > Is the cause of suffering intention? The cetasika cetana (traslated as intention or volition) is in every citta. In an Arahant's javana citta, the function of the cetasika cetana is only to organize the actions of the citta and the other cetasikas. Unlike the javana cittas of non-Arahants, cetana does not create kamma when it arises in an Arahant's javana citta. The second noble truth is that the cause of suffering is craving. The mechanism by which craving creates kamma is the associated intention (cetana). The "weightiness" of the kamma produced depends on the intensity of the cetana. Metta, Rob M :-) 32036 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 2:24pm Subject: Re: Illusion of Control Hi Rob M, With help from my dsg friends, I am learning to understand Dhamma strictly in terms of nama and rupa. Some say I take it too far: they say (perhaps with some justification) that the Buddha didn't only teach ultimate truth, he also taught conventional truth. But I will have none of that. If any so-called teaching of the Buddha can't be understood in terms of nama and rupa, then I don't want to know about it. :-) You wrote: ----------- > My understanding is that bhavana is an activity (like dana and sila), not a citta accompanied by wisdom. > --------------------- Sorry, this does not compute! :-) What activity could you be referring to? What activity (of action, speech or thought) is there that is other than citta and cetasika? You are an expert on the classification of cittas, so I am hesitant to suggest which of them can qualify as bhavana. Presumably it can be prompted, or unprompted, joyful or indifferent, always karmically wholesome and always with panna. In the sensuous field, that narrows the field to four, does it not? And what about dana and sila? According to my understanding, they include the same four plus those karmically wholesome cittas without panna – making eight. Corrections welcome. -------------- RM:> I looked up the term in Nyanatiloka's Dictionary and it would appear to agree with my understanding. ---------------- When we read a definition of mental development, we need to remember that our mind is not something that persists in time and which we can mould into shape (or put things into and take things out of). The mind is born and dies in a single, fleeting moment; that is when mental development must take place. Working backwards through your post (just to be different), I see you have asked: ---------------- > What is meant by 'formal meditation'; how is it different from 'informal meditation' (if that is the opposite)? > ---------------------- Formal meditation is a concept. Sarah described it as the `idea of meditation.' Just like ideas of seeing and hearing, ideas of bhavana are easy to grasp and dwell on because they can arise with ignorance (and we have plenty of that). The actual, momentary, seeing, hearing and bhavana, we don't grasp nearly so well. They can only be known by citta with panna. To digress: The thing that intrigues me is that we might admit we can't control paramattha dhammas but still think we can control concepts. (I fall into that trap all the time.) In fact, there is no control over anything (the uncontrollable dhammas created the concepts in the first place). We might say; "Look, I wanted to sit down and now I am sitting down – control! I wanted to close my eyes and think about anatta and that is what I am doing. Maybe there is no control over ultimate reality but there certainly is over conventional reality!" That is what happens during formal meditation – belief in control. Admittedly, it also happens throughout the rest of the day but at those other times we are not turning it into a ritualistic practice. ---------- RM: > I am not saying that the Buddha endorsed self-belief. I am observing that the Buddha often encouraged monks to take action. The Buddha encouraged action with "desire, endeavour and persistance" without endorsing self belief. > ------------ Or, to put that another way, "without endorsing the idea of control." The monks, who heeded the Buddha's encouragement, didn't formally (ritualistically) practice the Dhamma. Desire, endeavour, persistence, and so on, happened because the required conditions for their happening were there. -------------- RM: > In my previous post, I gave the example of fear being a motivator for me to study the dhamma (to make sure that I was prepared for my class). To state this does not mean that I believe the fear is kusala. After this fear arose, I did two things: - Acknowledged this mental state as aksuala (object condition) - Allowed this mental state to motivate me (natural decisive support condition) -------------- No argument there. Those things can happen before we even think about them – before we can introduce the idea of control. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 32037 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 11:31pm Subject: Video Games? Dear Friends, I read an article the other day that had me considering practical applications to the dhamma. I wanted to share my thoughts even though they are quite preliminary and untested at this point. I read a news article about how playing video games increases the surgical skill of doctors significantly: http://news.yahoo.com/news? tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040407/ap_on_he_me/video_game_surgery_4 I thought about this and considered that the video games not only increased the eye-hand coordination ability, it probably also increased concentration skills. Making a leap to Buddhism, I considered how often the Buddha stressed the `skill of concentration' for release. I started to wonder if playing video games would also increase concentration during meditation. Personally, I have never really cared for any type of game because I have viewed them as pointless and self-indulgent (even as a child I had this non-traditional viewpoint). However, considering that video games could increase the ability to concentrate I have begun a type of mini-study. I found some Yahoo games that are skill based (non- violent) and free for the download. I have found that playing these games, keeping mindful of developing concentration, will improve my concentration during meditation if I play them immediately before the sitting session. I know that this is non-traditional, and I have never read of such a thing elsewhere, but I thought I would give it a shot! ;-)) (Non-traditional is my middle name! LOL!) Anyway, just thought I would share. If anyone finds it difficult to concentrate for long periods during meditation, video games could possibly help in this regard. Metta, James 32038 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 11:37pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Friend Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > James: "For all practical purposes, the `all´ and the `world´ should > be considered how the Buddha described it in that sutta and there is no > practical reason to consider a broader all." > > Hi James and Sarah, > > Did the Buddha say anything about reason? Isn't reason a reason to > reason a greater reality? Isn't the functioning of a sense-base > understood (by us, james, sarah & larry) by reason? According to > abhidhamma the only thing we (j, s, &l) know directly is meaningless > sense data. In a way, becoming absorbed in meaningless sense data is an > at least temporary end of desire just because it is meaningless. > > Larry I have read what you have written here but I don't quite understand what you are asking or the point you are making. As monks would often ask of the Buddha, could you please explain in detail what you have stated in brief? ;-)) Maybe Sarah will better connect to your post so I will wait for her to post and may comment further. Thanks for writing!! (You don't usually write to me. I must be doing something right lately! ;-)). Metta, James 32039 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 10:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Hi Larry, op 08-04-2004 00:54 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: >. What cetasikas cannot arise with a functional > consciousness N: Let us first talk about kiriyacitta of the sensuous plane of citta. In a sense-door process we have the sense-door adverting consciousness, mind-door adverting-consciousness and this last one performs the function of determining in the sense-door process. These two are ahetuka, not accompanied by roots, and they are not accompanied by piti and somanassa, but by upekkha, indifferent feeling. The sense-door adverting-consciousness is not accompanied by viriya, but the mind-door adverting-consciousness is. They are not accompanied by akusala cetasikas and not by sobhana cetasikas. As to the smile-producing consciousness of the arahat, this is accompanied by somanassa, not by upekkha. It is accompanied by viriya. L: and what cetasikas cannot arise with a great-functional > consciousness (mahakiriya)? N: akusala cetasikas. Sobhana cetasikas do arise, but not the three abstinences. Since they have eradicated all akusala there are no more opportunities for them to abstain. They do not need these. Compassion and sympathetic joy only arise when there are opportunities for them, not all the time. As to wisdom, panna, there are four maha-kiriyacittas associated with it and four without it. L: Is an arahant without wisdom and virtue? How > can he or she function without understanding and values? N: He is endowed with great wisdom and virtue. The Buddha is endowed with the greatest wisdom and virtue of all: vijjaacara.na sampanno. As to the four maha-kiriyacittas without wisdom: the arahat when he goes on his almsround and greets people will not have wisdom all the time, this does not arise with each citta. Cittas are so fast, so, in between those with wisdom there are other types without wisdom. But such maha-kiriyacittas are accompanied with all the other good qualities, such as sati, confidence, detachment, etc. So he functions in the most optimal way one could think of. Nina. P.S. I am not so good at counting, corrections from Rob M welcome! 32040 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 0:36am Subject: Re: Video Games? Hi James, > increased concentration skills. Making a leap to Buddhism, I > considered how often the Buddha stressed the `skill of > concentration' for release. I started to wonder if playing video > games would also increase concentration during meditation. As you probably know, I play games on the computer all the time. ;-) My habit started from the days of the `game machines'. I have always had a difficulty concentrating. My children too have attention problems. The other day my wife suggested that she should take our older son to play badminton everyday so as to develop his concentration. I said that it all depended on `interest', which he may or may not retain any interest in the sport, and even if he did, it does not mean that his concentration will be developed per se. I quite clearly see at the root of my sustained interest in computer games and movies, akusala tendencies. I am always looking to be entertained. So James, concentration may or may not be developed, but surely lobha, dosa and moha will most definitely be accumulated. This relates to why I once questioned the need to formal practice and why I and others have been stressing the fact that concentration arises with every citta. I don't believe there should be any idea to practice concentration in order to be able to insight realities. Because this mental factor like all the other mental factors, simply take the object what ever the citta takes. So what is being developed and accumulated is determined by the root of the citta. If and only if there is sati and panna, then the concentration will be right. Still, it is only panna which does the function of `insighting' and `understanding' realities, and concentration is just a supporting factor in this case, I think. True, that samatha can be developed to a degree that concentration of jhana can be achieved and this is indeed good. But again, if one is to walk the Buddha's path, it is via vipassana panna and the practice of satipatthana. And satipatthana has only `wrong view' as its only hindrance. Any dhamma can be the object of insight including the wrong view, panna does not mind anything. Avijja on the other hand, tend to pick and choose. This includes the idea of choosing to develop concentration. Please seriously consider this James. I am not trying to start any debate nor do I want to just argue. ;-) Metta, Sukin. 32041 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 0:54am Subject: Patience and Courage : was[Re: [dsg] Fwd: Antony in Hospital] Hello Ken, And that's it? From one of the champions of no-control? If one can, as you say, 'develop' wholesome qualities like metta, patience and good cheer, then one can develop sati. What's your method? metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Christine, > > To be honest, I am sending this post mainly to test a theory. If > I `send' from the original (or edit) page then it will go straight > through – and, in the process, free my earlier post which is stuck > in the pipeline (and which was sent from the preview page). It > worked last time when I didn't really want it to. > > My answer to your question is; we develop wholesome qualities in > order to make them our own. It is all very well to appreciate -- > marvel at -- the wholesome qualities (metta, patience, good cheer,) > of other dsg members, but we need to develop those qualities for > ourselves. As for its being like formal meditation; bite your > tongue! It is nothing of the sort! :-) > > Kind regards, > Ken H 32042 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 1:40am Subject: [dsg] Re: the self. . . how ? #1. Dear Eznir (and Sarah), I appreciate that you put in so much effort into responding and trying to make me understand. I had composed as always, long replies to your posts. But every time I read over them, I want to change something and add something else, and the posts get even longer. This is not a big problem. However, I also see that something is lacking, but I can't put my finger on it. I get the feeling that I am not doing justice to your well considered replies and am mostly only repeating the same points even as I try to change contexts. So Eznir, I am thinking that maybe we let this thread go?! Besides the points I make are the same ones that others seem to be making on other threads. And these are the evergreen topics of dsg. ;-) So I am sure we will have plenty of opportunity to discuss them together in the future. Sarah, it seems like I've got only so much stamina. Hope you are not disappointed. ;-) See you in a few days. Metta, Sukin --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Eznir" wrote: > Dear Sukin, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" > wrote: 32043 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 0:07am Subject: Autopilot Elevation ! Friends: The 5th degree of Lifting Joy: Just as tuft of cotton or wool, Ananda, or a feather being very light leaves the ground, arises into the air & drifts away with the wind, even & exactly so, do the body of the Well-Gone-One, when he immerses the body in the mind & the mind in the body, by entering the absorption of bodily blissful buoyancy. Then this physical frame of the Well-Gone-One rises without any difficulty or effort & leaves the ground up into the free air, like wafted by the breeze: The grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya V [283-5]. ________________ As he moves thus, he can if he wishes, create a path in space by entering absorption into the meditation object of solidity & then walk as on foot. Or, if he so decides, he can fly freely by mentally resolving on entering absorption into the meditation object of motion. Then, he is carried by the force of determination like the arrow shot by an archer: The Path of Purification. Visuddhi-Magga. ________________ One should rise gradually, first one feet, then after repeating slowly up to 2 meters in order not to evoke fear, which will make one fall out of the mentally unified absorption. Q: If one looses absorption, can one then fall down ? A: No! Since the state begins on the meditation seat ! If, after having gone far, one looses the absorption, then one reaches the original sitting place, sees the body sitting there, and thinks: 'This One possesses supra-human power. This is his absolute calm!': The Path of Freedom. Vimutti-Magga --oo0oo-- Remember: Any wish can only be fulfilled by first purifying Moral. Sources: Samyutta Nikaya selection: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/index.html The grouped Sayings of the Buddha: http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 The path of Purification: http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=771110 The path of Freedom: http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=404208 All yours in the Dhamma. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/TrueDhamma 32044 From: Ken O Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 2:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi James James concept and defilements are two different aspect of dhamma. Just like clinging and aggregates even though are inseparable but still distinct. Concept of me and mine is usually the result of moha (IMHO) because of not knowing that conditions arise on it own (anatta). James you are right to say that satipatthana is used to eradicate defilements and not eradicating concepts. But since concepts of me and mine are conditioned by moha and lobha, that is why we cannot used it as a basis to for satipatthana. Then again I should apologise first and rephrase my earlier statement (sorry moha is very strong still ;-) ), it is not the me and mine that is big problem because Buddha also used the word I, me to explain dhamma, it is attachment to me and mine that is the problem and moha not knowing them as empty. Since Buddha has eradicate lobha and moha, so his usage of me and mine are just mere expressions ;-). Ken O 32045 From: robmoult Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 3:01am Subject: Re: Illusion of Control Hi Ken H (Howard and all), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > With help from my dsg friends, I am learning to understand Dhamma > strictly in terms of nama and rupa. Some say I take it too far: > they say (perhaps with some justification) that the Buddha didn't > only teach ultimate truth, he also taught conventional truth. But I > will have none of that. If any so-called teaching of the Buddha > can't be understood in terms of nama and rupa, then I don't want to > know about it. :-) ===== For now, I only have time to reply to this portion; expect another message in a few days (this reply should be controversial enough to last until then). I am reminded of a number of exchanges that I have had with Howard on Buddhist Phenomenology. Howard's belief is that the Buddha's teaching are phenomenological (Howard, feel free to jump in if I am misrepresenting you). I do not agree with Howard's position. My position is: - There are a large number of areas where the Buddha's teaching and phenomenology agree (in fact, one may find it difficult to find a sutta quote that does not agree with phenomenology) - The Dhamma is not phenomenological because the purpose of the Dhamma and the purspose of phenomenology are very different. The Buddha taught the Dhamma to support the holy life and the attainment of enlightenment. Phenomenology was developed as a theory of what exists and what does not exist. Saying that the Dhamma is phenomenological is taking the Dhamma out of context and that is very dangerous. The Abhidhamma has a very different focus than the Suttas. I am not aware of any areas of disagreement between the two, but the treatment is very different. Much of the Abhidhamma focuses on "ultimate realities". I do not believe that the Pali word for ultimate reality, "Paramattha Dhamma" can be found in the Suttas. The Abhidhamma provides the theory that underpins the Dhamma, but if you want guidance on how to apply the Dhamma, I strongly suggest looking into the Suttas rather than the Abhidhamma. The Suttas do not focus on ultimate realities. I am concerned that focusing on ultimate realities to guide your practice may be applying the Abhidhamma out of context. Ken H, these ideas are just starting to crystalize in my mind. I may abandon this direction of thinking after condidering the viewpoints of others. Metta, Rob M :-) PS: To put the record straight, I agree that there is no such thing as control and that "free will" is an illusion 32046 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 5:19pm Subject: [dsg] Re:_Recognizing_the_Dhamma_-_5._Contentment_(§_5.1.) Hi Sarah, Thank you for this message and the quote you provided. I find the following helpful: `The one not mourning that which is past, not longing for that not yet come, (but) sustaining himself with that which is present, is the one declared `content' ` I wonder if anyone has any example on how a lay person is being content? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor (& Icaro), > > [snip] > S:I have more for you today from the Udana commentary, Meghiya chapter > 229: > > " "Talk on contentment (santu.t.thikathaa)': as regards `contentment' > (santu.t.thi) in this connection santu.t.thi (contentment) is satisfaction > (tu.t.thi) with what is one's own (sakena), with what one has oneslef > acquired; or alternatively, santu.t.thi (contentment) is saisfaction > (tu.t.thi) that is balanced (samaa) after abandoning wanting where the > requisites are concerned that is unbalanced, or again santu.t.thi > (contentment) is satisfaction (tu.t.thi) with what is existent (santena), > with what is known to exist. And there is this that is said: > `The one not mourning that which is past, not longing for that not yet > come, (but) sustaining himself with that which is present, is the one > declared `content' ` > > Later we also read: > > "Thus `talk on contentment' is talk that proceeds by way of explaining the > advantages of such contentment, together with the method of demonstrating > this and so on, and by way of explaining the peril in the state of being > carried away by wanting, divided into the states of wanting to excess and > so forth, (which state) is opposed thereto." > ***** > We don't have to emulate MahaKassapa's fine example as given in the verses > -- he was after all `foremost' in ascetic practices (dhutangas), Icaro, > but we can appreciate the quality of contentment or being satisfied at the > present moment with whatever kamma has produced, whether living in the > forest or the city, don't you think? > > Metta, > > Sarah 32047 From: Jeffrey Brooks Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 6:49am Subject: Training Strategy Training Strategy Some people tell me that the path of the ecstatic (jhana) is "unsuitable for modern times when most people do not have the right perfections, or enough time to cultivate ecstasy (jhana)." This however seems like a severe case of ignorance, delusion and doubt that has been sold in the name of the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha. I am certain the path to liberation has never changed. There has never been a time in history when people do not have the "right perfections, or enough time" to cultivate ecstasy (jhana). My life is proof that anyone who engages in the Buddha's Noble Eight Fold Path can and will give rise to jhana and why not liberation as well? As a simple house-holder who found a small amount of time to engage in the Noble Eight Fold Path everyday, I have given rise to the fruits of the practice. So, why cannot anyone else? Kindest regards, Jeff Brooks The Fruits of the Path Bell Springs 100 Day Summer Rains Retreat May 27 - Sept. 7, 2004 http://www.bellsprings.org .o0o.o0o.o0o.o0o.o0o.o0o.o0o.o0o.o0o.o0o.o0o.o0o. Ganakamoggallana Sutta, MN 107 Translated from the Pali by I.B. Horner. For free distribution only. From Taming the Mind: Discourses of the Buddha (WH 51), edited by the Buddhist Publication Society, (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1983). Copyright ©1983 Buddhist Publication Society. Used with permission. Morality "'Come you, monk, be of moral habit, live controlled by the control of the Obligations, endowed with [right] behavior and posture, seeing peril in the slightest fault and, undertaking them, train yourself in the rules of training.' As soon, brahman, as the monk is of moral habit, controlled by the control of the Obligations, endowed with [right] behavior and posture; seeing peril in the slightest fault and, undertaking them, trains himself in the rules of training, the Tathagata disciplines him further saying: Sense-control 4. "'Come you monk, be guarded as to the doors of the sense-organs; having seen a material shape with the eye, do not be entranced with the general appearance, do not be entranced with the detail... Moderation in eating 5. "As soon, brahman, as a monk is guarded as to the doors of the sense-organs, the Tathagata disciplines him further, saying: 'Come you, monk, be moderate in eating... Vigilance 6. "As soon, brahman, as a monk is moderate in eating, the Tathagata disciplines him further, saying: 'Come you, monk, dwell intent on vigilance; during the day while pacing up and down, while sitting down, cleanse the mind of obstructive mental states; during the middle watch of the night, lie down on the right side in the lion posture, foot resting on foot, mindful, clearly conscious, reflecting on the thought of getting up again; during the last watch of the night, when you have arisen, while pacing up and down, while sitting down, cleanse the mind of obstructive mental states.' Mindfulness and clear consciousness 7. "As soon, brahman, as a monk is intent on vigilance, the Tathagata disciplines him further, saying: 'Come you, monk, be possessed of mindfulness and clear consciousness... Overcoming of the five hindrances 8. "As soon, brahman, as he is possessed of mindfulness and clear consciousness, the Tathagata disciplines him further, saying: 'Come you, monk, choose a remote lodging in a forest... 9. On returning from alms-gathering after the meal, the monk sits down crosslegged, holding the back erect, having made mindfulness rise up in front of him"..."he dwells benevolent in mind; compassionate and merciful towards all creatures and beings"... "Getting rid of doubt, he dwells doubt-crossed; unperplexed as to the states that are skilled,[5] he cleanses his mind of doubt. hana 10. "He, by getting rid of these five hindrances"... "enters and abides in the first meditation" (jhana through 4th jhana) ... 11. "Brahman, such is my instruction for those monks who are learners who, perfection being not yet attained, dwell longing for the incomparable security from the bonds. But as for those monks who are perfected ones, the cankers destroyed, who have lived the life, done what was to be done, shed the burden, attained to their own goal, the fetters of becoming utterly destroyed, and who are freed by perfect profound knowledge -- these things conduce both to their abiding in ease here and now as well as to their mindfulness and clear consciousness." "Even so, brahman, nibbana does exist, the way leading to nibbana exists and I exist as adviser. But some of my disciples, on being exhorted and instructed thus by me attain the unchanging goal -- nibbana, some do not attain it. What can I, brahman, do in this matter? A shower of the way, brahman, is a Tathagata." When this had been said, the brahman Ganaka-Moggallana spoke thus to the Lord: 15. "Good Gotama, as for those persons who, in want of a way of living, having gone forth from home into homelessness without faith, who are crafty, fraudulent, deceitful, who are unbalanced and puffed up, who are shifty, scurrilous and of loose talk, the doors of whose sense-organs are not guarded, who do not know moderation in eating, who are not intent on vigilance, indifferent to recluseship, not of keen respect for the training, who are ones for abundance, lax, taking the lead in backsliding, shirking the burden of seclusion, who are indolent, of feeble energy, of confused mindfulness, not clearly conscious, not concentrated but of wandering minds, who are weak in wisdom, drivellers -- the good Gotama is not in communion with them. But as for those young men of respectable families who have gone forth from home into homelessness from faith, who are not crafty, fraudulent or deceitful, who are not unbalanced or puffed up, who are not shifty, scurrilous or of loose talk, the doors of whose sense-organs are guarded, who know moderation in eating, who are intent on vigilance, longing for recluseship, of keen respect for the training, who are not ones for abundance, not lax, shirking, backsliding, taking the lead in seclusion, who are of stirred up energy, self-resolute, with mindfulness aroused, clearly conscious, concentrated, their minds one-pointed, who have wisdom, are not drivellers -- the good Gotama is in communion with them. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn107.html 32048 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 9:55pm Subject: The Main Buddhist Points ! Friends: The 18 Principal Insights: 1: Consideration of Transience leaves behind false perception of Permanence. 2: Contemplation of Dissatisfaction abrogates wrong perception of Pleasure. 3: Consideration of Impersonality cuts off erroneous perception of Identity. 4: Contemplation of Disgust reduces the detrimental greed within any Lust. 5: Consideration of Disillusion dampens the Craving inherent in any Delight. 6: Contemplation of Ceasing Stopping & Ending eliminates Initiation of new. 7: Consideration of Relinquishing reduces the panic inherent in any Clinging. 8: Contemplation of the inevitable Decay ends perception of Compactness. 9: Consideration of the Vanishing reduces wrong perception of Accumulation. 10: Contemplation of Change abrogates the misleading perception of Stability. 11: Consideration of the Signless leaves the notion of an Entity of Substance. 12: Contemplation of Desirelessness abandons the purpose of any Longing. 13: Consideration of Emptiness stops insisting on assuming an existing 'Self'. 14: Insight into Higher Understanding gives up assuming an existing 'Core'. 15: Seeing & knowing how it really develops overcomes any blinding Confusion. 16: Contemplation of the inherent Danger conquers reliance on False Safety. 17: Consideration of Reflection counteract the risk following Careless Neglect. 18: Contemplation of Turning Away breaks the bars of mental Bondage. Unattracted; Unrepulsed; Unbound & Unestablished there is Absolute Freedom! All yours in the Dhamma. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.msn.com/DirectDhamma/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/TrueDhamma 32049 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 4:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Recollection of the body (as elements) Nina --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Jonothan, ... > N: the heat, by which what you eat is cooked and digested, and the > motion element to move it along. J: Yes, and what I hadn't previously considered is that there is no aspect of foulness in these elements, only in the elements of solidity and fluidity. > N: The foulness is so good to remind us that the body is only rupa elements. > And we cannot escape from the four characteristics inherent in all rupas: > integration (arising), continuity, decay and destruction. The Tiika makes me > reflect more on these. J: Yes, the information you've been giving us on the four characteristics is very interesting, something I've not read about in such detail before. Much to reflect on. Please keep going! > I was considering listening, because in Bgk someone asked the > meaning of > listening with respect (doj kawrop). A. Sujin answered: listening and > understanding what you hear. As always she stressed listening very much. J: Yes, she stresses listening, and she also stresses listening that is done *for the purpose of (ultimately) developing understanding*. This is where the respect comes in. Not for the purpose of gaining knowledge or ability to expound, nor because of wanting to 'show respect' (or any other outward form of action) nor to be accumulating more kusala, but for the purpose of a better understanding of the realities of the present moment. There is something about this in the 'Satipatthana' series I'm listening to at the moment. > Thus, we should not think too soon that we have understood already, that we > know it all. I often consider that we should study the texts of the Tipitaka > and the Commentaries with great respect. Kh Anop and his sister Kh Tida > Ratana were examplary in their dedication when looking up tetxs, studying > them and reading them aloud, during our Sunday afternoon session at the end > of all the other sessions. They took so much trouble finding the right > texts. Also during the sutta and commentary sessions the texts were printed > out for all participants, as you know. Knotty points were > discussed, that is the way to do it. J: Those who live in Bangkok are fortunate to have this kind of opportunity. A proper in-depth study needs good translations of a wide range of the texts including comm. and sub-comm. The latter are not generally available in English, but there is still quite a body of material to refer to. > J: Looking forward to your series on the last Bangkok trip. How's it coming on? > N: Thanks for your kind interest. Lodewijk approved of the first Ch, and > two more on his desk, but I want to have more done before I start posting it > here. I get on slowly, but will also use material of my Emails > since these > contain many thoughts about what I learnt in Bgk. Now Ch 4 is in the making. J: Good news. Jon 32050 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 5:24am Subject: Re: [dsg]satipatthanasutta James --- buddhatrue wrote: > Friend Jon, James: [Jon: Since breath as object of samatha is a concept (long breath, short breath, etc), the development of that alone can never lead to insight. As we know, insight must have a dhamma as its object.] This is a very important statement. Could you provide some evidence from the Nikayas that the Buddha said this? From my understanding, the Buddha, Ven. Ananda, and Ven. Sariputta said the opposite of this in different suttas. They each said that concentration and mindfulness of the breath can lead all the way to Nibbana. I could quote a lot of suttas to show this but I think you have the burden of proof to support your claim since you have made it first :-). Jon: As you say, there are many, many suttas dealing with mindfulness of breathing. Perhaps you have in mind the ones that begin with the question, How is samatha with breath as object developed and cultivated so that it fulfils the four establishments of mindfulness? As I read these suttas, the short answer to the question is, by developing insight into the true nature of arising dhammas, that is to say, not just by developing samatha with breath as object. Taking the mindfulness of breathing section of the Satipatthana Sutta (because the text of the sutta is similar to the ones we are now discussing, and the commentary is available in soft copy), I think the small section of the commentary that I've pasted below indicates that that the practitioner emerges from absorption and contemplates dhammas and the dependent origination. This is just a preliminary and outline answer; I'd be happy to go into more detail if you'd like, taking the text of 1 or more of the suttas you're familiar with. Jon From Soma Thera's 'The Way of Mindfulness', The Section on Breathing (part of The Contemplation of the Body) Sutta passage: "Calming the activity of the body I shall breathe in .... breathe out, thinking thus, he trains himself." He thinks: " I shall breathe in and I shall breathe out, quieting, making smooth, making tranquil and peaceful the activity of the in-and-out-breathing body. And in that way, he trains himself." ... Comm: Indeed, to that yogi training in respiration-mindfulness according to the method taught thus: "He, thinking 'I breathe in long,' understands when he is breathing in long ..... Calming the activity of the body ..... I breathe out, thinking thus, he trains himself", the four absorptions arise in the respiration sign. In the respiration sign = In the reflex image [patibhaga nimitta]. Having emerged from the absorption, he lays hold of either the respiration body or the factors of absorption. There the meditating worker in respiration examines the body (rupa) thinking thus: Supported by what is respiration? Supported by the basis. The basis is the coarse body. The coarse body is composed of the Four Great Primaries and the corporeality derived from these. The worker in respiration examines the respiration while devoting himself to the development of insight through the means of corporeality. ... The worker in respiration examines the mind and the body, sees the Dependent Origination of ignorance and so forth, and concluding that this mind and this body are bare conditions, and things produced from conditions, and that besides these there is neither a living being nor a person, becomes to that extent a person who transcends doubt. Besides these phenomena there is neither a living being nor a person refers to vision that is purified. 32051 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 5:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) James --- buddhatrue wrote: > Friend Jon, ... James: [Jon: That indeed would be so as long as the understanding remains at an intellectual level. But the teachings about satipatthana and vipassana are given to demonstrate the possibility of direct realization of these truths, by a gradually deepening understanding of the presently occurring dhammas.] But what K. Sujin was writing about was purely intellectual. She didn't write anything about satipatthana and vipassana, she wrote about an intellectual construct. She described a way to view the world in an artificial manner in order to somehow force wisdom. If I start viewing everything as a concept is that going to make me enlightened? Wouldn't that even make the viewing itself a concept? Concept piled on concept piled on concept. Where does it all end? I don't think this is what the Buddha taught. He taught to rid the mind of defilements (desire, ill-will, and ignorance) and then reality will be viewed properly. He didn't teach to somehow view reality like an enlightened person would and, consequently, that will make one become enlightened. This approach is fake to me and not what the Buddha taught. Jon: If you have another look at the passage (which I've pasted at the end of this message) I think you'll find it doesn't really say what you perhaps at first took it to mean. One or two instances of this come up in the remaining part of your message (see following). James: You didn't give me a sutta reference like I requested in this post, where the Buddha said that everything should be viewed as concepts of an identical nature (thanks for not using a bunch of Pali though!! ;-)). Jon: Actually, no-one is saying that everything should be viewed as concepts, whether of an identical nature or otherwise; I think the main thrust of the comments has been that the distinction between dhammas and concepts needs to be known. When the Buddha spoke about dhammas (or aggregates, sense bases, elements, truths, dependent origination, and the like) this is to be understood as not including concepts. In understanding the distinction between dhammas and concepts, it needs to be remembered that both the idea of a grape and the idea of a picture of a grape are equally not dhammas, but concepts. BTW, there was no request for a sutta reference in your post as far as I can see (Msg No. 31940). You just said, "I would welcome any explanation (with as few Pali words as possible ;-) if you either feel so inclined." , which I dutifully did. ;-)). James: [Jon: Absolutely; the enlightened person does not lose the conventional perspective, but he no longer takes it for something that it isn't.] And what is it not? How do you know? Are you claiming to be enlightened or at least close enough to know this? I am not criticizing you, I just need to consider the source of this information. After all, you and I both have a lot of delusion in our minds- how can we determine what an enlightened person knows? Jon: I was simply referring to the fact that the sotapanna has eradicated the fetter of wrong view. James: [Jon: And hardly a word of Pali (none you wouldn't use yourseld, I think ;-))] ... Now, if I could just get you into the habit of quoting sutta references! ;-)) After all, the Nikayas are a more pure source of insight than either of our opinions. Jon: Agreed, and I'm happy to provide sutta references for any point of mine that you find doubtful or controversial. Jon "The instant one recognizes the things appearing is the instant one knows pannatti because pannatti is to make known in such and such a way. Even without naming them, to see painting of fruits and real ones, which is pannatti? Both are. Pannatti is not paramattha. What are paramattha? What are the differences between real fruits and their paintings? In the instant of seeing through the eyes, all that appear through the eyes are not animals, people, the selves or objects of any kinds whether in the instant of seeing paintings of grapes or that of seeing the fruits. Some might misunderstand that only the painting is pannatti, and not the fruit. But in reality both the picture and the fruit that appear through the eyes are pannatti-arammana of the continued processes of the mano-dvara-vithi-citta because the cakkhu-dvara- vithi-citta would know the colors that appear while the mano-dvara- vithi-citta would know pannatti or the meanings of grapes, because it is made known in such and such a manner that they are grapes whether they are the grapes or their paintings, both are pannatti- arammana, and not paramattha-arammana." 32052 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 5:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Satipatthana - Covetousness and grief Rob M --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Jon (and Nina), > > I realize that a Dhamma discussion should not be conducted like > haggling at a fish market, but.... tell ya what, let's meet half way :-) ... > I will agree with your first point that the Sutta refers to the > temporary abandoning overcoming of the hindrances (not the > uprooting of the hindrances). > > I ask you to agree with my point that this is a pre-condition to > satipatthana rather than an outcome. I base this on two points: > 1. The text certainly reads this way (at least to me) > 2. Accepting the alternative is contradictory; it would imply from > the introduction that satipatthana leads to the overcoming of > hindrances (and as we know, this leads to jhanas) wheras the > conclusion clearly states that satipatthana leads to sainthood > (non- > returning) > > So what'cha say, we gotta deal? :-) I'm always happy to do a deal with an agreeable guy like you, Rob, but would it be in both our best interests? ;-)) Regarding your first point, <<1. The text certainly reads this way (at least to me)>>, please consider the excerpts from the sutta and commentary pasted below, especially the bits I have highlighted or commented on. Do they not seem to indicate that there is no such precondition to satipatthana? Regarding your second point, <<2. Accepting the alternative is contradictory; it would imply from the introduction that satipatthana leads to the overcoming of hindrances (and as we know, this leads to jhanas) wheras the conclusion clearly states that satipatthana leads to sainthood (non-returning)>>, I think the introduction to the sutta refers to the *eradication* of the kilesas (eradication being something that is final and irreversible); and eradication is associated with the attainment of enlightenment. In the case of jhana it is the *abandonment* of the kilesas that is referred to, and this means temporary suppression only. I would add in relation to jhanas/the abandonment of the hindrances that, to my understanding, it is the strength of absorption that suppresses the hindrances, rather than the suppression of hindrances that leads to jhana. Happy to be corrected on this. Jon From 'The Way of Mindfulness' by Soma Thera (translation of the Satipatthana Sutta and commentary) Sutta: Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus as follows: "This is the only way, O bhikkhus, for the *purification of beings*, for the *overcoming of sorrow and lamentation*, for the *destruction of suffering and grief*, for reaching the right path, for the attainment of Nibbana, namely, the Four Arousings of Mindfulness." "What are the four? "Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly comprehending (it) and mindful (of it), having overcome, in this world, covetousness and grief; ... Comm: After the pointing out of the things that make up the condition connected with the Arousing of Mindfulness through body-contemplation, there is the pointing out of the things that make up the condition which should be abandoned in this practice with the words, "having overcome, in this world, covetousness and grief" = Vineyya loke abhijjhadomanassam. ... [J: It seems to me the commentary here is saying that the qualities of being 'ardent, clearly comprehending and mindful' as mentioned in the sutta are the 'things that make up the condition connected with the Arousing of Mindfulness', while the 'covetousness and grief' of the sutta are the 'things that make up the condition which should be abandoned' in the practice], "Having overcome" refers to the discipline of knocking out an evil quality by its opposite good (that is by dealing with each category of evil separately) or through the overcoming of evil part by part [tadangavinaya] and through the disciplining or the overcoming of the passions by suppression in absorption [vikkhambhana vinaya]. Sub-Comm: Preliminary practice connected with the *mundane path of mindfulness* is pointed out by the commentator here. Comm: "In this world." In just this body. Here the body [kaya] is the world [loka], in the sense of a thing crumbling. As covetousness and grief are abandoned in feeling, consciousness, and mental objects, too, the Vibhanga says: "Even the five aggregates of clinging are the world." Covetousness stands for sense desire; and grief, for anger. As sense desire and anger are the principal hindrances, the abandoning of the hindrances is stated by the overcoming of covetousness and grief. ... By the instruction dealing with the overcoming of covetousness and grief, yogic power and yogic skill are shown. ... Sutta: [The Contemplation on Mental Objects 1. The Five Hindrances] "And how, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental objects in mental objects? "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the mental objects in the mental objects of the five hindrances. "How, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental objects in the mental objects of the five hindrances? "Here, O bhikkhus, *when sensuality is present, a bhikkhu knows with understanding: 'I have sensuality,'* or when sensuality is not present, he knows with understanding: 'I have no sensuality.'.... *When anger is present, he knows with understanding: 'I have anger,'* or when anger is not present, he knows with understanding: 'I have no anger.' ... 32053 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 5:59am Subject: Re: [dsg]satipatthanasutta Jack --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: ... > The Buddha had specific teachings aimed at people at different > levels of > mental accomplishment. He taught recognizing breath as long, short, etc., to > beginners to get them to recognize how one breath is different from another and > temporary, how the body (sensation of the breath) can affect the mind, etc. It depends on your definition of 'beginner' ;-)). It's true that in the Anapanasati Sutta (which you mention below) the monks who were practising mindfulness of breathing were the least attained of the monks mentioned by the Buddha, but I think it's also apparent that they were well-accomplished in the development of insight. Likewise, in the Satipatthana Sutta the teaching is described as being for a person who is able to *arouse mindfulness in the object of meditation*, namely, the breath which is in front of him, and this to me indicates a person of well-developed mindfulness. > As one develops mental muscles, one is taught how to use to breath to increase > concentation and develop insight. The Anapanasati Sutta presents this progression > of use of the breath very well. As I see it, the Anapanasati Sutta teaches those who are adept at samatha with breath as object how insight can be developed on the basis of their samatha practice. But that insight development involves objects other than breathing. > It starts with recognizing the breath as long > or short and ends with use of the breath to see phenomena as > temporary, empty and not satisfactory. But on my reading, the phenomena that are seen a anicca/dukkha/anatta are not the breath or even necessarily the phenomena that are taken as being the breath. In short, when it comes to insight breath is just the jumping off point. I'd be happy to look at particular passages from the Anapanasati Sutta (or any other) if you'd like to pursue this interesting subject further. Jon 32054 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 6:11am Subject: Re: [dsg]satipatthanasutta Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and Ken) - ... Howard: Jon, I agree with your response, and, Ken, I think you made a good point. The Satipatthana and Anapanasati Suttas describe both formal meditation and infromal,and both samatha and vipassana bhavana, and the vipassana bhavana is definitely mailny in the context of "informal meditation". Jon: I see the suttas as a whole as making a distinction between samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana, and the monk's life and lay life, but not between 'formal meditation' and 'informal meditation'. As far as I'm aware, these 2 terms do not represent any particular terms used or situations described in the texts. The references to sitting cross-legged and with an erect spine etc appear mainly (or wholly) in the context of (advanced) mindfulness of breathing. There are of course a number of references to 'sitting' and 'walkling' in the texts, and exhortations for monks to live a solitary, forest life and the like because of the benefits to be gained, but nowhere are these referred to in contradistinction to non-formal 'practice'. Jon 32055 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 6:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James (and Jon) - ... James, I agree with you about "mere belief". However, knowing what to look for sometimes helps one's direct investigations (though, of course, it can also skew them). I have long had a phenomenalist view, but I have now also had it confirmed to an extent by "direct looking". It has become experientially clear to me that I don't "hear rain," I hear sound. I don't "see a tree," I see a (patterned) sight. I don't "feel my body," I feel bodily sensation. But I do *think* of hearing rain, seeing trees, and feeling my body. After a while, when direct looking is practiced along with clear comprehension of what one actually experiences, the theory does not remain as theory. With metta, Howard Jon: But 'direct looking' is not part of the teachings found in the suttas (unless it is your own term for something else mentioned there). So whatever a person experienced or realized as a result of such a practice would not be the understanding of which the Buddha spoke, regardless of how great the similarities may appear to the person. Jon 32056 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 7:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Rob M Thanks for the extract from the PTS Dictionary. As I see it, the crucial question here is whether pannatti are included among the 'dhammas' (or the aggregates, the sense-bases, the elements, the truths) as mentioned by the Buddha throughout the suttas. Quite a lot turns on the answer to that. If the relatively few references in the texts has any significance, it may point to a 'no' answer. Any thoughts? Jon --- robmoult wrote: > Hi James and all, > > The term pannatti is not included in Nyanatiloka's Dictionary. > > I found the following entry in the 1778 page PTS Pali Dictionary: > > Paññatti (f.) [fr. paññapeti, cp. paññatta] making known, > manifestation, description, designation, name, idea, notion, > concept. > On term see Cpd. 3 sq., 198, 199; Kvu trsln 1; Dhs trsln 340. -- M > III.68; S III.71; IV.38 (mara-), 39 (satta-, dukkha-, loka-); A > II.17; V.190; Ps II.171, 176; Pug 1; Dhs I.309; Nett 1 sq., 38, > 188; > KhA 102, 107; DA I.139; SnA 445, 470; PvA 200. The spelling also > occurs as pannatti, e. g. at J II.65 (-vahara); Miln 173 (loka-); > KhA > 28; adj. pannattika (q. v.). > > Here are the expansions for the short forms of the texts: > Cpd. = Compendium of Philosophy (Abhidhammatthsangaha) > Kvu = Kathavatthu - 5th book of Abhidhamma > Dhs = Dhammasangani - 1st book of Abhidhamma > M = Majjhima Nikaya > S = Samyutta Nikaya > A = Anguttara Nikaya > Ps = Patisambhidamagga > Pug = Puggala-Paññatti - 4th book of Abhidhamma > Nett = Netti-Pakarana > Kha = Khuddaka-Patha Commentary > DA = Sumangala-Vilasini > SnA = Sutta-Nipata Commentary > PvA = Peta-Vatthu Commentary > J = Jataka > Miln = Milindapañha > > Clearly, this is a very minor term in the Nikayas. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 32057 From: abhidhammika Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 7:24am Subject: Re: Vipassanaa As A Synonym Of Anupassanaa In Satipa.t.thaana Suttam Dear Sarah, Nina, Chris and all How are you? Sarah wrote: "I also tend to pause rather at translations using `constant mindfulness' (here for anussati). What do you think?" The Pali term "anussati" has the verb form "anussarati". The linguistic meaning of "anussarati" is simply to recollect, remember again and again. Thus, the Pali term "sati" means remembering or recollecting or following of the present phenomena while "anussati" would mean consistent remembering or consistent following of the same phenomenon again and again. Mindfulness as a translation of the Pali term "sati" is now more popular and well established. But, I tend to feel that being mindful is the result of remembering the present phenomenon. To keep the vipassanaa practice within our conceptual control, I prefer the operational understanding of sati as remembering or consistent following of our present fresh experiences of phenomena as they occur. The result of such consistent remembering or consistent following of the present phenomena would be mindfulness, of course. I will, of course, come back to the further discussion of Bhaddekaratta Suttam as I promised Nina as well. :-) In the meanwhile, either you or Chris, please reproduce here a translation of "Aaka~nkheyya" Suttam from Majjhimanikaaya by Bhikkhu Bodhi. I saw a translation of the same Suttam from Anguttaranikaaya by Thannissaro Bhikkhu in asscesstoinsight. The version from Majjhimanikaaya is more elaborate than the Anguttara one. The following is the Pali passages from Vibha~nga as you requested. 358. Viharatiiti. Iriyati vattati paaleti yapeti yaapeti carati viharati. Tena vuccati "viharatii"ti. 359. Aataapiiti. Tattha katamo aataapo? Yo cetasiko viiri yaarambho …pe… sammaavaayaamo– ayam vuccati "aataapo". Iminaa aataapena upeto hoti samupeto upaagato samupaagato upapanno sampanno samannaagato. Tena vuccati "aataapii"ti. With regards, Suan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: Dear Suan, I've been meaning to get back to our Vibha~nga thread: --- 32058 From: Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 4:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] tiika Vis 72, part 1. Hi, Larry (and Rob) - In a message dated 4/8/04 11:57:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Rob, > > Are you saying that there is no intention in an arahant's javana cittas? > Is the cause of suffering intention? > > Larry > ===================== My understanding has been that the cetana of an arahant is neutral (kiriya - purely functional), and I have taken that to mean that is is fully divested of,and unconditioned by, any sense of I or mine or graspable "thing", and, thus, is unaccompanied by tanha or upadana, the primary causes of dissatifaction. As I understand it, in a non-arahant the sankhara khandha and sa~n~na are infected by the tendency towards internal and external reification (primal ignorance), but in the arahant, this infection has been completely and permanently removed, and along with that removal came the radical purification of all functions and the cessation of some such as craving, aversion, and grasping. This process of purification and removal would leave cetana operations of only a neutral sort. Even the compassion, lovingkindness, and sympathetic joy so characteristic of an arahant's personality are balanced by his/her fully developed equanimity and selflessness, and would function in a purified form, freed of even the slightest element of self-orientation. 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) 32059 From: Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 4:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/9/04 12:12:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > James: "For all practical purposes, the `all´ and the `world´ should > be considered how the Buddha described it in that sutta and there is no > practical reason to consider a broader all." > > Hi James and Sarah, > > Did the Buddha say anything about reason? Isn't reason a reason to > reason a greater reality? Isn't the functioning of a sense-base > understood (by us, james, sarah &larry) by reason? According to > abhidhamma the only thing we (j, s, &l) know directly is meaningless > sense data. In a way, becoming absorbed in meaningless sense data is an > at least temporary end of desire just because it is meaningless. > > Larry > ============================= Reason is concept manipulation of a certain type. It is useful for wending our way through our mind-constructed storybook. When misused, it keeps our head buried in the book. When used well, it can help us realize that there is something more than our book of stories, and lead us to put that book down from time to time, and instead learn to develop our underused "wisdom eye" which sees directly what is what. 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) 32060 From: Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 4:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Illusion of Control Hi, Ken (and Rob) - I agree with pretty much everything you write below, Ken. But there is a "Yet, still!" that needs to be added, which I will discuss mainly at the end. I also include a few comments throughout the body of your post. In a message dated 4/9/04 2:32:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > > Hi Rob M, > > With help from my dsg friends, I am learning to understand Dhamma > strictly in terms of nama and rupa. Some say I take it too far: > they say (perhaps with some justification) that the Buddha didn't > only teach ultimate truth, he also taught conventional truth. But I > will have none of that. If any so-called teaching of the Buddha > can't be understood in terms of nama and rupa, then I don't want to > know about it. :-) ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, it all can be understood in such a manner. But there is understanding, and there is understanding. An intellectual translation of the Buddha's suttic teachings into "ultimate form" is not the sort of understanding that is liberative, though it can certainly be useful. ---------------------------------------------- > > You wrote: > ----------- > >My understanding is that bhavana is an > activity (like dana and sila), not a citta accompanied by wisdom. > > --------------------- > > Sorry, this does not compute! :-) What activity could you be > referring to? What activity (of action, speech or thought) is there > that is other than citta and cetasika? > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yep, I agree - that is the reality. ------------------------------------------------- > > You are an expert on the classification of cittas, so I am hesitant > to suggest which of them can qualify as bhavana. Presumably it can > be prompted, or unprompted, joyful or indifferent, always karmically > wholesome and always with panna. In the sensuous field, that narrows > the field to four, does it not? > > And what about dana and sila? According to my understanding, they > include the same four plus those karmically wholesome cittas without > panna – making eight. Corrections welcome. > > -------------- > RM:> I looked up the term in Nyanatiloka's Dictionary and it would > appear to agree with my understanding. > ---------------- > > When we read a definition of mental development, we need to remember > that our mind is not something that persists in time and which we > can mould into shape (or put things into and take things out of). > The mind is born and dies in a single, fleeting moment; that is when > mental development must take place. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Agreed. Now if only we *knew* that, and didn't just conceive it! --------------------------------------------------- > > Working backwards through your post (just to be different), I see > you have asked: > ---------------- > > What is meant by 'formal meditation'; how is it > different from 'informal meditation' (if that is the opposite)? > > ---------------------- > > Formal meditation is a concept. Sarah described it as the `idea of > meditation.' Just like ideas of seeing and hearing, ideas of > bhavana are easy to grasp and dwell on because they can arise with > ignorance (and we have plenty of that). The actual, momentary, > seeing, hearing and bhavana, we don't grasp nearly so well. They can > only be known by citta with panna. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, all true. However - there are complex relations that hold among the momentary actualities, and a concept such as that of a process of meditation is a way of (indirectly) grasping not only the actualities involved, but also the multi-layered pattern of relations among them. ------------------------------------------------ > > To digress: The thing that intrigues me is that we might admit we > can't control paramattha dhammas but still think we can control > concepts. (I fall into that trap all the time.) In fact, there is > no control over anything (the uncontrollable dhammas created the > concepts in the first place). > > We might say; "Look, I wanted to sit down and now I am sitting down – > control! I wanted to close my eyes and think about anatta and that > is what I am doing. Maybe there is no control over ultimate reality > but there certainly is over conventional reality!" > > That is what happens during formal meditation – belief in control. > Admittedly, it also happens throughout the rest of the day but at > those other times we are not turning it into a ritualistic practice. > > ---------- > RM: >I am not saying that the Buddha endorsed self-belief. I am > observing > that the Buddha often encouraged monks to take action. The Buddha > encouraged action with "desire, endeavour and persistance" without > endorsing self belief. > > ------------ > > Or, to put that another way, "without endorsing the idea of > control." > > The monks, who heeded the Buddha's encouragement, didn't formally > (ritualistically) practice the Dhamma. Desire, endeavour, > persistence, and so on, happened because the required conditions for > their happening were there. > > -------------- > RM: >In my previous post, I gave the example of fear being a > motivator for > me to study the dhamma (to make sure that I was prepared for my > class). To state this does not mean that I believe the fear is > kusala. After this fear arose, I did two things: > - Acknowledged this mental state as aksuala (object condition) > - Allowed this mental state to motivate me (natural decisive support > condition) > -------------- > > No argument there. Those things can happen before we even think > about them – before we can introduce the idea of control. :-) > > Kind regards, > Ken H > ========================= If we are honest with ourselves, our world of experience is 98% a world of conceptual experience. Using the intellect to conceive of a world of actuality is still involving oneself in the world of concepts, but we can easily fool ourselves into thinking otherwise. The fact is, we start where we are, not where we would hope to be. The Buddha addressed beings like us, fully immersed in the sham world of mental construct, and he taught us to proceed with specific efforts from within our current sham world which cultivate, and train, and purify, so that we take ourselves from within the very midst of the darkness of ignorance into the light of wisdom. But substituting belief in a intellectual theory of ultimate reality is an ineffective alternative to engaging in the conventional practices taught by the Buddha that lead to purification of mind and 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) 32061 From: Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 5:11am Subject: Re: [dsg]satipatthanasutta .. jack:> The Buddha had specific teachings aimed at people at different > levels of mental accomplishment. He taught recognizing breath as long, short, etc., to beginners to get them to recognize how one breath is different from another and temporary, how the body (sensation of the breath) can affect the mind, etc. Jon:>>It depends on your definition of 'beginner' ;-)). It's true that in the Anapanasati Sutta (which you mention below) the monks who were practising mindfulness of breathing were the least attained of the monks mentioned by the Buddha, but I think it's also apparent that they were well-accomplished in the development of insight. Likewise, in the Satipatthana Sutta the teaching is described as being for a person who is able to *arouse mindfulness in the object of meditation*, namely, the breath which is in front of him, and this to me indicates a person of well-developed mindfulness.<< Jon, we interpret this differently. For instance, I disagree with your last sentence above. I don't think the Satipatthana Sutta is aimed at individuals many not above the attainment of people we interact with on different Buddhist Internet lists. When I said beginner, I didn't mean someone who is just starting out meditating. It is my experience that even very experienced meditators are beginners at times. I don't mean this in the sense of "beginners mind." I know a senior monk who many times begins his mediation practice by awareness of the length of a breath (step 1 in the Anapanasati Sutta), then goes through the subsequent steps. Our powers wax and wane and, at times, require our going back to the basics. jack> As one develops mental muscles, one is taught how to use to breath to increase concentation and develop insight. The Anapanasati Sutta presents this progression of use of the breath very well. jon: As I see it, the Anapanasati Sutta teaches those who are adept at samatha with breath as object how insight can be developed on the basis of their samatha practice. But that insight development involves objects other than breathing. See Below. All steps in the Anap. Sutta involve the breath. > It starts with recognizing the breath as long > or short and ends with use of the breath to see phenomena as > temporary, empty and not satisfactory. jon: >>But on my reading, the phenomena that are seen a anicca/dukkha/anatta are not the breath or even necessarily the phenomena that are taken as being the breath. In short, when it comes to insight breath is just the jumping off point.<< Anapanasati is translated as mindfulness of breathing. All the 16 steps involve learning anicca/dukkha/anatta through contemplation of breathing. For instance, the 13th step involves learning impermanence by observing the breath. jack I'd be happy to look at particular passages from the Anapanasati Sutta (or any other) if you'd like to pursue this interesting subject further. Jon 32062 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 11:08am Subject: Tiika Vis 72, no 2. Tiika Vis 72, no 2. Relevant text Vis 72: ...with conditions, mundane, subject to cankers' (Dhs. 584), and so on. sappaccaya.m lokiya.m saasavamevaatiaadinaa nayena ekavidha.m. Tiika Vis. 72 (part 2) Paccayaadhiinavuttitaaya saha paccayenaati sappaccaya.m. As to the expression, with conditions, this is with reference to what was said about conditions and so on *. Attano paccayehi loke niyutta.m, viditanti vaa lokiya.m. It (rupa) is by its own conditions joined to the world, or it is known as mundane **. Aa bhavagga.m, aa gotrabhu.m vaa savantiiti aasavaa, saha aasavehiiti saasava.m, aasavehi aalambitabbanti attho. The intoxicants (cankers) flow up to the topmost plane of existence, and up to the adaptation-consciousness, and thus they are intoxicants *** , (materiality) occurs with the intoxicants and thus it is co-intoxicant, and this means that it takes hold of the intoxicants ****. Aadisaddena sa.myojaniiya.m oghaniiya.m yoganiiya.m niivara.niiya.m sa.mkilesika.m paraama.t.tha.m As to the expression, Œand so on¹ (subject to cankers and so on), this refers to its being object of clinging for the fetters, the floods, the yokes, the hindrances, the defilements *****. acetasika.m cittavippayutta.m naruupaavacara.m na-aruupaavacara.m na-apariyaapanna.m Rupa is not cetasika, dissociated from citta, not jhanacitta of material or immaterial jhana, it is unincluded (not lokuttara), aniyata.m aniyyaanika.m aniccanti evamaadiina.m sa"ngaho da.t.thabbo. it is inconstant, not leading out (of the cycle), it is indeed impermanent, and thus this treatise should be regarded. ***** English: Relevant text Vis 72: ...with conditions, mundane, subject to cankers' (Dhs. 584), and so on. Tiika Vis. 72 (part 2) As to the expression, with conditions, this is with reference to what was said about conditions and so on *. It (rupa) is by its own conditions joined to the world, or it is known as mundane **. The intoxicants (cankers) flow up to the topmost plane of existence, and up to the adaptation-consciousness, and thus they are intoxicants *** , (materiality) occurs with the intoxicants and thus it is co-intoxicant, and this means that it takes hold of the intoxicants ****. As to the expression, Œand so on¹ (subject to cankers and so on), this refers to its being object of clinging for the fetters, the floods, the yokes, the hindrances, the defilements *****. Rupa is not cetasika, dissociated from citta, not jhanacitta of material or immaterial jhana, it is unincluded (not lokuttara), it is inconstant, not leading out (of the cycle), it is indeed impermanent, and thus this treatise should be regarded. _______________ * Rupa arises because of conditions and it is itself a condition for other rupas and for nama. **Expositor I, p. 63: States which are joined to the world by being included therein are termed worldly. All those rupas experienced through the six doors are the world in which we live. *** The word association is lost in the English translation: ³aa² is ³up to² and ³savati² is to flow. Aa-sava is canker or intoxicant. They are: the intoxicant of sensuous desire, of desire for rebirth, of wrong view and of ignorance. They are to be found even in the highest plane of existence. They are only eradicated stage by stage by the lokuttara magga-cittas. The adaptation-consciousness, gotrabhuu, is the last mundane citta arising in the process during which enlightenment occurs. **** the co-intoxicants are the rupas which are the objects of intoxicants occurring together with the arisen intoxicants. Remark: rupa is the object of numerous kinds of defilements. However, its duration is extremely short, only as long as seventeen moments of citta and then it is gone completely. It is very insignificant, but we think about rupa with intoxicants and make it into something very great and important. *****These are different defilements classified as groups: the fetters fetter us to the cycle of birth and death, the floods submerge us in the cycle, the bonds tie us to it, the hindrances obstruct us, the defilements are impure and defile the mind. Note: rupa is not cetasika, not associated with citta: this reminds us that rupa is entirely different from nama and should be known as such. ******* Nina. 32063 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 11:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sankhaara, Suan and Mike Dear Suan and Mike, Suan, thank you very much. Mike: could you give the passage with the compound sankhaarupaadaana? It looks to me this way: clinging to conditioned dhammas (san"khaara dhammas). Sankhaarakkhandha, as Suan explained, < even > though cetanaa cetasika is used as the head term (siisena), the > activation aggregate covers all the remaining mental associates > (cetasikas) as well - that is to say, those mental associates > excepting feeling (vedanaa) which is covered by the feeling > aggregate, and memory (saññaa) which is covered by the memory > aggregate.> I would like to add something. Sa.nkharoti: to prepare, put together. A. Sujin often says, sati and pa~n~naa are accumulated as sankhaarakkhandha and this is very meaningful. Listening, intellectual understanding of Dhamma, considering, beginning to be aware, all those moments are accumulated together with the good qualities that are included in sankhaarakkhandha, arising and falling away each moment. Confidence, detachment, kindness, energy for kusala, generosity, they all condition and are conditioned by understanding, even understanding on the intellectual level. Take for example confidence: to the extent understanding grows confidence in the Triple Gem also grows, confidence in the Path we have to continue developing with courage and perseverance. Generosity helps to become less self-involved. Suan uses the word activation aggregate, and this shows that there is no passivity, no non-action. We learn Abhidhamma so that we understand that citta and cetasika take action. Thus, all good qualities are accumulated, they condition one another and they condition the arising of sati-sampaja~n~na, sati and pa~n~naa that is directly aware and understands whatever appears. Sati does not arise often, but, it is understanding that matters and understanding grows. Nina. op 07-04-2004 16:02 schreef abhidhammika op suanluzaw@b...: > Mike, when you wrote "sankhaarupaadaana", did you > mean "sankhaarupekkhaa"? 32064 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 11:08am Subject: Re:Patience and Courage Dear Christine, op 09-04-2004 00:52 schreef christine_forsyth op cforsyth@v...: > I'm still not understanding the use of the term 'develop' on dsg - > e.g. in 'we must develop' this or that quality - khanti, viriya, or > any of the perfections, or panna. Isn't this requiring a 'self' > to 'do something'? N: Not at all! Understanding is the great motivator. When you consider the perfections and read about them, understand them, you see their benefit. They are all cetasikas and they grow together with understanding of nama and rupa. There are citta and cetasika, where is room for a self who does something? We learn Abhidhamma in order to understand anatta. I like the word viriya, it is associated with the word for heroe: viiro. We have to be heroic to be aware of the reality of this moment, so that we eventually cross the flood of the cycle of existence. That means, never losing courage, even when sati of satipatthana does not often arise. Understanding is growing for sure, even when we do not see much progress. Who speaks of inaction? See my post to Mike. We can accumulate all good qualities exactly in daily life, even in very small, seemingly insignificant matters. That is the development. But you do, by your work in the hospital. Don't you accumulate patience, good speech, kindness, compassion? When understanding sees more and more the benefit of these qualities you become more sensitive for the occasions to practise them when you are with other people. Ch: How would this be different to 'formal meditation'? (smile) N: As Rob M wrote: I believe, different people mean something different by the word formal. This can give rise to needless misunderstandings and debates about words. And, as Rob says, meditation is bhavana, mental development. But, as I see it, each form of bhavana needs to be done with right understanding. There are several forms of it: studying texts, listening, considering, discussing, and also calm, why not? And vipassana. When I consider the teachings my confidence in the Buddha grows. I can pay respect to the Buddha, I can reflect on his virtues. Or reflect on death, or reflect on Abhidhamma. Is that not meditation? I remember Dan's words, when reflecting on the Abhidhamma the Master is not far from you. Yes, through the Abhidhamma we come to know the Enlighted One. I can reflect in the kitchen, a good place. Also, early morning, in between during the day and late (for me late!) at night, after my Pali Tiika study, I listen to MP3, sitting quietly! Listening with care and respect, making notes for reflection. Call it meditation, that is fine. Moreover, when we understand that it is citta and cetasika which meditate, and that understanding is the goal, we shall fare safely. Everyone should find out what is beneficial for him, and also, it depends on the circumstances of his life what he is able to do. But, as A. Sujin keeps on asking us: is there any understanding of this moment? Some quotes: Nina. P.S. Sarah, I can recommend to Jon the MP3 of Pakinnakas, there are two of them. Excellent. 32065 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 11:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sabbasutta Dear Sarah, Rob K wrote about the sabbasutta. Could you please repost it? Nina op 08-04-2004 11:32 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: . K.Sujin > also refers to them in ch 23 ‘The World’, Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, > translated by Nina and soon to be published by the Foundation in Bkk. 32066 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 1:34pm Subject: Re:Patience and Courage Hi Nina, and all, Thank-you for your reply - I'll print it and read it on the plane - wa-a-a-y behind with packing, and need to do two trips to take the dog, and his bedding down to the Boarding Kennels. Hard to make an unwilling Great Dane cross get in the back of a toyota Echo when he is saying, "Hell no! we won't go!" ... I never knew that'd come back to haunt me after all these years. (smile) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Christine, > op 09-04-2004 00:52 schreef christine_forsyth op cforsyth@v...: > > > I'm still not understanding the use of the term 'develop' on dsg - > > e.g. in 'we must develop' this or that quality - khanti, viriya, or > > any of the perfections, or panna. Isn't this requiring a 'self' > > to 'do something'? > N: Not at all! Understanding is the great motivator. When you consider the > perfections and read about them, understand them, you see their benefit. 32067 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 2:15pm Subject: How Release HOW RELEASE When it comes, it comes. When it goes, it goes. When it stays, it stays. When it strays, it strays. When it calms, it calms. When it smiles, it smiles. When it stills, it stills. When it releases, it releases. HTOO NAING 32068 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 3:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sabbasutta Dear Nina, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah, > Rob K wrote about the sabbasutta. Could you please repost it? ..... I can’t recall the post you’re thinking of - I asked Jon and he can’t either. Perhaps you’re thinking of one by Kom, Suan or myself? There are some detailed messages, also looking at some key terms and the commentary notes by Kom, Christine, Jon, Sarah (2), Suan, Howard, in U.P: ‘Sabba Sutta (The All)’ 18364, 19013, 19095, 22807, 22836, 23097, 29452 I also checked escribe under ‘Sabba’ for Rob, but couldn’t find one, unless you’re referring to one of these: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m18871.html> http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m1910.html> Perhaps someone else may recall sth and be able to help or you could ask Rob himself. It may have been saved under another category and I’ve forgotten. Metta, Sarah ====== 32069 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 3:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vipassanaa As A Synonym Of Anupassanaa In Satipa.t.thaana Suttam Dear Suan, I'll get back on the rest of your post later when I have time. Many thanks. Just one thing: --- abhidhammika wrote: > > In the meanwhile, either you or Chris, please reproduce here a > translation of "Aaka~nkheyya" Suttam from Majjhimanikaaya by Bhikkhu > Bodhi. I saw a translation of the same Suttam from Anguttaranikaaya > by Thannissaro Bhikkhu in asscesstoinsight. The version from > Majjhimanikaaya is more elaborate than the Anguttara one. .... It's an interesting sutta and I look f/w to any discussions. Chris is flying off on holiday today and I'll also be busy before I leave in a few days(and in any case have to try to avoid such long typing - dr's orders). Many people have this text, perhaps others can help - maybe a section at a time, or perhaps someone has access to a scanner? The title Aakankheyya is translated by BB as 'If a Bhikkhu Should Wish'. Do you have any comments on the Pali term? Metta, Sarah ====== 32070 From: Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 4:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Hi Rob, Nina, and Howard, What is the difference between rooted compassion and rootless compassion? Technically, no form of desire could arise in a compassionate javana series. So there can't be a question of self-interest except in a broader manifold. (Although ordinary consciousness is always a jumble of many elements.) Is it a question of how precisely can we qualify "intention"? Is intention desire or something else? Inertia? Goal orientation? Is an arahant's javana intention like an ordinary person's sense consciousness intention? Larry 32071 From: Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 5:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi James, Here's an autocommentary: Sarah thinks sense consciousness is the "all" and any forming of that consciousness is concept. So sankhara in the sense of mental formation is concept. Concept is unconditioned and not-impermanent. A loaf of bread is unconditioned, not made, and not impermanent. But the color, texture, temperature, smell, taste, and nutritional essence associated with the bread concept is conditioned, produced, impermanent. Furthermore, the association of color with texture etc. is conceptual as far as we (Sarah, James, & Larry) can determine. In other words, a matter of reason, not direct knowledge. As far as Sarah directly knows, the "bread" texture only "exists" when she touches it. Likewise for the other qualities. Food just happens for Sarah. There is no thing in the world called "bread" _that_we_can_directly_know. What do we (S,J,L) directly know? Random, disconnected sense data and emotions. Is this really all there is? Larry ps: Howard has the same view as Sarah but his definitions are eclectic. ---------------- L: "Did the Buddha say anything about reason? Isn't reason a reason to reason a greater reality? Isn't the functioning of a sense-base understood (by us, james, sarah & larry) by reason? According to abhidhamma the only thing we (j, s, &l) know directly is meaningless sense data. In a way, becoming absorbed in meaningless sense data is an at least temporary end of desire just because it is meaningless. 32072 From: Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 2:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/9/04 7:28:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Rob, Nina, and Howard, > > > What is the difference between rooted compassion and rootless > compassion? Technically, no form of desire could arise in a > compassionate javana series. So there can't be a question of > self-interest except in a broader manifold. (Although ordinary > consciousness is always a jumble of many elements.) Is it a question of > how precisely can we qualify "intention"? Is intention desire or > something else? Inertia? Goal orientation? Is an arahant's javana > intention like an ordinary person's sense consciousness intention? > > ====================== Well, I'll reply first - because I don't know what I'm talking about, and we might just as well get the unknowing answer out of the way fast! ;-)) It seems to me that intention is not desire nor even a more general chanda, though related closely to the latter. Intention, as I see it, is a sort of motive force or active inclination - and the term javana/impulsion/impulse is a very good one for it. I also believe that intention and compassion and all other mental operations are multiply, and variably, conditioned. Just as sa~n~na, for example, can be visual or auditory or tactile etc depending on conditioning sense medium, compassion can be variably conditioned. Compassion can be pure and strong and general, or tainted, weak, and restricted depending on what other mental conditions affected it. Perhaps it is so that desire doesn't enter into compassion per se, but even if that is so, doesn't that still allow for varying degrees of and types of compassion, and doesn't it also allow for a rapid alternation of compassion and less noble emotions? Even a monster like Hitler no doubt experienced compassion to some extent in certain contexts, but for the most part his compassion had to be weak, greatly restricted, rarely occurring, and intermixed with the basest of emotions and inclinations. On the other hand, an arahant's compassion would be frequent, powerful, and unrestricted, and pure (with no base states alternating with it), all this due to that compassion being conditioned only by fully untainted states. 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) 32073 From: Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 2:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi, Larry (and James, and Sarah) - In a message dated 4/9/04 8:32:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi James, > > Here's an autocommentary: > > Sarah thinks sense consciousness is the "all" and any forming of that > consciousness is concept. So sankhara in the sense of mental formation > is concept. Concept is unconditioned and not-impermanent. A loaf of > bread is unconditioned, not made, and not impermanent. But the color, > texture, temperature, smell, taste, and nutritional essence associated > with the bread concept is conditioned, produced, impermanent. > Furthermore, the association of color with texture etc. is conceptual as > far as we (Sarah, James, &Larry) can determine. In other words, a > matter of reason, not direct knowledge. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I can't speak for Sarah. I just don't know whether you are characterizing her position properly on this or not. But my position on the assertion " Concept is unconditioned and not-impermanent" is that no matter how one looks at it, this is either false or meaningless. If a concept is, as I think of it, an idea mentally produced and arising in the mind, then that is definitely conditioned and impermanent. If on the other hand, by 'concept' one is referring to an alleged literal referent of a complex idea such as "tree", then it is meaningless to say it is unconditioned and meaningless to say it is not-impermanant, because, literally, there is no tree to have any property. On the other hand, if one is talking conventionally, as, of course, we do 99% of the time, to truly believe that a tree is unconditioned and not-impermanent is to be simply out of one's mind! ;-)) ----------------------------------------------- > > As far as Sarah directly knows, the "bread" texture only "exists" when > she touches it. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: That sounds more like me than Sarah. I would be pleased were that her position, but I don't think it is. ------------------------------------------------ Likewise for the other qualities. Food just happens for> > Sarah. There is no thing in the world called "bread" > _that_we_can_directly_know. What do we (S,J,L) directly know? Random, > disconnected sense data and emotions. Is this really all there is? > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: No, there is also an extraordinarily complex net of relations holding among these phenomena/events. Without that web of relations, we would be unable to form concepts. ---------------------------------------------- > > Larry > ps: Howard has the same view as Sarah but his definitions are eclectic. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I don't think Sarah holds the same phenomenalist position as I do. Also, my definitions aren't eclectic - they're just idiosyncratic and weird! ;-)) ------------------------------------------------ > ---------------- > L: "Did the Buddha say anything about reason? Isn't reason a reason to > reason a greater reality? Isn't the functioning of a sense-base > understood (by us, james, sarah &larry) by reason? According to > abhidhamma the only thing we (j, s, &l) know directly is meaningless > sense data. In a way, becoming absorbed in meaningless sense data is an > at least temporary end of desire just because it is meaningless. ========================= 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) 32074 From: robmoult Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 8:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > What is the difference between rooted compassion and rootless > compassion? Technically, no form of desire could arise in a > compassionate javana series. So there can't be a question of > self-interest except in a broader manifold. (Although ordinary > consciousness is always a jumble of many elements.) Is it a question of > how precisely can we qualify "intention"? Is intention desire or > something else? Inertia? Goal orientation? Is an arahant's javana > intention like an ordinary person's sense consciousness intention? Only time for a quick answer. Compassion can only arise in beautiful cittas. All beautiful cittas have at least two roots (alobha, adosa). Some beautiful cittas also have the root of panna. In brief, I am not sure what you mean by "rootless compassion". I suggest that you do not use the term "desire" when referring to the cetasika chanda. It is too easy to confuse "desire" with lobha. You can describe chanda as "the mind reaching out to touch the object". Hope that this helps. Gotta go... Metta, Rob M :-) 32075 From: Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 8:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Hi Howard, I agree that compassion can manifest in various versions but I think, for consistency's sake anyway, we should analyze it the same way we analyze a 5-door object. As such, can we say compassion or any other emotion is a compound? Is hardness a compound? The main point of my line of reasoning is to get at what makes a root (kamma producer). Is your position that rootedness is in the quality of the dominant cetasika rather than in the quality of the intention? If so, should we say rooted wholesome cetasikas are not completely wholesome? Larry 32076 From: Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 9:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi again Howard, Looks like we're the only birds in the bush tonight. That concepts are unconditioned and therefore not impermanent is standard abhidhamma. My guess is the reasoning for this is something like you described here: H: "If on the other hand, by 'concept' one is referring to an alleged literal referent of a complex idea such as "tree", then it is meaningless to say it is unconditioned and meaningless to say it is not-impertinent, because, literally, there is no tree to have any property. L: The only reason it isn't completely meaningless is because a concept is a dhamma, an object of consciousness, and it is a conditioner (but not conditioned). -------------------- L: "What do we (S,J,L) directly know? Random, disconnected sense data and emotions. Is this really all there is?" H: "No, there is also an extraordinarily complex net of relations holding among these phenomena/events. Without that web of relations, we would be unable to form concepts." ---------------------- L: Are relations directly known by you? If so, how so? I don't think they are directly known by me in this very restricted sense of direct knowing of a rupa or cetasika. What the Buddha knows is only a concept for me. I agree there is a web of relations, but how do we know? Larry 32077 From: Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 9:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Rob: "I am not sure what you mean by "rootless compassion"." Hi Rob, I mean the compassion of an arahant. What is the difference between an arahant's compassion and an ordinary person's compassion in terms of cetasikas in a javana series? Also, is an arahant's javana intention the same as an ordinary person's functional consciousness intention? What accounts for an arahant's skill in terms of consciousness process? Larry 32078 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 9:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Dear Jon, op 09-04-2004 16:24 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonoabb@y...: > As I see it, the crucial question here is whether pannatti are > included among the 'dhammas' (or the aggregates, the sense-bases, the > elements, the truths) as mentioned by the Buddha throughout the > suttas. N: The Saddaniti (by Agavamsa, in the year 1154), as you remember, gives many meanings to the word dhamma, and one of these is pannatti. This is different from the suttas, it is another context. Such a study helps me to be careful in what context a term is used. You will find the terms nirutti and adhivacana we also saw in the Vis, and Tiika about the four Discriminations. This is what I wrote before: The Saddaniti explains the meaning of dhamma as concept: N: Words: pa~n~natti : designation, name, idea, notion. adhivacana (n): term attribute nirutti (f): interpretation, expression. The word pa~n~natti, concept, stands for name and for the idea expressed by a name or term. Names can designate what is reality in the absolute sense (paramattha dhammas, such as kusala, akusala, sound, etc.) and also what is not real in the absolute sense, such as person, house. Nina. 32079 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 9:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi Larry (& Victor & Howard), S: An autocommentary on what I’m meant to have said gets my attention and jumps the queue;-) --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi James, > > Here's an autocommentary: > > Sarah thinks sense consciousness is the "all" and any forming of that > consciousness is concept. .... S: Sorry, but no;-). In my recent post to Howard and James, I referred to: ‘all of the sense bases (ayatanasabba), i.e the phenomena of the four planes’. As you don’t like links, I think I’ll just requote a post below which elaborates in detail on this and I’ll be happy to discuss further. (Actually, you don't like long posts, so just ignore the re-post if you prefer). The sense consciousness are certainly not the ‘all’, nor is it a concept. .... >So sankhara in the sense of mental formation > is concept. .... S: Not as I understand. .... >Concept is unconditioned and not-impermanent. .... S: I wouldn’t say it like this. The only unconditioned dhamma is nibbana. Concepts don’t *exist*. .... >A loaf of > bread is unconditioned, not made, and not impermanent. But the color, > texture, temperature, smell, taste, and nutritional essence associated > with the bread concept is conditioned, produced, impermanent. > Furthermore, the association of color with texture etc. is conceptual as > far as we (Sarah, James, & Larry) can determine. In other words, a > matter of reason, not direct knowledge. .... S: Yes! .... > > As far as Sarah directly knows, the "bread" texture only "exists" when > she touches it. Likewise for the other qualities. .... S: I wouldn’t quite say that the texture ever *exists*. Only hardness/softness, temperature and motion are experienced by touch. Sorry to be picky, but as you’re giving me a commentary....;-) .... >Food just happens for > Sarah. There is no thing in the world called "bread" .... S: Sounds like it drops from the heavens for me;-) .... > _that_we_can_directly_know. What do we (S,J,L) directly know? Random, > disconnected sense data and emotions. Is this really all there is? > > Larry > ps: Howard has the same view as Sarah but his definitions are eclectic. .... S: ;-) I see you have your commentary too, Howard. .... > ---------------- > L: "Did the Buddha say anything about reason? Isn't reason a reason to > reason a greater reality? Isn't the functioning of a sense-base > understood (by us, james, sarah & larry) by reason? ... S: Thinking and reasoning will never understand realities or sense-bases (aayatanas). But it’s important to get the facts straight. .... >According to > abhidhamma the only thing we (j, s, &l) know directly is meaningless > sense data. In a way, becoming absorbed in meaningless sense data is an > at least temporary end of desire just because it is meaningless. .... S: Remember that all realities are included in the ‘all’ - also cittas, cetasikas and even nibbana. You could say sense data are meaningless or worthless - impermanent, unsatisfactory and anatta. Victor asked about examples of contentment now in daily life and I think the true meaning is the detachment and acceptance of whatever is experienced now, for example, a pleasant or unpleasant visible object, taste, sound, bodily experience, smell or mind consciousness object. Don’t we usually wish for another object or for the present one to last without any detachment or real contentment? Metta, Sarah ======== http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m18111.html 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. ============================================================ ARAMMA.NA (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) ==================== AAYATANA (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) includes: 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. 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 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." -------------------------------------------------------- 32080 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 10:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi James, Just a quick clarification here as well. --- buddhatrue wrote: > Friend Sarah and All, > > Sarah: James, when we are referring to the proliferations, distorted > perceptions and so on, we're referring to the `underlying craving > and defilements',especially wrong views in these cases which take > concepts such as `self' or `things' as objects as Ken O stressed. > > James: Who is `we'? .... S: Perhaps 'I' would have been more appropriate. As I used 'we', without checking back, I believe in my two earlier messages I had quoted from both RobM and B.Bodhi as well as giving my own comments on the use of proliferations and distorted thinking and perceptions in the suttas and commentary referred to. Also, as Ken O had chipped in and seemed to be in agreement too, the 'we' referred to how I understood all of us to understand the use of these terms (papa~nca, ma~n~nanaa & vipallaasa)in the texts. .... >You use this pronoun quite often and I usually > have a hard time figuring out who you are referring to. .... S: I'll try to be more specific. Thx for the prompt. Perhaps it's an English hang-up about saying 'I think', 'I say', 'it seems to me', suggesting 'my' understanding or view is of any importance;-) .... >But back to the message, I can't assume what > someone means when they write something. When you write that > concepts are the central teaching of the Buddha, I have to > disagree. ... S: Again, it would be easier if you quote me. Probably I said to effect that clearly distinguishing realities from the concepts we're used to taking for realities and understanding these same realities as anatta is at the heart of the teachings. While we think we really see, feel and taste bread, there cannot be any development of satipatthana. .... > James: I have been reading it, and pondering, and reading Hume and > Nietzsche for additional viewpoints, but I don't think I am going to > post anything- so you and others can stop waiting ;-)). I do think > there is an objective reality beyond the traditional five senses and > their traditional objects, which is what the Buddha was addressing > in the Salayatanasamyutta, but in order to demonstrate this I would > have to discuss supernormal powers, ESP (Divine Eye, Divine Ear, > etc.), and the Buddha's omniscience. These topics have caused > incredulity and irritation in this group in the past so I won't > discuss them again. .... ;-/ ?? ... This is a purely philosophical topic anyway and > not worthy of in-depth discussion. For all practical purposes, > the `all' and the `world' should be considered how the Buddha > described it in that sutta and there is no practical reason to > consider a broader all. .... S: No problem either way. I'm happy to discuss any all, but may not be able to give prompt responses for a while. Whether we're referring to the worldling's 'all', the ariyan's 'all or the omniscient 'all', the realities are still cittas, cetasikas and rupas with the addition of nibbana for the ariyans. .... > > Sarah: Sorry, this one's a bit rushed, but I wanted to get back to > you as we'll be hiking and so on over the weekend and I may not have > much chance to write. > > James: I hope that you have a lovely time. .... S: thank you for your kind wishes. I hope you're having a good holiday weekend too. .... > p.s Do you have any problem with the section on Pa~n~natti in > Karunadasa's essay? We can use that to discuss further if you'd like > too. > > James: No, I don't. But he describes pannatti much differently that > K. Sujin does in her article. .... S: Certainly different styles appeal to different people, but you may be referring to some difference in factual content? .... >Remember, we were discussing how K. > Sujin explains panatti. I think the appropriate question would be > if you have any problem with how Karunadasa explains pannatti? Do > you agree with his section on "Pannatti and the Two Truths"? If so, > we can stop discussing this issue of pannatti. > http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm .... S: I don't have time now to check again, but I've quoted the parts I find are particularly well explained before (to Michael and others). I think there was little I had any problem with - mostly in parts of his intro and conclusion as I recall, in treating the Abhidhamma as a 'theory' rather than life at this very moment to be directly known. I'm glad you appreciate the article, James and I agree that it's useful to recommend to others too. Metta, Sarah ======== 32081 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 11:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Recognizing_the_Dhamma_-_6._Seclusion(§_6.6.) Hi Ken O, Thank you for this comparison. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > Hi Victor > > When you quote this sutta and the sutta on a Single excellent night, > there is much similarity here, let us recap > > Sutta of a single excellent night > < And the future has not been reached. > Instead with insight let him see > Each presently arisen state; [note 1212]>> > > the in this sutta you quote > The Blessed One said: "And how is living alone perfected in its > details? There is the case where whatever is past is abandoned, > whatever is future is relinquished, and any passion & desire with > regard to states of being attained in the present is well subdued. > That is how living alone is perfected in its details." > > on note 1212, > MA: He should comtemplate each presently arisen state, just where it > has arisen, by way of seven comtemplation of insight (insight into > impermanece, suffering, non-self, disenchantment, dispassion, > cessation, relinquishment) > > > > Ken O 32082 From: Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 7:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/9/04 11:43:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I agree that compassion can manifest in various versions but I think, > for consistency's sake anyway, we should analyze it the same way we > analyze a 5-door object. As such, can we say compassion or any other > emotion is a compound? Is hardness a compound? > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: It seems to me that compassion, other emotions, and hardness are, indeed, simple, direct elements of experience. What I wrote in my previous post in this thread wasn't contrary to this. (One disclaimer: Some mental processes we *call* emotions are really more likely groups of mental phenomena rather than single phenomena. Grief, for example, may be such a complex.) ---------------------------------------------------- > > The main point of my line of reasoning is to get at what makes a root > (kamma producer). Is your position that rootedness is in the quality of > the dominant cetasika rather than in the quality of the intention? If > so, should we say rooted wholesome cetasikas are not completely > wholesome? > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: To be completely honest with you on this question - and I certainly don't want to be any other way - I have no position on it. This question is rooted in many Abhidhammic presumptions, presumptions that I have no direct reason to believe are reflective of reality, and that I would have to take on faith, and so I have no basis for expressing an opinion on it. I see this question as meaningful only with respect to and dependent upon a particular intellectual theory thst requires acceptance, and, moreover, even if all these presumptions were correctly representative of the way things are, I would still see them as having no bearing on the goal of the Dhamma, namely liberation, and as of only idle interest. At best, the presumptions, and this particular question, are among the many leaves in the forest that the Buddha did not hold in his hand. Everything the Buddha taught in the suttas points to suffering, its cause, the posibility of its cessation, and the means to that end, including the four noble truths, the tilakkhana, dependent origination, and the numerous teachings on the emptiness and illusory aspect of our mind-created world. To the extent that detailed discussion of dhammas reveals their impermanence, insubstantiality, impersonality, relative immunity to control, and their inappropriateness as sources of satisfaction, that formal analysis is worthwhile and is part of the Dhamma.To the extent that it does not, it is at best of moderate, tangential interest. I realize that my reply to this question in my last post on this thread didn't really properly respond to what you were after. It didn't, because I chose to address matters that I thought were closer to core Dhamma instead, and I didn't want to get into a discussion of matters that I view as of purely technical interest and not leading to progress on the path. Sometimes I am more willing to engage in discussing matters of such purely technical and theoretical interest. I must admit that I do engage in that from time to time - too often, in fact. But at the moment - and you certainly are not expected to be a mind reader (!) - I find that I am tiring of discussing matters that cannot be at all verified by direct observation and that are not, to my mind, conducive to progress on the path. This is solely my "fault". It has nothing at all to do with you, but only pertains to my current state of mind. I apologize if this is off-putting. I truly hope you will forgive me - I don't mean to offend. (Tomorrow, who can say? Perhaps I'll be exactly in the mood to discuss such matters. Of course when I *am* in the "mood" to discuss such things, I wouldn't blame you if you were not. ;-) -------------------------------------------------------- > > 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) 32083 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 11:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Recognizing_the_Dhamma_-_6._Seclusion(§_6.6.) Hi Sarah, Thank you for this message. I didn't know that talk on seclusion is a favourite of yours. Living with husband or wife is not living in seclusion, not living alone. The Buddha was speaking on how living alone is perfected in its details. It is not that there are two meanings of 'living alone' - true ideal or commonplace. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Ken O & Victor, > > Talk on Seclusion is a favourite of mine as Victor knows. Hope you don't > mind if I requote from old posts and add a little more perhaps: [snip] > liberation that takes this as its object." > ***** > S: So there are the two meanings of 'living alone'.For some by inclination > or natural tendency (pakati or bokati in Thai)they will live alone in the > first sense like Thera. However, we all have to learn to live alone > without 'desire and lust' regardless of whether we're in the forest or the > village, alone or with others. [snip] > ***** > > Metta, > > Sarah 32084 From: Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 7:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/10/04 12:06:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > L: Are relations directly known by you? If so, how so? I don't think > they are directly known by me in this very restricted sense of direct > knowing of a rupa or cetasika. What the Buddha knows is only a concept > for me. I agree there is a web of relations, but how do we know? > ========================= I don't know. There is no question that they are known via the mind, and not via any other sense door. Whether the mind knows relations only by inference or whether relations are (or can be) directly apprehended to some extent, I don't know. 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) 32085 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 0:37am Subject: Re: Video Games? Friend Sukin, I didn't know that you play games on the computer all the time. That is a very bad habit; you should try to break yourself of that habit. That is not what I was talking about. I was not encouraging people to play video games all the time! LOL! I was just wondering if playing video games, while keeping mindful of the purpose, could improve concentration. So far it is working great for me! Yesterday I was able to meditate for 2 and a half hours quite effortlessly (stretching legs every 45 minutes or so for blood flow because I follow the Thai custom and don't used a pillow). I don't find myself wanting to play video games all the time now: it is just a means to and end. Of course this could be a dangerous activity for most, and the Buddha wouldn't allow his monks to play games of any sort, so maybe it would be best for most people to not do it. You write, "So James, concentration may or may not be developed, but surely lobha, dosa and moha will most definitely be accumulated". I'm sorry Sukin, but you don't know me well enough to make such a prediction. You can't know what is going to happen because of me doing something (who's being the psychic now?? ;-)) I am curious as to why you wanted to respond to this post anyway because you are obviously a `card-carrying' member of the `NAG' (Non_Action_Group) sub-group of this group;-)), and you disavow meditation. Obviously, my post wasn't directed to you. You will not understand it and it will have no application to your life. We have traveled down this merry path of `concentration' before, on numerous occasions, so I am not sure why you bring it up again. Just to let you know, I haven't changed my mind. ;-)) The concentration that the Buddha spoke about had nothing to do with the concentration inherent in each citta. You write, "I have always had difficulty concentrating" and then later you write "I and others have been stressing the fact that concentration arises with every citta", well, you are either contradicting yourself or you a shy a few cittas! LOL! (just kidding). Just open the Nikayas, any one of the collections, and start reading with an open mind. The Buddha taught the importance of formal meditation (sitting with legs crossed, back straight, and mindfulness set to the fore, as well as walking and lying meditation) on numerous occasions. That is what his bhikkhus did: they got up in the morning, did some walking meditation, went on alms rounds, came back and ate the food, found a spot to spend the `day's abiding' which consisted predominately of breath meditation, and then in the evening they would stop and meet with fellow monks to discuss dhamma or ask questions. Sometimes this schedule would change while they were traveling but this is pretty much what they did all day. Read the Nikayas and find out what the Buddha really taught. You continue to stress `knowing realities' but you are not being observant of that reality. You write, "Please seriously consider this James" Why would I listen to you as my teacher if you cannot acknowledge reality? Metta, James 32086 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 0:44am Subject: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Friend Ken O, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > Hi James > > > James concept and defilements are two different aspect of dhamma. > Just like clinging and aggregates even though are inseparable but > still distinct. Concept of me and mine is usually the result of moha > (IMHO) because of not knowing that conditions arise on it own > (anatta). James you are right to say that satipatthana is used to > eradicate defilements and not eradicating concepts. But since > concepts of me and mine are conditioned by moha and lobha, that is > why we cannot used it as a basis to for satipatthana. > > Then again I should apologise first and rephrase my earlier statement > (sorry moha is very strong still ;-) ), it is not the me and mine > that is big problem because Buddha also used the word I, me to > explain dhamma, it is attachment to me and mine that is the problem > and moha not knowing them as empty. Since Buddha has eradicate lobha > and moha, so his usage of me and mine are just mere expressions ;- ). > > > Ken O Again, this issue goes back to what the Buddha taught. He taught to work diligently on riding the mind of the defilements and then the rest will take care of itself. Either good or bad concepts are not important to consider. It is not possible to `think' yourself to enlightenment unless your mind is already pretty clear of defilements (maybe a once-returner who did the necessary ground work in a previous life?). Anyway, keep working on what the Buddha taught and the concepts will take care of themselves. Metta, James 32087 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 0:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (was, satipatthanasutta) Jack Thanks for these further comments, and for referring to a particular passage from the Anapanasati Sutta. --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > .. ... > All steps in the Anap. Sutta involve the breath. This of course is true, but the different sections ('tetrads' -- groups of four) involve the breath in different ways. > Anapanasati is translated as mindfulness of breathing. All the 16 steps > involve learning anicca/dukkha/anatta through contemplation of > breathing. For > instance, the 13th step involves learning impermanence by observing the breath. As we know from our reading of the suttas, impermanence in the teachings is one of the three characteristics commmon to all conditioned dhammas, so here too it is likely to be impermanence as a characteristic of conditioned dhammas, and not impermanence in some more general sense, that is being referred to. Of course, breath is dierctly involved, but we need to help of the commentaries to know in exactly what way. Nina has written about this in her 'Anapanasati' series (Anapanasati 6 a -- see link below). She gives the following passage from the sutta and general comment from the Visuddhi-Magga: <<<<<<<<<<< [Sutta:] (xiii) He trains thus 'I shall breathe in contemplating impermanence'; he trains thus 'I shall breathe out contemplating impermanence'. (xiv) He trains thus 'I shall breathe in contemplating fading away'; he trains thus 'I shall breathe out contemplating fading away'. (xv) He trains thus 'I shall breathe in contemplating cessation'; he trains thus 'I shall breathe out contemplating cessation'. (xvi) He trains thus 'I shall breathe in contemplating relinquishment'; he trains thus 'I shall breathe out contemplating relinquishment'. (then as translated by Ven. Nyanatiloka:) <..on that occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu abides contemplating mental objects in mental objects, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful ,having put away covetousness and grief with regard to the world. Having see with understanding what is the abandoning of covetousness and grief, he becomes one who looks on with complete equanimity. That is why on that occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu abides contemplating mental objects in mental objects, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having put away covetousness and grief with regard to the world. That is how respiration-mindfulness, developed and repeatedly practised, perfects the four foundations of mindfulness.> [Nina:] The Visuddhimagga (VIII, 237) states about the fourth tetrad, "This tetrad deals only with pure insight while the previous three deal with serenity and insight." >>>>>>>>>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/27840 I continue now with more from Visuddhi-Magga VIII, 234, also quoted by Nina in her post, which contains the detailed word commentary on the fourth tetrad. Here it explains that in order to understand what is meant by 'contemplating impermanence' in the sutta passage "He trains thus 'I shall breathe in contemplating impermanence'", one needs to understand 4 terms, namely (a) the impermanent, (b) impermanence, (c) the contemplation of impermanence and (d) one contemplating impermanence. As to these terms, it says: (a) Herein, the five aggregates are 'the impermanent', because their essence is rise and fall and change.' (b) 'Impermanence' is the rise and fall and change in those same aggregates, or it is their non-existence after having been; the meaning is, it is the break-up of produced khandhas through their momentary dissolution since they do not remain in the same mode. (c) 'Contemplation of impermanence' is contemplation of materiality, etc., as 'impermanent' in virtue of that impermanence. (d) 'One contemplating impermanence' possesses that contemplation. What is the significance of these explanations? Firstly, the explanations at (a) and (c) seem to be saying that contemplation of the impermanence of *any of the five aggregates* (not just of the 'breath' rupas of the rupa aggregate only) is contemplation of impermanence within the meaning of the tetrad. Secondly, the explanations at (c) and (d) seem to be saying that whenever such contemplation occurs, the person in question is to be regarded as 'one contemplating impermanence', with the emphasis on the *occurrence* of that contemplation, rather than on its *doing*. The Visuddhi-Magga passage word commentary then concludes by saying: <> This draws together all the foregoing: when there occurs, in a person who is practised in samatha with breath as object, contemplation of the impermanence of the five aggregates, then that person is said to be 'training himself' in the manner stated in the sutta. So while the tetrad is indeed all about insight, it is about insight into the five aggregates in general, and not insight into 'breath' per se, nor even necessarily into those particular rupas of the rupa aggregate that are taken as breath. The significance of the breath here lies in the occasion on which the insight occurs (i.e., person developing samatha with breath as object), rather than in the actual object of insight. That's as I read the commentary. Comments welcome. Jon 32088 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 1:24am Subject: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Friend Jon, Thank you for this sutta quote and commentary but it doesn't answer the statement you made before. You stated "[Jon: Since breath as object of samatha is a concept (long breath, short breath, etc), the development of that alone can never lead to insight. As we know, insight must have a dhamma as its object.] You quote a sutta, analyze it to show that breath is used as the vehicle for calmness and then abandoned to direct insight to realities, and think that this proves your statement. This doesn't prove your statement. You would have to have a statement from the Buddha that stated, to the effect "Mindfulness of the breath alone can not lead to insight. Insight must have a dhamma as its object". What you quoted doesn't say that. Remember, the Buddha is the enlightened and Blessed One, he is the expert, I will only believe what the Buddha said. I think that you should also only believe what the Buddha said and not extrapolate various meanings from what he taught. Jon: As you say, there are many, many suttas dealing with mindfulness of breathing. Perhaps you have in mind the ones that begin with the question, How is samatha with breath as object developed and cultivated so that it fulfils the four establishments of mindfulness? James: No, actually the first sutta I have in mind is MN 62 "The Greater Discourse of Advice to Rahula". In this sutta, Rahula, the Buddha's son, is following the Buddha into town for alms rounds. He looks at the Buddha's body and starts to think about how beautiful it is and how his body must also be beautiful because he is his son. The Buddha immediately knows his thoughts with his mind and gives him a firm talking down to. Rahula decides that he has been too naughty to go on alms rounds so he goes back to the forest and sits cross-legged under a tree for the day's abiding. He is 18- years-old at this point and has been a novice monk since he was seven. Ven. Sariputta sees him sitting under the tree and assumes that he is developing mindfulness of breathing. He says to him, "Rahula, develop mindfulness of breathing. When mindfulness of breathing is developed and cultivated, it is of great fruit and great benefit." At the end of the day, during the traditional time to ask questions, Rahula approaches the Buddha and asks him about mindfulness of breathing. First the Buddha, knowing that Rahula is overly attached to form, teaches him about the Four Great Elements, then he teaches about mindfulness of breathing. He starts with the section that you quote in this post "Breathing in long, he understands: `I breathe in long'; or breathing out long, he understands: `I breathe out long. Etc." But then the section ends with "He trains thus: `I shall breathe in contemplating impermanence'; he trains thus: `I shall breathe out contemplating impermanence.' He trains thus: `I shall breathe in contemplating fading away'; he trains thus: `I shall breathe out contemplating fading away. Etc." Jon, do you develop mindfulness of breathing? If not, why? The Buddha taught that it is of great fruit and great benefit. Only Mara, the Evil One, tried to convince people not to practice mindfulness of breathing. Are you under the influence of Mara? Are your intentions pure or evil? (And I am being completely serious). Metta, James 32089 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 1:36am Subject: Re: Pannatti (Concept) Friend Jon, Jon: BTW, there was no request for a sutta reference in your post as far as I can see (Msg No. 31940). You just said, "I would welcome any explanation (with as few Pali words as possible ;-) if you either feel so inclined." , which I dutifully did. ;-)). James: There was a sutta request. In post 3194 I wrote, "Why? Did the Buddha teach this? I have read a lot of suttas and I have never come across this idea in any of them. Can anyone provide a sutta where the Buddha taught this, very directly?" And, in this post you still haven't provided a sutta quote! ;-)) Jon: I think the main thrust of the comments has been that the distinction between dhammas and concepts needs to be known. James: Again, quote where the Buddha said this very specifically, without extrapolating, and I will believe you. Metta, James 32090 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 0:55am Subject: Essentially Inherent Freedom ! Friends: No choice necessary ! Ananda, no moral one needs to speculate about: 'How shall I be freed of regret ?' because absence of remorse is essentially inherent in morality itself. No-one freed of regret has to worry about: 'How shall I be glad ?' since joyous gladness is essentially inherent in absence of remorse itself. No glad one needs to ponder about: 'How shall I be happy ?' because happiness is essentially inherent in gladness itself. No happy one has to choose: 'How can I relax ?' since calmness is essentially inherent in happiness itself. No tranquil one needs to speculate: 'How shall I find pleasure ?' because pleasure is essentially inherent in calmness itself. No-one feeling pleasure has to wonder: 'How shall I reach absorbed concentration ?' since absorption is essentially inherent in pleasure itself. No-one absorbed in concentration needs to ask: 'How shall I understand ?' since understanding is essentially inherent in concentration itself. No-one understanding how it really is needs to ask: 'How shall I dampen greed ?' because dispassion is essentially inherent in real understanding itself. No disgusted one needs to worry about: 'How shall this lust fade away ?' since fading of lust is essentially inherent in dispassioned disgust itself. No-one whose lust has faded away has to think: 'How shall I be released ?' because mental release is essentially inherent in the fading of lust itself. No-one mentally released needs to figure out: 'How can I directly experience absolute Freedom ?' since Freedom is essentially inherent in mental release itself! ---oo0oo--- Source: The Numerical Sayings of the Buddha. Anguttara Nikaya V [2-3]: http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=130185 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=204050 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=403155 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=403238 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/index.html Comment: All advantageous states are thus initiated by the morality of right behaviour! What is right behaviour ? Right behaviour is avoidance is Killing, Stealing, Abusing, Lying, Scolding, Slandering, Gossipping, Envy, Ill-Will & Wrong View... That is right behaviour ... All yours in the Dhamma. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.msn.com/DirectDhamma/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/TrueDhamma 32091 From: Larry Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 7:31am Subject: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Larry (& Victor & Howard), > > S: An autocommentary on what I'm meant to have said gets my attention and > jumps the queue;-) Hi Sarah, The autocommentary is an explanation of what I wrote to you and James regarding what James replied to you, but James didn't understand it, hence the autocommentary on the text at the bottom (not included here) . > --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi James, > > > > Here's an autocommentary: > > > > Sarah thinks sense consciousness is the "all" and any forming of that > > consciousness is concept. > .... > S: Sorry, but no;-). In my recent post to Howard and James, I referred to: > `all of the sense bases (ayatanasabba), i.e the phenomena of the four > planes'. As you don't like links, I think I'll just requote a post below > which elaborates in detail on this and I'll be happy to discuss further. > (Actually, you don't like long posts, so just ignore the re-post if you > prefer). The sense consciousness are certainly not the `all', nor is it a > concept. > .... ----------------------------------------------- L: We are just talking about you, me and James. Do you directly know the sense bases or anything other than the objects of the 5 doors and emotions? -------------------------------------------- > >So sankhara in the sense of mental formation > > is concept. > .... > S: Not as I understand. -------------------------------------------- L: Are combinations of rupa concepts _for_you? ------------------------------------------ > .... > >Concept is unconditioned and not-impermanent. > .... > S: I wouldn't say it like this. The only unconditioned dhamma is nibbana. > Concepts don't *exist*. -------------------------------------------------- L: Is concept classified as asankhara in abhidhamma? ------------------------------------------------- > .... > >A loaf of > > bread is unconditioned, not made, and not impermanent. But the color, > > texture, temperature, smell, taste, and nutritional essence associated > > with the bread concept is conditioned, produced, impermanent. > > Furthermore, the association of color with texture etc. is conceptual as > > far as we (Sarah, James, & Larry) can determine. In other words, a > > matter of reason, not direct knowledge. > .... > S: Yes! > .... > > > > As far as Sarah directly knows, the "bread" texture only "exists" when > > she touches it. Likewise for the other qualities. > .... > S: I wouldn't quite say that the texture ever *exists*. Only > hardness/softness, temperature and motion are experienced by touch. Sorry > to be picky, but as you're giving me a commentary....;-) ----------------------------------------------------------- L: I agree. That's why I used parentheses around "exists". (remainder of your message snipped) Larry 32092 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 8:53am Subject: Re: Video Games? Hi James, > You continue to stress `knowing > realities' but you are not being observant of that reality. You > write, "Please seriously consider this James" Why would I listen to > you as my teacher if you cannot acknowledge reality? Sorry about this. I had assumed that you would agree with what I said about playing video games being wrong practice, and thought that you should consider the similarity between this and 'formal meditation'. This is why I urged you to consider what I had written seriously. There was no thought about being a teacher. I know I am not observant of reality, but live all the time in a world of concepts. My posts stress on "intellectual Right View" which does points to the need to distinguish between concepts and realities, hence the mention every now and then about this. But I am curious, when you say "Why would I listen to you as my teacher if you cannot acknowledge reality?" How have you come to this conclusion about my not acknowledging reality? Do you acknowledge reality? If so, what are those realities according to you? Look forward to your response. Metta, Sukin 32093 From: Larry Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 9:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Hi Howard, I can certainly appreciate an unwillingness to engage in technical and probably theoretical matters, but I think what makes a root is indeed at the heart of the matter. To my mind the cause of suffering and the cause of kamma are synonymous. Maybe we can revisit this latter. I've run out of ideas anyway. Larry 32094 From: Larry Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 10:21am Subject: Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi all, One oversight on my part on this thread: I forgot about feeling. I'm not sure but, considering my own experience, I think I can say the only reality I am attached to is pleasant feeling. All my other attachments are to concepts. Even taste and smell seems to be a complex of sense data and therefore conceptual. This leaves the question, what about attachment to concepts? We can't dispel this attachment by recourse to observation of impermanence. Therefore, the path of purification is irrelevant in this regard. I think the "path" here is to simply observe that I am mistaking concept for reality. But what if I say, "I am an idea, not conditioned, not impermanent". What if I knowingly embrace attachment to concepts. I can easily see this happening as a religious or spiritual strategy. How does one dispel or refute this attachment? Larry 32095 From: Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 6:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/10/04 12:59:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I can certainly appreciate an unwillingness to engage in technical > and probably theoretical matters, but I think what makes a root is > indeed at the heart of the matter. To my mind the cause of suffering > and the cause of kamma are synonymous. Maybe we can revisit this > latter. I've run out of ideas anyway. > > Larry > ====================== The whole "root" business is unclear to me. What does it mean, for example, for anger to have tanha as root other than tanha being a condition for the arising of anger? And anger being conditioned by tanha is something that should be directly seen by introspection, not memorized as a book fact. I don't see how the "root" notion adds much. All the jargon, to me, is just a distraction. The entire Sutta Pitaka, practice-based and experience-based, appears to be jargon-free, and I often feel that near-Talmudic hair splitting based on portions of a theory that presupposes notions unmentioned or given short shrift in the suttas is at best a diversion. (Of course, everyone likes a diversion from time to time. ;-) ========================== 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) 32096 From: Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 6:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/10/04 1:32:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi all, > > One oversight on my part on this thread: I forgot about feeling. I'm > not sure but, considering my own experience, I think I can say the > only reality I am attached to is pleasant feeling. All my other > attachments are to concepts. Even taste and smell seems to be a > complex of sense data and therefore conceptual. > > This leaves the question, what about attachment to concepts? We can't > dispel this attachment by recourse to observation of impermanence. > Therefore, the path of purification is irrelevant in this regard. I > think the "path" here is to simply observe that I am mistaking > concept for reality. But what if I say, "I am an idea, not > conditioned, not impermanent". What if I knowingly embrace attachment > to concepts. I can easily see this happening as a religious or > spiritual strategy. How does one dispel or refute this attachment? > > Larry > ======================= I think that it is always feeling for which there is direct attachment. Craving, aversion, and attachment pertain to dhammas other than feeling only indirectly, by association, with the feelings their experiencing elicits. Look at the dependent origination scheme: feeling -> craving -> clinging. 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) 32097 From: Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 6:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi again, Larry - In a message dated 4/10/04 1:48:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > I think that it is always feeling for which there is direct > attachment. Craving, aversion, and attachment pertain to dhammas other than > feeling only > indirectly, by association, with the feelings their experiencing elicits. > Look at the dependent origination scheme: feeling -> craving -> clinging. > ========================= An extra comma made my secod sentence unintelligible. It should read as follows: "Craving, aversion, and attachment pertain to dhammas other than feeling only indirectly, by association with the feelings their experiencing elicits." 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) 32098 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 11:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Hi Larry, op 10-04-2004 01:25 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > What is the difference between rooted compassion and rootless > compassion? N: I know what you mean: compassion of the arahat with maha-kiriyacitta. Well, his kiriya citta which is sobhana, cannot produce vipaka. The arahat has vipakacittas that are results of former kamma, but the cetana co-arising with the compassion of the arahat does not produce new vipaka. L:Technically, no form of desire could arise in a > compassionate javana series. So there can't be a question of > self-interest except in a broader manifold. N: When there is true compassion, no self interest, no self involvement, though this can arise shortly afterwards. Not clear what is a broader manifold? L: (Although ordinary > consciousness is always a jumble of many elements.) N: I think you mean after kusala citta there are bound to be akusala cittas, but, not at the same time. A jumble or a tangle, I would say. Abhidhamma can help us! And satipatthana! L:Is it a question of > how precisely can we qualify "intention"? Is intention desire or > something else? Inertia? Goal orientation? N: The Abhidhamma helps us to be very precise. Intention or volition is cetana cetasika, and as Rob M explained, it arises with all cittas. It directs the tasks of the conascent dhammas. With kusala citta or akusala citta it can motivate deeds through body, speech and mind. Kamma is cetana. This cetasika cannot be changed into something else, it is paramattha dhamma with its own characteristic. It is not desire, inertia or anything else. L:Is an arahant's javana > intention like an ordinary person's sense consciousness intention? N: Same cetasika, but this cetana cannot perform kamma that brings result. It directs the accompanying cetasikas. It intends to perform what is noble and right, it has conditions to operate in that way. L:What accounts for an arahant's skill in terms of consciousness process? N: Do not forget, the process of cittas takes its own course, because of conditions, citta nyama, the fixed order of cittas. But since he has eradicated all defilements and latent tendencies, there is no like, no dislike, not any defilement with the javana cittas in the process. No new accumulation of akusala, not adding on more and more, as we do all the time. Nina. 32099 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 11:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Hi Larry, just butting in. op 10-04-2004 05:41 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Hi Howard, > > I agree that compassion can manifest in various versions but I think, > for consistency's sake anyway, we should analyze it the same way we > analyze a 5-door object. As such, can we say compassion or any other > emotion is a compound? N: No, it is one of the cetasikas arising with sobhana citta. L: Is hardness a compound? N: It arises within a group of other rupas, that group is the compound, not that one rupa-element that is hardness (Element of Earth). L: The main point of my line of reasoning is to get at what makes a root > (kamma producer). N: A root is the foundation of a citta, like the root of a tree. It conditions kusala citta and akusala citta by way of root-condition, important and strong, but root, hetu, is not cetana, kamma that produces result. Different conditions, different functions. Kamma that produces result does so by way of kamma-condition. L: Is your position that rootedness is in the quality of > the dominant cetasika rather than in the quality of the intention? N: We have to be precise when speaking of dominant. There is predominance condition , but this is more complex, depending on being co-nascent or by way of object. L: If so, should we say rooted wholesome cetasikas are not completely > wholesome? N: Kusala is kusala, akusala is akusala, and they cannot be conascent. That is a contradiction. Nina. 32100 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 11:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Satipatthana - Covetousness and grief Dear Jon, Thank you, very inspiring. The sutta text is also very convincing. The monk should be aware of the hindrances, they still arise. Why would there be this passage if all hindrances were already eradicated? I want to add, see below. op 09-04-2004 14:48 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonoabb@y...: > > Sutta: .....> "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the mental objects > in the mental objects of the five hindrances. > "How, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental objects in > the mental objects of the five hindrances? > "Here, O bhikkhus, *when sensuality is present, a bhikkhu knows with > understanding: 'I have sensuality,'* or when sensuality is not > present, he knows with understanding: 'I have no sensuality.'.... > *When anger is present, he knows with understanding: 'I have anger,'* > or when anger is not present, he knows with understanding: 'I have no > anger.' ... N: We can see how the Abhidhamma helps us to understand the suttas, and how the Abhidhamma is indispensable to start on the right Path. The hindrances are only akusala cetasikas, arising because of conditions, they have no owner. In this sense they are beyond control. But panna is the controller. It is indriya or leader. Only panna can eventually eradicate them. The hindrances and panna are sankharakkhandha. The Abhidhamma helps us to understand the real meaning of khandha: it arises and falls away, it is non-self. We read in the suttas about the four noble Truths, but without the Abhidhamma we cannot understand the characteristic of dukkha: the arising and falling away of nama and rupa that are no refuge, not worth clinging to. I heard more on listening this morning. A. Sujin said that the development of the Path is detachment from the beginning to the end. When we listen, the goal should be detachment from wrong view. Also when we listen there can be a degree of detachment from our wrong ideas about self. The development of the eightfold Path is not just observing or noticing realities. This might be done with lobha or an idea of, "I can do something". The development is not a matter of doing something, but it is the development of panna that detaches. We learn from the Abhidhamma that all conditioned dhammas are only citta, cetasika and rupa. Right view or panna is a cetasika, not my panna. She repeated that such understanding should go to our very bone (an expression in Thai). This shows us that it is not an intellectual exercise to know that there are only nama and rupa as objects of right understanding. The study of the Abhidhamma should not be an intellectual exercise. I also heard the voice of the late Abbot, Kh Sukol's brother, talking about his going to hospital, backwards and forwards. He referred to Jivaka, the physician who took care of the Buddha and the monks. A. Sujin said that the life of the arahat is ordinary life, just like ours, he also becomes sick and has to see a doctor. But the difference is in the wisdom. For us, when we see, like or dislike arise immediately. The arahat has maha-kiriyacittas instead. The arahat has only vipakacittas and kiriyacittas. Also for the sotapanna, life is just ordinary. The sotapanna has attachment and aversion, and he must develop understanding to see them as only nama. He sees the danger of attachment to realities and knows that the development of whatever reality appears must continue. Would you tell me what else you heard about the satipatthanasutta? Another thing. Please could you ask Kh Sukol to send me the memorial book on the occasion of the Abbot's cremation? Some questions for Bgk: One of the teachers said about tangible object: the *three* Great elements impinge on the bodysense, but one of these characteristics (like hardness) is experienced. I thought: of the octad only one of the great Elements impinges and then its characteristic is experienced. Kh Anop was going to ask A. Sujin. Another one: observing and awareness: we all fall into that trap of taking the observing for awareness, though it may seem similar, and this is good for discussing among us and with A. Sujin. What do you think about this matter? I think that it is good to realize that lobha comes in easily, wanting to take us away from the present object. Best is not to think of satipatthana at all. Once you start thinking about it, it is wrong, no awareness but thinking with desire. Thank you, Nina. 32101 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 11:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Recognizing_the_Dhamma_-_6._Seclusion(§_6.4.) Hi Sarah, Thank you for this message. Could you summarize your points? Thanks. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor & All, > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > § 6.4. > > MahaKassapa: > > One shouldn't go about > > surrounded, revered > > by a company: > > one gets distracted; > > concentration > > is hard to gain. > > Fellowship with many people > > is painful. > > Seeing this, > > one shouldn't approve > > of a company. > <...> > > [Thag XVIII] > ..... > From an earlier post; > > Sarah: > > Also in MN 32, Mahagosinga Sutta, we read the discussion between the > leading disciples, including Ven Sariputta, Maha Mogallana, Maha Kassapa > and Ven Ananda, about `what kind of bhikkhu could illuminate the [snip] > ..... > S: In other words, as I understand, it is not the forest or marsh in the > wooded area that is of itself significant, but the intentions, `need' or > sincerity of purpose and understanding whilst dwelling there according to > conditions and habitual inclinations. > > Sarah 32102 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 0:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Recognizing_the_Dhamma_-_6._Seclusion(§_6.5.) Hi Sarah, Thanks for this message. It would be helpful if you don't mind summarizing your points. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor & All, > [snip] > ***** > S: In the sutta itself in this section under contentment, it says: > > "Just as a bird, wherever it goes, flies with its wings as its only > burden, in the same way a bhikkhu is content with robes to protect his > body and almsfood to sustain his belly; wherever he goes he sets out > taking only (his requisites) along with him. In this way, great king, the > bhikkhu is content". > ..... > S: Such passages are very inspiring. There have been discussions recently > on whether such passages are descriptive or prescriptive. If we were to > shed all belongings like a bird and set out for the jungle thickets, would > it be helpful for the development of jhana and vipassana? > > I don't think so, because the necessary `requisites' are not in place. [snip] > > I look forward to further comments. > > Sarah 32103 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 0:37pm Subject: [dsg] Re:_Recognizing_the_Dhamma_-_6._Seclusion(§_6.3.) Hi Sarah, Thank you again this message. What would be the benefit of living in seclusion? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor, > > More to come;-) > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi all, [snip] > to a climax by way of arahantship. > ***** > Metta, > > Sarah 32104 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 0:45pm Subject: Re: Recognizing the Dhamma - 7. Persistence (§ 7.1.) 7. Persistence § 7.1. "'This Dhamma is for one whose persistence is aroused, not for one who is lazy.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? There is the case where a monk keeps his persistence aroused for abandoning unskillful mental qualities and taking on skillful mental qualities. He is steadfast, solid in his effort, not shirking his duties with regard to skillful mental qualities. 'This Dhamma is for one whose persistence is aroused, not for one who is lazy.' Thus was it said. And with reference to this was it said. [AN VIII.30] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html#persistence 32105 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 0:48pm Subject: Recognizing the Dhamma - 7. Persistence (§ 7.2, § 7.3) § 7.2. As if struck by a sword, as if his head were on fire, a monk should live the wandering life -- mindful -- for the abandoning of sensual passion. [Thag I.39] § 7.3. "Furthermore, the monk finds pleasure & delight in developing [skillful mental qualities], finds pleasure & delight in abandoning [unskillful mental qualities]. He does not, on account of his pleasure & delight in developing & abandoning, exalt himself or disparage others. In this he is diligent, deft, alert, & mindful. This is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original traditions of the noble ones." [AN IV.28] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html#persistence 32106 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 2:28pm Subject: Re: Video Games? Friend Sukin, Sukin: Sorry about this. I had assumed that you would agree with what I said about playing video games being wrong practice, and thought that you should consider the similarity between this and 'formal meditation'. This is why I urged you to consider what I had written seriously. There was no thought about being a teacher. James: There is no problem with being a teacher. I wouldn't mind if, at times, you were my teacher. Many people in this group are at times my teachers, either directly or indirectly. Perhaps, sometimes, I am their teacher. However, in order for you to be my teacher in this regard I need to have confidence in what you are trying to teach me. If you want to teach me that meditation is wrong practice you would need to explain the reason why (I already know about video games being a diversion and not Buddhist practice. I have explained that. Don't jump on one thing and try to make a federal case over it! ;-). So far your reasoning is like a sieve- it doesn't hold anything. It may look solid from far away but up close I can see that it is full of holes. ;-)) Sukin: But I am curious, when you say "Why would I listen to you as my teacher if you cannot acknowledge reality?" How have you come to this conclusion about my not acknowledging reality? James: Because you state that formal meditation is wrong practice. This is not acknowledging reality because the Buddha taught that it is right practice on numerous occasions and in numerous ways. Granted, not all forms of meditation are right practice and sometimes people practice the wrong thing, but that isn't reason to declare all meditation practice wrong. As the saying goes, "There is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater" ;-)). Not all meditation practice is wrong, or dirty. There is a pretty simple rule to follow: Meditation should only be done to gain wisdom and release. Meditation is gain supernormal powers is wrong. Meditation is gain ecstatic states is wrong. Meditation to contact deva, ghost, or hell realms is wrong. Meditation to align or strengthen your chakras is wrong. Meditation to become physically beautiful is wrong. Meditation to cure physical disease is wrong. Etc. I do not do wrong meditation so I do not believe that you are dealing in reality. I clearly know the difference between right and wrong meditation; you do not. That is why I say you do not acknowledge reality. Sukin: Do you acknowledge reality? If so, what are those realities according to you? James: Yes, I acknowledge reality-as much as I am able to (Those around me tell me that I am more based in reality than just about anyone they know! ;-)). Reality and `realities' are two different things. To use a simile, if all you can see are the puzzle pieces but not the puzzle they form when together, you do not acknowledge reality. Metta, James 32107 From: Htoo Naing Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 2:44pm Subject: Powerful Friends Coming Together ( 02 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, The meditator has been practising mahasatipatthana. Mindfulness reminds him to be at the meditational object all the time. Mindfuless or sati becomes more and more potent and it becomes very powerful. When sati becomes very powerful, it also helps its friends become powerful. Sati arises most of the meditative time that is the whole day and night except in deep sleep. This powerful sati or mindfulness helps his friends wisdom or panna to investigate into each phenomenon. When panna becomes an investigative mental factor it investigates into all phenomena whenever they arise. This panna or wisdom is called dhammavicaya or investiagative mind and he is a powerful friend of sati or mindfulness. As sati is reminding each citta, another friend of sati comes and joins with them. He is viriya or effort. As sati is mindful to meditate without ever withdrawing from meditative object, this act becomes an effortful action and this is because of another member of powerful friends called viriya or effort. Viriya is vividly working along with his friends sati or mindfulness and panna or dhammavicaya sambhojjanga. As these three freinds are there working together, joy arises and it makes likeness of meditative object. This likeness becomes joy and later on this joy suffuses the whole body of the meditator and rapture arises. The meditator knows rapture arises. When it stays he knows it stays. This rapture or piti energizes the meditator not to be tired and he is able to continue through out day and night. As these four friends are working together, there arises calmness and all mind process are being in a state of tranquility. Mind seems to be standing still and seems to keep all fire extinguished and the meditator feels peaceful. Tranquility or passaddhi becomes a powerful friend as his four friends are there working together. As these 5 factors arise, the meditator becomes well concentrated and his mind stays still at the arising of phenomena and panna is constantly investigating while mindfuless is in place together with piti and passaddhi while these are brought together by effort. The meditator is free of hindrances and he is well concentrated. His concentration becomes a powerful friend and helps arising of penetrative wisdom. While all these six friends are working together, the seventh factor cannot stay away from them as he is very willing to make a balance among his friends and this balancing mind works as upekkha and it also becomes a powerful friend. It becomes uppekkha sambhojjanga. When all these seven factors arise together, meditator knows that he is quite right on the right tract and he is quite close to the Path. His mindfulness works in all aspects. His effort in meditation prevent arising of akusala cittas. His effort causes existing akusala kamma have no time to come in. Continuous effort makes arising of higher and higher knowledge. This effort also helps existing kusala dhamma to be much much more powerful as in above instance. His wish to attain higher nana makes him effortful, mindful and makes him continuously meditating. As he is mindful, his mind is always occupied by meditative processes. He is well confident in dhamma and the practice. As he goes through all investigations, he realizes that he is going to be on the right Path. May all beings be on the right Path ( NEP -Noble Eightfold Path ). With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htootintnaing@y... 32108 From: robmoult Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 3:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Rob: "I am not sure what you mean by "rootless compassion"." > > Hi Rob, > > I mean the compassion of an arahant. What is the difference between an > arahant's compassion and an ordinary person's compassion in terms of > cetasikas in a javana series? > > Also, is an arahant's javana intention the same as an ordinary person's > functional consciousness intention? What accounts for an arahant's skill > in terms of consciousness process? For a worldling, the javana function is performed by one of the eight "sense sphere wholesome" cittas. From an arahant, the javana function is performed by one of the eight "sense sphere functional" cittas. Each of the eight sense sphere wholesome cittas has a corresponding sense sphere functional citta of the same name and containing exactly the same set of cetasikas except that the wholesome cittas can possibly inlcude the three abstinences (no wrong action, no wrong speech and no wrong livelihood) and the functional cittas cannot. An arahant does not need to deliberately refrain from wrong action / speech / livelihood. In other words, the same cetasikas are included in a worldling's compassion citta and an arahant's compassion citta. Both cittas have the cetana cetasiaka, however the worldling's compassion citta will have stronger cetana (it creates kamma). The difference becomes more pronounced when one moves "up one layer of perspective" from looking at cittas/cetasikas to looking at multiple citta processes. Here is an analogy. Person A is in a well lit room looking at the surroundings. Person W is in a dark room when suddenly the light flashes on for a moment allowing a quick glimpse of the surroundings. If we consider only the moment that the dark room has been illuminated, then Person A and Person W can see the same things. (As I am sure you have guessed, Person A = Arahant and Person W = worldling). From this analogy, you can imagine that an Arahant's compassion is far "deeper" and "more complete" than a worldling's compassion because of the possibility of "continuous compassion" rather than "snaphsot compassion". Why is this so? The difference between an Arahant and a worldling is that an Arahant has uprooted all defilements. It is the defilements of the worldling that cause akusala javana cittas to arise (through natural decisive support condition). Ken H recently estimated that this happens 99.9% of the time for worldlings and I agree. Because of defilements, it is rare for a compassion citta to arise in a worldling. Because of defilements, the compassion citta of a worldling is quickly followed by an akuala citta. Though kusala cittas are statistically extremely rare, they are of such INTENSE BEAUTY that they create a very strong impression (good kamma) when they arise. In an Arahant, these beautiful cittas arise continuously. To a worldling, the bliss of an Arahant is unimaginable. Metta, Rob M :-) 32109 From: Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 11:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (was, satipatthanasutta) Jon: >Jack Thanks for these further comments, and for referring to a particular passage from the Anapanasati Sutta.< jack> All steps in the Anap. Sutta involve the breath. This of course is true, but the different sections ('tetrads' -- groups of four) involve the breath in different ways. Jon, Yes, that is what my next sentences below say. jack> Anapanasati is translated as mindfulness of breathing. All the 16 steps > involve learning anicca/dukkha/anatta through contemplation of > breathing. For > instance, the 13th step involves learning impermanence by observing the breath. Jon: >As we know from our reading of the suttas, impermanence in the teachings is one of the three characteristics commmon to all conditioned dhammas, so here too it is likely to be impermanence as a characteristic of conditioned dhammas, and not impermanence in some more general sense, that is being referred to. Of course, breath is dierctly involved, but we need to help of the commentaries to know in exactly what way.<< I'm not sure what impermanence in the general sense means. In the Anap. Sutta, we are taught to recognize impermanence in all phenomena (is this what you mean by the general sense?) through mindfulness of particular breaths. [snip] jon:>Secondly, the explanations at (c) and (d) seem to be saying that whenever such contemplation occurs, the person in question is to be regarded as 'one contemplating impermanence', with the emphasis on the *occurrence* of that contemplation, rather than on its *doing*.<< I don't know what you mean when you say emphasis on the occurance rather than on its doing. Jon: >>The Visuddhi-Magga passage word commentary then concludes by saying: <> This draws together all the foregoing: when there occurs, in a person who is practised in samatha with breath as object, contemplation of the impermanence of the five aggregates, then that person is said to be 'training himself' in the manner stated in the sutta. So while the tetrad is indeed all about insight, it is about insight into the five aggregates in general, and not insight into 'breath' per se, nor even necessarily into those particular rupas of the rupa aggregate that are taken as breath. The significance of the breath here lies in the occasion on which the insight occurs (i.e., person developing samatha with breath as object), rather than in the actual object of insight.<< I don't understand. As we are mindful of the breath, all of what we think of as Iâ€? or a person (the 5 aggregates) can come into play. As we become aware of the body sensation of a breath in our nose, we can watch consciousness, sensation, perception and mental formations all arise. Though mindfulness of the breath we can see that this breath phenomena is impermanent, unsatisfactory and empty. We are thus lead to see that all phenomena is impermanent, unsatisfactory and empty. I think we have a basic disagreement but I don't know what it is. Are you thinking the teaching of "I shall breath in...shall breath out contemplating impermanence" means that we should contemplate the general concept of impermanence as we breath? I think it means we should watch our breaths and try to discover that the breath and all that arise with it is impermanent. Jack 32110 From: robmoult Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 3:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > The whole "root" business is unclear to me. What does it mean, for > example, for anger to have tanha as root other than tanha being a condition for > the arising of anger? And anger being conditioned by tanha is something that > should be directly seen by introspection, not memorized as a book fact. I don't > see how the "root" notion adds much. All the jargon, to me, is just a > distraction. The entire Sutta Pitaka, practice-based and experience- based, appears to > be jargon-free, and I often feel that near-Talmudic hair splitting based on > portions of a theory that presupposes notions unmentioned or given short shrift > in the suttas is at best a diversion. (Of course, everyone likes a diversion > from time to time. ;-) Here is my perspective (I'm not suggesting that you should change your perspective). The concept of roots helps to better understand what is at the core (or root) of our current mental state. It gives us a vocabulary that helps us properly label the elements of a mental state and, like all technical jargon, helps us to communicate effectively. How effective would the medical community be without technical jargon? BTW, a minor correction; anger does not have tanha (lobha) as a root, the roots of anger are dosa and moha. For some people, reflecting on the nature of dosa and the nature of moha and seeing how they are present in moments of anger is helpful. I agree with you that the Ahidhamma can be a dangerous diversion (my recent tirade against the DSG - Non Action Group) from the path. As I see it, the problem lies not with the Abhidhamma per se, but rather how people apply (or do not apply) the Abhidhamma to daily life. Metta, Rob M :-) 32111 From: Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 0:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Hi, Rob - In a message dated 4/10/04 6:44:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > The whole "root" business is unclear to me. What does it > mean, for > >example, for anger to have tanha as root other than tanha being a > condition for > >the arising of anger? And anger being conditioned by tanha is > something that > >should be directly seen by introspection, not memorized as a book > fact. I don't > >see how the "root" notion adds much. All the jargon, to me, is just > a > >distraction. The entire Sutta Pitaka, practice-based and experience- > based, appears to > >be jargon-free, and I often feel that near-Talmudic hair splitting > based on > >portions of a theory that presupposes notions unmentioned or given > short shrift > >in the suttas is at best a diversion. (Of course, everyone likes a > diversion > >from time to time. ;-) > > Here is my perspective (I'm not suggesting that you should change > your perspective). > > The concept of roots helps to better understand what is at the core > (or root) of our current mental state. It gives us a vocabulary that > helps us properly label the elements of a mental state and, like all > technical jargon, helps us to communicate effectively. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay, so it is terminology and concept - good, of course, for communication and for thinking. Not so great for liberation except as background. Reading the menu doesn't fill the belly, though it is a good first step. ------------------------------------------- How effective > > would the medical community be without technical jargon? BTW, a minor > correction; anger does not have tanha (lobha) as a root, the roots of > anger are dosa and moha. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, as I understand it, 'dosa' MEANS "anger". So - anger is a root of anger? Not very helpful, I'm afraid. What is clear to me, however, is that anger is always the result of (thwarted) desire/greed (tanha/lobha), and, thus, tanha is a central condition for anger. What does 'root of' mean if not "central condition for"? ---------------------------------------------- For some people, reflecting on the nature of > > dosa and the nature of moha and seeing how they are present in > moments of anger is helpful. > > I agree with you that the Ahidhamma can be a dangerous diversion (my > recent tirade against the DSG - Non Action Group) from the path. As I > see it, the problem lies not with the Abhidhamma per se, but rather > how people apply (or do not apply) the Abhidhamma to daily life. > > 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) 32112 From: Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 4:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Howard: "What does it mean, for example, for anger to have tanha as root other than tanha being a condition for the arising of anger?" Hi Howard, I don't know what this means either. Where did you read it? My thinking is: "what is the nature of desire", "what is the nature of ignorance", and "what is root" are all the same question and an answer to one could as well be an answer to the others. Larry 32113 From: Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 4:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi Howard, Good point. Larry ------------------------ H: "I think that it is always feeling for which there is direct attachment. Craving, aversion, and attachment pertain to dhammas other than feeling only indirectly, by association, with the feelings their experiencing elicits. Look at the dependent origination scheme: feeling -> craving -> clinging." 32114 From: Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 4:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Hi Nina, What makes intention condition kamma in an ordinay person's javana cittas but not in an arahant's? Larry 32115 From: Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 4:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Hi Howard, I see what you mean by root and I agree root means cause. I was interested in root as a characteristic of an ordinary person's javana cittas that cause kamma while an arahant's javana cittas are not roots and don't cause kamma. Causing kamma, causing suffering, and causing dependent arising seem to me to be the same. Larry 32116 From: Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 2:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/10/04 7:25:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Howard: "What does it mean, for example, for anger to have tanha as root > other than tanha being a condition for the arising of anger?" > > Hi Howard, > > I don't know what this means either. Where did you read it? My thinking > is: "what is the nature of desire", "what is the nature of ignorance", > and "what is root" are all the same question and an answer to one could > as well be an answer to the others. > > Larry > ======================= Where did I read *what*? (All I'm saying is that I don't understand the sense of 'root' as anything other than "central condition for".) 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) 32117 From: Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 2:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/10/04 7:50:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I see what you mean by root and I agree root means cause. I was > interested in root as a characteristic of an ordinary person's javana > cittas that cause kamma while an arahant's javana cittas are not roots > and don't cause kamma. Causing kamma, causing suffering, and causing > dependent arising seem to me to be the same. > > Larry > ========================== I'm still not entirely sure what you are driving at. In a non-arahant, mindstates are rooted in delusion and possibly also in greed and/or hate, on the one hand, or the opposite of these on the other, varying, I suppose, from person to person, and from occasion to occasion. In an arahant, there is only wisdom, non-grasping, and generosity. In a non-arahant, the three poisonous traits condition unwholesome intention ("bad kamma"), and the three noble traits condition wholesome intention ("good kamma"). But, apparently, in an arahant the noble traits, the only ones that ever arise in such a being, condition only "functional" intention, which is not kamma, and which bears no kammic fruit. Perhaps it is the complete and permanent absence of ignorance that is the reason for this distinction. 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) 32118 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 9:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Hi Larry, butting in again, op 10-04-2004 18:58 schreef Larry op LBIDD@w...: Larry wrote to Howard: > > I can certainly appreciate an unwillingness to engage in technical > and probably theoretical matters, but I think what makes a root is > indeed at the heart of the matter. N: Yes, Root-condition is the first mentioned condition in the Patthana, and then comes object-condition. So many important conditions that play their part in our life. To me it is important to understand better how this puppet is moving. It certainly helps much to study conditions, roots, cetana, etc. so that we know the true meaning of anatta. I find that by studying the Abhidhamma (I do not say all details, but the main principles) and reflecting on it over and over again, it helps to understand the suttas and to apply them. Therefore, I do not see the matters discussed as technical or theoretical. L: To my mind the cause of suffering > and the cause of kamma are synonymous. N: The cause of suffering is desire as we read in the sutta. The second noble truth. Through the abhidhamma we learn that desire is a cetasika arising with citta, and that it also arises now, when seeing has fallen away. Desire for all objects, for colour, sound, etc. for all of the five khandhas, not only feelings. For citta, for cetasikas. Feeling is more obvious and thus it seems we mainly cling to feeling, but there are many more objects to which we cling. Also concepts, certainly. Ideas and concepts we form up all the time. We cling to people, that is to concepts. What stories we spin out in a day. The cause of kamma: going back to D.O. Ignorance and also craving are the causes for kamma- formations. You are right. But these factors are representative and thus given in the D.O. It is more complex than that. L; This leaves the question, what about attachment to concepts? We can't dispel this attachment by recourse to observation of impermanence. N: Only panna can dispel it, but not immediately. By insight impermanence can be realized, an important step. In K IV, the Buddha teaches: what is impermanent is not self. Understanding impermanence is closely connected with understanding dukkha and anatta. L:Therefore, the path of purification is irrelevant in this regard. N: On the contrary, the only, only way! L: I think the "path" here is to simply observe that I am mistaking concept for reality. N: We all do, but it can be unlearnt by awareness and right understanding of seeing now, visible object now. Gradually we learn that these are dhammas. It will be seen what dhamma, reality, is. No mistakes, but a long way to go. L: But what if I say, "I am an idea, not conditioned, not impermanent". N: That is thinking, and that thinking is only a conditioned nama. Also thinking should be realized as nama. We think about stories. We can verify what is true at this moment of thinking. L:What if I knowingly embrace attachment to concepts. I can easily see this happening as a religious or spiritual strategy. How does one dispel or refute this attachment? N: It is not a matter of "me" embracing such attachment, it just happens because of conditions. What are we: citta, cetasika and rupa, nothing else. It is so helpful the way the Abhidhamma keeps on teaching this and giving the details of what kind of citta, cetasikas and rupas. Citta, cetasika and rupa, is not a general statement, but very precise. And precision helps, a remedy against confusion of mind. What the Abhidhamma teaches is so real and therefore of immmediate help to develop the Path. That means: to be aware of dhamma now. The Abhidhamma teaches about the khandhas, elements, aayatanas (sensefields) in more detail than the suttas. Only with the purpose to get rid of the idea of self. At the present time we need more details than in the Buddha's time. Yes, one may be attached to certain techniques. How to dispel it? First one should know it when it occurs, and that is very difficult. One may be immersed in it. Only understanding can go through all dhammas that occur. Only panna can do the job, nothing else. I like your questions, and again, nothing technical to me. Actually, they help me to consider and work out things for myself while I am on this long, long journey. Nina. 32119 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 9:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Larry wrote to Howard, N: butting in again > L: Are relations directly known by you? If so, how so? I don't think >> they are directly known by me in this very restricted sense of direct >> knowing of a rupa or cetasika. What the Buddha knows is only a concept >> for me. I agree there is a web of relations, but how do we know? N: Let us just choose one relation, the object-condition. Is there hearing now? Then you know that there must be a citta that experiences, otherwise nothing would appear. That citta experiences sound. We call it object, but the name is not important. Sound has a relation to the citta that hears, it is called object-condition. This may be a way to understand that certain dhammas condition other dhammas by way of a specific relation. In this case the object conditions citta by way of object-condition. And this condition is never lacking, not even when there are bhavangacittas, when you are asleep and not dreaming. Citta still experiences an object. As to the direct experience of nama or rupa as being conditioned, this will be at the second stage of insight. But not all conditions will be directly understood for everybody. That is understanding without thinking. Insight is not thinking. Nina. 32120 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 11:43pm Subject: Re: kiriyacittas Friend Nina, Nina: At the present time we need more details than in the Buddha's time. James: This is a point that makes me want to make a few observations. First, to quote from SN 65 "Bhaddali Sutta": 29. "Venerable sir, what is the cause, what is the reason, why there were previously fewer training rules and more bhikkhus became established in final knowledge? What is the cause, what is the reason, why there are now more training rules and fewer bhikkhus become established in final knowledge?" 30. "That is how it is, Baddali. When beings are deteriorating and the true Dhamma is disappearing, then there are more training rules and fewer bhikkhus become established in final knowledge…" Observations: 1.More rules (or more details of the dhamma) are not necessarily a good thing nor will they increase the dhamma in the faithful. They are a sign of deterioration and a subsequent substitute for the true Dhamma. 2.There was nothing particularly special about living in the Buddha's time. The Dhamma was already deteriorating during the Buddha's lifetime and he saw it, recognized it, and was powerless to do anything about it. 3.The Abhidhamma is a substitute for the true dhamma but it may be a necessary substitute for certain people. However, it will not appeal to those who are more interested in the true Dhamma and not any substitutes. Metta, James 32121 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 0:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kiriyacittas James (and Nina) I hope you dont' mind me coming in here. I think the reason we need more details in this day and age is because levels of panna are generally lower than in the Buddha's time. This reflects the general phenomenon that those ripe for enlightenment tend to get reborn during the time of a Buddha, or close to that, and those with less panna at a later and later time after a Buddha. The deterioration of the teachings is an exacerbating factor but not the primary one, as I see it. The question of the place of the Abhidhamma in the Buddha's teaching is a hotly debated one, but as you know on this list members are encouraged to take it as part and parcel of the teachings. You of course are entitled to your personal views on the matter;-)) Jon --- buddhatrue wrote: > Friend Nina, > > Nina: At the present time we need more details than in the Buddha's time. > > James: > Observations: > 1.More rules (or more details of the dhamma) are not necessarily a > good thing nor will they increase the dhamma in the faithful. They > are a sign of deterioration and a subsequent substitute for the > true Dhamma. > 2.There was nothing particularly special about living in the > Buddha's time. The Dhamma was already deteriorating during the > Buddha's lifetime and he saw it, recognized it, and was powerless to > do anything about it. > 3.The Abhidhamma is a substitute for the true dhamma but it may be a > necessary substitute for certain people. However, it will not > appeal to those who are more interested in the true Dhamma and not any substitutes. > > Metta, James 32122 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 2:00am Subject: Patience and Courage : was[Re: [dsg] Fwd: Antony in Hospital] --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Ken, > > And that's it? From one of the champions of no-control? If one can, > as you say, 'develop' wholesome qualities like metta, patience and > good cheer, then one can develop sati. What's your method? > Hi Christine, I hope you're enjoying your holiday in Thailand. Judging from its results, my method should be avoided like the plague. :-) Wholesome qualities (like patience) belong to wholesome consciousness. So it's no use wanting it -- I won't have it till I've got it. We'll have to be patient. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 32123 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 2:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (was, satipatthanasutta) Jack Thanks for going to the trouble of drawing out the differences between us, which you've done very well. I am clearer now on what you are saying. I think we're in agreement on one essential point, and that is that the expression 'contemplating impermanence' in the teaching "I shall breath in...shall breath out contemplating impermanence" is a reference to insight into the impermanence of any of the five aggregates (i.e., of any presently arisen dhamma). Hope I'm not putting words in your mouth here ;-)) I'd like to respond on some of your individual comments also. Apologies for the length and technicality of what follows, but you've raised some fine points. --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > Jon: Jack: Jon, Yes, that [i.e., the different sections ('tetrads' --groups of four) involve the breath in different ways] is what my next sentences below say. > Anapanasati is translated as mindfulness of breathing. All the 16 steps > involve learning anicca/dukkha/anatta through contemplation of > breathing. For > instance, the 13th step involves learning impermanence by observing the breath. Jon: Thanks for this clarification. To make sure that we're on the same page, may I just say that to my reading the term 'anapanasati/mindfulness of breathing' is used in the texts in two senses, namely, as samatha bhavana (i.e., concentration/jhana with breath as object) and as vipassana bhavana (i.e., insight into the true nature of a presently arising reality/dhamma, somehow associated with breath as object of consciousness). Is this how you see it too? Now the relevance of this, to my understanding, is that the precise moment of samatha bhavana/jhaana with breath as object cannot be a moment of insight into the true nature of a presently arising reality (for one thing, at that moment the object of consciousness is a mental image ('nimitta') of the breath). And furthermore, nor can a moment of insight of the level of vipassana have breath as object, at least not in quite the same sense that breath is object of samatha bhavana/jhaana, since the dhammas/five aggregates do not include a dhamma of 'breath'. Hope we're still in agreement here ;-)) What the Anapanasati Sutta does, as I see it, is to show how despite this lack of 'overlap' insight can be nonetheless be developed, following upon or arising interspersed with moments of samatha bhavana with breath as object, without sacrificing the samatha bhavana aspect. Jack: I'm not sure what impermanence in the general sense means. In the Anap. Sutta, we are taught to recognize impermanence in all phenomena (is this what you mean by the general sense?) through mindfulness of particular breaths. Jon: Here I'm going to get a bit technical but not, I hope, unintelligible ;-)) Because impermanence in the context of insight is impermanence as a *characteristic pertaining to* dhammas, it is something that can be known only by the development of insight into the true nature of dhammas, and this of course must be a presently arisen dhamma. This development is gradual and long-term, and it is only after the particular nature of individual dhammas has been known that their shared characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta also become apparent to panna. Now as I think you can see from the above, impermanence as a characteristic of conditioned dhammas would not be the same thing as, for example, noticing the impermanence of thoughts, feelings, etc by directing one's attention to those thoughts, feelings etc. The latter is something that anyone could observe and acknowledge; it doesn't need any wisdom to see that thoughts, feelings etc are impermanent in the general sense of the word (and the same goes for breath). Jack: I don't know what you mean when you say emphasis on the occurance rather than on its doing. Jon: This needs a close reading of the text (which I've repasted below). The text explains that 'person contemplating impermanence' means that the person *is possessed of contemplation on the impermanence* of five aggregates. My point is that rather than pointing out something 'to be done', or a deliberate practice, the text is referring just to the occurrence of insight into impermanence. Jack: As we are mindful of the breath, all of what we think of as 'I' or a person (the 5 aggregates) can come into play. As we become aware of the body sensation of a breath in our nose, we can watch consciousness, sensation, perception and mental formations all arise. Though mindfulness of the breath we can see that this breath phenomena is impermanent, unsatisfactory and empty. We are thus lead to see that all phenomena is impermanent, unsatisfactory and empty. Jon: Yes, but as explained above the text is making a distinction between moments when (image of) breath is the object of consciousness (i.e., samatha bhavana) and other moments when any of the five aggregates is object of insight (i.e., vipassana bhavana). The two cannot co-occur at precisely the same moment. Jack: I think we have a basic disagreement but I don't know what it is. Are you thinking the teaching of "I shall breath in...shall breath out contemplating impermanence" means that we should contemplate the general concept of impermanence as we breath? I think it means we should watch our breaths and try to discover that the breath and all that arise with it is impermanent. Jon: Well, perhaps one of the areas of disagreement is the point I've just mentioned, that the moments with breath as object will be different moments to those where the characteristic of impermanence of the five aggregates is apparent. I hope my explanation on this has been clear (I fear it hasn't). Furthermore (and this is just a corollary to what I've said above about the purpose or effect of the sutta), in my view the sutta does not go so far as to say that if the aim is to develop the insight that sees the impermanence of all dhammas, then one should first develop samatha bhavana with breath as object. This is perhaps another area of disagreement. Jon (from previous post) Visuddhi-Magga VIII, 234 ... explains that in order to understand what is meant by 'contemplating impermanence' in the sutta, one needs to understand the 4 terms (a) the impermanent, (b) impermanence, (c) the contemplation of impermanence and (d) one contemplating impermanence. As to these terms, it says: (a) Herein, the five aggregates are 'the impermanent', because their essence is rise and fall and change.' (b) 'Impermanence' is the rise and fall and change in those same aggregates, or it is their non-existence after having been; the meaning is, it is the break-up of produced khandhas through their momentary dissolution since they do not remain in the same mode. (c) 'Contemplation of impermanence' is contemplation of materiality, etc., as 'impermanent' in virtue of that impermanence. (d) 'One contemplating impermanence' possesses that contemplation. 32124 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 3:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Nina --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Jon, ... N: The Saddaniti (by Agavamsa, in the year 1154), as you remember, gives many meanings to the word dhamma, and one of these is pannatti. This is different from the suttas, it is another context. Such a study helps me to be careful in what context a term is used. You will find the terms nirutti and adhivacana we also saw in the Vis, and Tiika about the four Discriminations. This is what I wrote before: The Saddaniti explains the meaning of dhamma as concept: J: Thanks for this reminder; context is so important. One needs to be careful when generalising! There is a similar passage to the one you've just given in the Paramatthamanjusa, quoted in Vism (and included in one of Larry's posts on Ch XIV): Ch. VIII, Note 68. 'In such passages as "Dhammas that are concepts" (Dhs., p. 1;1308) even a non-entity (abhava) is thus called a "dhamma" since it is borne (dhariyati) and affirmed (avadhariyati) by knowledge. That kind of dhamma is excluded by [the comment] "Dhammas [means] individual essences". (Pm. 282) N: Words: pa~n~natti : designation, name, idea, notion. adhivacana (n): term attribute nirutti (f): interpretation, expression. The word pa~n~natti, concept, stands for name and for the idea expressed by a name or term. Names can designate what is reality in the absolute sense (paramattha dhammas, such as kusala, akusala, sound, etc.) and also what is not real in the absolute sense, such as person, house. J: I would just add, in view of comments I have seen in other posts, that from the point of view of the teachings both categories of names (i.e., names designating what is reality in the absolute sense, and names designating what is not real in the absolute sense) are equally concepts; one is not less 'unreal', or more grounded in reality, than the other. Jon 32125 From: Jeffrey Brooks Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 6:33pm Subject: Resolving Disputes Upakkilesa Sutta, MN 128 Imperfections When many voices shout at once None considers himself a fool; Though the Sangha is being split None thinks himself to be at fault. They have forgotten thoughtful speech, The talk obsessed by words alone. Uncurbed their mouths, they bawl at will; None knows what leads him so to act. 'He abused me, he struck me, He defeated me, he robbed me'-- In those who harbor thoughts like these Hatred will never be allayed. For in this world hatred is never Allayed by further acts of hate. It is allayed by non-hatred: That is the fixed and ageless law. Those others do not recognize That here we should restrain ourselves. But those wise ones who realize this At once end all their enmity. Breakers of bones and murderers, Those who steal cattle, horses, wealth, Those who pillage the entire realm-- When even these can act together Why can you not do so too? If one can find a worthy friend, A virtuous, steadfast companion, Then overcome all threats of danger And walk with him content and mindful. But if one finds no worthy friend, No virtuous, steadfast companion, Then as a king leaves his conquered realm, Walk like a tusker in the woods alone. Better it is to walk alone, There is no companionship with fools. Walk alone and do no evil, At ease like a tusker in the woods." (Majjhima Nikaya trans. Bhikkhus Nanamoli & Bodhi, Wisdom, 1995) 32126 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 3:22am Subject: Re: kiriyacittas Friend Jon, Jon: I hope you dont' mind me coming in here. James: Of course not. Jon: I think the reason we need more details in this day and age is because levels of panna are generally lower than in the Buddha's time. This reflects the general phenomenon that those ripe for enlightenment tend to get reborn during the time of a Buddha, or close to that, and those with less panna at a later and later time after a Buddha. James: Where did you get this information? Right off hand, this doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Beings have to be reborn somewhere and they will each have various levels of panna (wisdom) and virtue (sila). They cannot necessarily pick and choose where they will be reborn because the choices are limited. The way you describe it, there would almost have to exist a cosmic `waiting room' for those beings with enough panna who wish to be reborn in the time of a Buddha. ;-)) I look at this matter a bit differently. I think it is predominately an impersonal, cosmic phenomenon but there can be limited influence on the part of individual karma streams (if you notice, rarely is anything entirely one-sided ;-). First, not all kalpas will witness the arising of a Buddha. It is a chance experience that isn't regular or standard: "There are so many of these world systems and the length of a single kalpa so incredibly long, that the appearance of a Buddha is a comparatively rare event. Some kalpas are known as empty kalpas because a Buddha does not appear. Other more fortunate kalpas may be blessed by one or more Buddhas. Our own world system has been favored by 28 Buddhas, including Sakyamuni, during the course of many kalpas. The kalpa in which we are now living has the distinction of being a greatly auspicious kalpa of five Buddhas: Kusanda, Konagamana, Kasyapsa, Sakyamuni and Maitreya, who is yet to come." http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/budcosmo.html So, what was special about India, the Ganges region during the late 6th century B.C.E.? Conditions were ripe for the arising of a Buddha in that geographical area and time period because it was a period of a spiritual malaise after a long bout of spiritual seeking. Nietzsche described this historical background in terms of tragedy: "In the Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche described three paradigmatic models of cultural life, the Alexandrian, the Hellenic, and the Buddhistic. He used these historical designations to indicate the principal means a culture used to reconcile itself to the given conditions of its life; respectively, those means were knowledge, art, and wisdom. He argued in this early work that all culture is a mixture of these powerful "stimulants" and that as proportions vary, "we have either a dominantly Socratic or artistic or tragic culture." http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew26932.htm Karen Armstrong in her book "Buddha" described it in terms of an `Axial Age': "Some historians call this period (which extended from about 800 to 200 B.C.E) the `Axial Age' because it proved pivotal to humanity. The ethos forged during this era has continued to nourish men and women to the present day. Gotama would become one of the most important and most typical of the luminaries of the Axial Age, alongside the great Hebrew prophets of the eighth, seventh and sixth centuries; Confucious and Lao Tzu, who reformed the religious traditions of China in the sixth and fifth centuries; the sixth- century Iranian sage Zoroaster; and Socrates and Plato (c. 427-327), who urged the Greeks to question even those truths which appeared to be self-evident. People who participated in this great fransformation were convinced that they were on the brink of a new era and that nothing would ever be the same again. The Axial Age marks the beginning of humanity as we now know it. During this period, men and women became conscious of their existence, their own nature and their limitations in an unprecedented way. Their experience of utter impotence in a cruel world impelled them to seek the highest goals and an absolute reality in the depths of their being. The great sages of the time taught human beings how to cope with the misery of life, transcend their weakness, and live in peace in the midst of this flawed world." Armstrong, Karen. `Buddha'. London: Phoenix Books, 2000. Pg. 10. In summary, I don't think that we should focus on how far we are from the Buddha's time, but how we have all been born in a time and on a planet that is very advantageous in many ways. Panna (wisdom) is not an inherent quality in beings and it can be lost in a gradual manner just as it is gained in a gradual manner. It is all up to us to be diligent and work for the increase of panna rather than its decrease. Jon: The deterioration of the teachings is an exacerbating factor but not the primary one, as I see it. James: Okay, I would agree with this statement. However, I wonder what you do consider the exacerbating factor? From your first statements it seems that you are implying that each being's inherent panna is the main factor. If so, I couldn't disagree more! Panna is not inherent in beings. In MN 65 "To Bhaddali', which I quoted earlier, the Buddha further explains that the Sangha has less monks who have attained Final Liberation not because all of those monks with `inherent panna' got there already but because the Sangha was becoming too famous and popular. Conditions started to arise that stood in the way of the true Dhamma. The Sangha had become a victim of its own popularity. Again, it had nothing to do with the Buddha being present, the time period, or beings with inherent panna, it had to do with impersonal conditions. Jon: The question of the place of the Abhidhamma in the Buddha's teaching is a hotly debated one, but as you know on this list members are encouraged to take it as part and parcel of the teachings. You of course are entitled to your personal views on the matter;-)) James: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone (including Nina). I just wanted to stress that the teachings are not what make a difference. She stated that we need a lot of details in this day and age. Why? Is the fact of having more details important? Not according to the Buddha. The Buddha taught the proper role of the teachings: MN 70 "At Kitagiri" 22. "Bhikkhus, I do not say that final knowledge is achieved all at once. On the contrary, final knowledge is achieved by gradual training, by gradual practice, by gradual progress. 23. And how is final knowledge achieved by gradual training, gradual practice, and gradual progress? Here one who has faith [in a teacher] visits him; when he visits him, he pays respect to him; when he pays respect to him, he gives ear; one who gives ear hears the Dhamma; having heard the Dhamma, he memorizes it; he examines the meaning of the teachings he has memorized; when he examines their meaning, he gains a reflective acceptance of those teachings; when he has gained a reflective acceptance of those teachings, zeal springs up in him; when zeal has sprung up, he applies his will; having applied his will, he scrutinizes; having scrutinized, he strives; resolutely striving, he realizes with the body the supreme truth and sees it by penetrating it with wisdom" (708) Note 708: With the mental body he realizes Nibbana, the ultimate truth, and he penetrates it with the wisdom pertaining to the supramundane path. From this passage, it can be seen that the Buddha intended the Dhamma to be of a nature so that a person could memorize it. Is it possible to memorize the Abhidhamma? I don't think so! One would have to be a literal genius to do such a thing! Any teachings beyond the ability to memorize them is overkill and unproductive to the Buddha's path, in my opinion and according to what he taught. Metta, James 32127 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 6:43am Subject: Vis. 73 and Tiika Vis. 73 and Tiika Vis. 73. This part gives an all over review of all the twentyeight rupas we have studied. They are all included in rupakkhandha. Khandha is past, future or present, it arises and falls away. A selection of parts of the Vis and Tiika: Vis. 73 Herein, the five kinds beginning with the eye are 'internal' because they occur as an integral part of the selfhood (in oneself); the rest are 'external' because they are external to that selfhood (personality). Pali: tattha cakkhaadipa~ncavidha.m attabhaava.m adhikicca pavattattaa ajjhattika.m, sesa.m tato baahirattaa baahira.m. N: the Pali word attabhaava, self nature, is here translated as selfhood or personality. It can also be translated as individuality. The Expositor (II, p. 404) explains: ³Because it is grasped by foolish folk, as Œthis body or this collection of the five aggregates is my self,¹ therefore both the bodily frame or this collection of the five aggregates is called Œself-state¹ (attabhaava, i.e. personality). ŒIncluded in personality¹ is comprised in and depending on just that.² Individuality can be used to refer to the rupas in one¹s body. The Tiika explains: Aahito aha.m maano etthaati attaa, attabhaavo. Self includes here ³I² conceit, and thus there is the word selfhood, personality. Ta.m attaana.m adhikicca uddissa pavattaa ajjhattaa indriyabaddhadhammaa, tesu bhava.m ajjhattika.m, cakkhaadi. Beginning with the eye, they occur as an integral part of the individuality (in oneself), internal, dhammas that are connected with faculties, and thus their nature is internal. Vis. The eighteen kinds of matter, that is to say, the four elements, the thirteen beginning with the eye, and physical nutriment, are 'produced' because they can be discerned through their own individual nature, having exceeded the [purely conceptual] states of [matter as] delimitation, [matter as] alteration, and [matter as] characteristic; the rest, being the opposite, are 'unproduced'. Pali: catasso dhaatuyo, cakkhaadiini terasa, kaba.liikaaraahaaro caati a.t.thaarasavidha.m ruupa.m paricchedavikaaralakkha.nabhaava.m atikkamitvaa sabhaaveneva pariggahetabbato nipphanna.m, sesa.m tabbipariitataaya anipphanna.m. Remark: The Pali does not have the words that are in brackets: the [purely conceptual] states of [matter as] delimitation.... It has: They are concrete matter, different from characteristics of rupas such as delimitation (the space that separates groups) etc. All of them are included in the twentyeight rupas. The expression ³purely conceptual² could imply that they are not paramattha dhammas. Text Vis: ...The five kinds beginning with the eye are 'sensitive matter' through their being conditions for the apprehension of visible data, etc., because they are, as it were, bright like the surface of a looking glass. Pali: cakkhaadipa~ncavidha.m ruupaadiina.m gaha.napaccayabhaavena aadaasatala.m viya vippasannattaa pasaadaruupa.m Tiika: Sotaadiinampi cakkhuno viya pasannasabhaavattaa eva yathaasaka.m visayaggaha.napaccayataati dassento aaha ³cakkhaadi..pe.. pasaadaruupan²ti. He taught with reference to the earsense in like manner as to the eyesense, that they are, because of their nature of brightness and of the condition of apprehending each their own object, "beginning with the eye... sensitive matter². N: There is a word association that is lost in the English translation: pasanna: bright, vipassanna: very bright, and pasaada: clearness, brightness. Pasaada rupas are the sense-organs, or sensitive matter that is bright. They are compared in the Vis with the surface of a looking glass. When an object impinges upon them it can appear clearly to the relevant sense-cognition. Seeing clearly experiences visible object that impinges on the pasaada ruupa of the eyesense. Text Vis: Sensitive matter itself, together with the three beginning with the femininity faculty, is 'faculty' in the sense of predominance. Pali:itthindriyaadittayena saddhi.m adhipatiya.t.thena indriya.m Tiika: Adhipatiya.t.thenaati ettha cakkhaadiina.m taava pa~ncanna.m cakkhuvi~n~naa.naadiisu aadhipateyya.m tesa.m pa.tumandabhaavaanuvattanato, As to the expression, in the sense of predominance, this means here, that the eye and so on are the rulers over the five sense-cognitions of eye-consciousness and so on, in as far as the latter are compliant (to the ³rulers²) in a keen or slow manner *. Tiika: itthipurisindriyadvayassa sakicce jiivitindriyassa sahajaruupaanupaalane. As to (predominance of) the pair of the faculties of femininity and masculinity, these have each their own task, and as to the life-faculty, this maintains the conascent materiality. Vis text: What we shall later describe as 'kamma-born' (par. 75 and Ch. XX, par. 27) is 'clung to' because that is 'clung-to', [that is, acquired] by kamma. Pali: ya.m kammajanti parato vakkhaama, ta.m kammena upaadi.n.nattaa upaadi.n.na.m Tiika: Upaadinnattaati gahitattaa. As to the expression, clung to, this is in the sense of acquired. Kammanibbatta~nhi ³mameta.m phala.m²nti kammunaa gahita.m viya hoti apa.tikkhepato. It is not refuted that originated by kamma means as it were acquired by kamma, with the thought, ³this fruit is mine². ***** _________________ * The eyesense may be keen or slow, and this is conditioned by kamma, by sickness or decay. It is the same with the other senses. This is compared with being prompt or slow in following the ruler, the faculty. Remark: The Vis. said that the senses are bright like the surface of a looking glass. By means of them the relevant sense objects appear very clearly to the sense-cognitions. We are very impressed by what we experience through the senses and attach great importance to it. The world comes to us through the senses. We are attached to the image of a whole, a long lasting world with people. But actually, there is only one moment at a time of experiencing an object, and all these realities we are attached to do not last. ****** Nina. 32128 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 6:44am Subject: dialogue on satipatthana Dear Jon and Howard, Lodewijk wrote something by hand I type out. It is a question for Bgk. end quote. I can add: Lodewijk said that this whole matter upsets him. We were talking about western ways of reasoning and eastern ways. I find myself very confortable with the last way, but, Lodewijk said that does not help westerners. He thinks there are many like him. He finds it very difficult when A. Sujin answers with the example of seeing now or dhamma now. We were talking about it that her and my way is more like thinking and explaining in spirals, not a straight description. That is what he wants, a clear, straight description. He says I always give fragments, lots of fragments, but not a whole. When I say: know the object of satipatthana: paramattha dhammas, or: the goal is understanding non-self, he still answers: "only bits and pieces". Jon, maybe you have an idea yourself or someone else in Bgk. It is material for thought how to help others. You are so good at defining, you will get this across. I still feel myself, that it must take years and years of getting bits and pieces, and lots of patience before we understand. Thank you very much, Nina. 32129 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 6:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma-condition Hi Larry, op 11-04-2004 01:34 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > What makes intention condition kamma in an ordinay person's javana > cittas but not in an arahant's? N: Intention, cetana is kamma. But kamma has different aspects. Kamma working at the same time is conascent kamma, arising with each citta, also with vipakacittas and kiriyacittas, coordinating the work of the conascent dhammas. Cetana with kusala citta and akusala citta has a double task, it wills or intends kusala or akusala. The kusala and akusala has different strengths. When it is strong it can motivate deeds through body, speech and mind. This is what we usually mean by kamma. It can bring a result later on, and then we speak of kamma working from a different time. Now some examples of cetana with the javanacittas. Akusala citta rooted in moha and dosa may arise. This citta is conditioned by these roots by way of root-condition, and this condition is always conascent. This should be remembered, it brings more clarity in the understanding of conditions. Aversion may be slight, just some uneasiness, and then the accompanying cetana does not have the strength of motivating bad speech or an evil deed. More moments may follow and it grows into anger, and if there is the right object for anger it motivates bad speech, which also has different degrees. This can produce a result later on. As discussed before, different factors make kamma into completed action, kamma patha, and this can even produce rebirth-consciousness of a next life. We take dosa for self, or the sound we hear for a person or thing, but, the Abhidhamma teaches us that there are only citta, cetasika and rupa. We have not eradicated dosa (only the non-returner has) but this outlook can help to have, at times, more equanimity towards persons and events. Not always of course. You discussed clinging or desire being a condition for dosa. Our accumulated desire is a condition for wanting the pleasant worldly conditions, and if these do not happen we have aversion. The desire does not arise at the same time like the roots that condition the dosamulacitta. But still it conditions it by another type: by way of natural strong dependence-condition. Thus you see that it is helpful to study conditions. Otherwise our life is guesswork. Now lobha-mulacitta that conditions bad speech. Suppose someone enjoys joking, likes to join in when others joke. What is the citta like? At the moment of laughing and enjoying there is citta rooted in lobha and moha, ignorance. There are different intensities. There is not always the intention to harm or hurt. When one intends to hurt others the cetana is motivating akusala kamma through speech. Before one realizes it there is this intensity. That is why the Buddha in the Vinaya forbade the monks to tease. We can learn a great deal from the Vinaya. I like to remember that it is a small sacrifice only to swallow a joke. Then there is no risk. You wrote: You are thinking about ignorance of the D.O. In what ways does it condition kamma. So long as there is the latent tendency of ignorance that is not eradicated, it conditions kamma: akusala kamma, kusala kamma and imperturbable kamma. It conditions it even when it is not a root-condition. It is also natural strong dependence-condition. Nina. 32130 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 6:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (was, satipatthanasutta) Dear Jon, Thank you very much. I find this post very helpful and clear. I shall prin tit out for Lodewijk. Nina. op 10-04-2004 09:45 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonoabb@y...: > I continue now with more from Visuddhi-Magga VIII, 234, Here it explains that in order to understand what > is meant by 'contemplating impermanence' in the sutta passage "He > trains thus 'I shall breathe in contemplating impermanence'", one > needs to understand 4 terms, namely (a) the impermanent, (b) > impermanence, (c) the contemplation of impermanence and (d) one > contemplating impermanence. > > As to these terms, it says: > (a) Herein, the five aggregates are 'the impermanent', because their > essence is rise and fall and change.' > (b) 'Impermanence' is the rise and fall and change in those same > aggregates, or it is their non-existence after having been; the > meaning is, it is the break-up of produced khandhas through their > momentary dissolution since they do not remain in the same mode. > (c) 'Contemplation of impermanence' is contemplation of materiality, > etc., as 'impermanent' in virtue of that impermanence. > (d) 'One contemplating impermanence' possesses that contemplation. > > What is the significance of these explanations? > > Firstly, the explanations at (a) and (c) seem to be saying that > contemplation of the impermanence of *any of the five aggregates* > (not just of the 'breath' rupas of the rupa aggregate only) is > contemplation of impermanence within the meaning of the tetrad. > > Secondly, the explanations at (c) and (d) seem to be saying that > whenever such contemplation occurs, the person in question is to be > regarded as 'one contemplating impermanence', with the emphasis on > the *occurrence* of that contemplation, rather than on its *doing*. > > The Visuddhi-Magga passage word commentary then concludes by saying: > < be understood of him: 'He trains thus: "I shall breathe in ... > shall breathe out contemplating impermanence"'.>> > > This draws together all the foregoing: when there occurs, in a person > who is practised in samatha with breath as object, contemplation of > the impermanence of the five aggregates, then that person is said to > be 'training himself' in the manner stated in the sutta. > > So while the tetrad is indeed all about insight, it is about insight > into the five aggregates in general, and not insight into 'breath' > per se, nor even necessarily into those particular rupas of the rupa > aggregate that are taken as breath. The significance of the breath > here lies in the occasion on which the insight occurs (i.e., person > developing samatha with breath as object), rather than in the actual > object of insight. 32131 From: robmoult Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 7:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > ------------------------------------------- > > How effective > > > would the medical community be without technical jargon? BTW, a minor > > correction; anger does not have tanha (lobha) as a root, the roots of > > anger are dosa and moha. > > > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, as I understand it, 'dosa' MEANS "anger". So - anger is a root > of anger? Not very helpful, I'm afraid. > What is clear to me, however, is that anger is always the result of > (thwarted) desire/greed (tanha/lobha), and, thus, tanha is a central condition > for anger. What does 'root of' mean if not "central condition for"? Dosa can mean many things... Aversion, hatred, anger, guilt, fear. A citta and its cetasikas lasts for a moment. The root is like the foundation of the citta. It arises at the same time as the citta and falls away with the citta. It is like the root of a tree. I am not sure that lobha is always the central condition for the arising of dosa, but let's but that aside and asume that it was (BTW, the texts define "a grounds for annoyance" as the proximate cause of dosa). In this case, the citta with lobha must have occured before the citta with dosa for it to act as a condition for its arising. Lobha and dosa never arise in the same citta. They are mutually exclusive. Dosa is always accompanied by unpleasant feeling (vendana cetasika) while Lobha can be accompanied by neutral or pleasant feeling. The central conditions for the arising of a tree are seed, soil, rain, sun, etc. The roots are not the central condition for the arising of the tree. When a tree exists, the roots are the foundation. Hopefully this analogy clarifies the difference between root and "central condition". Metta, Rob M :-) 32132 From: Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 3:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Hi, Nina (and Jon, and Lodewijk) - In a message dated 4/11/04 9:43:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > Dear Jon and Howard, > > Lodewijk wrote something by hand I type out. It is a question for Bgk. > Abhidhamma], Nina and I got into a discussion on Satipatthana. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Now I'm wondering: What did I say? What did I say?" ;-)) ----------------------------------------------- I said that> > after so many years of listening, I still did not quite understand what > exactly satipatthana means. Nina said:"It is the same as vipassana", "the > same as the eightfold Path", "the same as panna.", but this led me further > astray. Does it mean:"the six doors" or "Seeing now"? Maybe, yes and no. I > said:"That is just bits and pieces, but I still do not get a coherent, > logical answer to my question:"What is exactly is satipatthana?" The answer > cannot be:"You will know the answer as soon as you canbe aware of realities > as they are." Maybe yes, but that is not the way to convince people like > Howard [and me] !> end quote. > I can add: Lodewijk said that this whole matter upsets him. We were talking > about western ways of reasoning and eastern ways. I find myself very > confortable with the last way, but, Lodewijk said that does not help > westerners. He thinks there are many like him. He finds it very difficult > when A. Sujin answers with the example of seeing now or dhamma now. We were > talking about it that her and my way is more like thinking and explaining in > spirals, not a straight description. That is what he wants, a clear, > straight description. He says I always give fragments, lots of fragments, > but not a whole. When I say: know the object of satipatthana: paramattha > dhammas, or: the goal is understanding non-self, he still answers: "only > bits and pieces". > Jon, maybe you have an idea yourself or someone else in Bgk. It is material > for thought how to help others. You are so good at defining, you will get > this across. I still feel myself, that it must take years and years of > getting bits and pieces, and lots of patience before we understand. Thank > you very much, > Nina. > ========================= I *do* believe that vipassana is a matter of directly seeing what is actual, and seeing it "right here and right now"! I do *not* believe that one must be immersed in a jhana in order for wisdom "at the level of vipassana" to be operative, though Sariputta's example shows that insight from a jhanic base is a "way". But insight into the nature of dhammas can arise - no, *will* arise - whenever the exact assemblage of conditions for that is in place, and these conditions include a properly cultivated mind. What I do believe is that long and intensive conventional cultivation is required to mold the mind into an instrument suitable for effective investigation of dhammas, and this cultivation is multi-pronged and includes formal and informal methods of training that produce heightened mindfulness, calm, concentration, and clarity of attention and rather consistent non-grasping. I also strongly believe that mere waiting for results without establishing conditions that will lead to the results is an unfortunate error. 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) 32133 From: Larry Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 7:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Hi Nina, Howard, and Rob, I think this is what you mean and I agree. All rooted consciousness is rooted in ignorance. To be rooted means to be drawn from the reservoir of one's accumulations. An arahant has accumulations also but they aren't a mass of ignorance. Somehow the change of lineage consciousness instantaneously purifies this entire reservoir and millennia of confusion and bewilderment suddenly makes sense. This happens in 4 stages and culminates in the complete purification of the arahant's accumulations. Perhaps we can gain a little understanding of an arahant's mahakariya cittas by studying the rootless nature of rupas. Rupas are not happy or sad or confused. They are just what they are. It is a fine distinction but I think we can discriminate between the rootless mind-door rupa of intimation and the consciousness rooted in ignorance that produces it. Larry 32134 From: Larry Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 7:55am Subject: Re: Vis. 73 and Tiika Hi Nina, What is the difference between delimitation and shape? Larry 32135 From: Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 4:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Hi, Rob - In a message dated 4/11/04 10:32:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > The central conditions for the arising of a tree are seed, soil, > rain, sun, etc. The roots are not the central condition for the > arising of the tree. When a tree exists, the roots are the > foundation. Hopefully this analogy clarifies the difference between > root and "central condition". > ========================== Okay, I believe I see what you are driving at. A root or mula is defined as follows (from Nyanatiloka): > 'roots', also called hetu (q.v.; s. paccaya, 1), are those conditions which > through their presence determine the actual moral quality of a volitional > state (cetaná), and the consciousness and mental factors associated therewith, > in other words, the quality of karma (q.v.). There are 6 such roots, 3 karmica > lly wholesome and 3 unwholesome roots, viz.,: greed, hate, delusion (lobha, > dosa, moha), and greedlessness, hatelessness, undeludedness (alobha, adosa, > amoha). =========================== So, a root for a volitional mindstate is not a central condition for the *arising* of that state, but something more like a central morality-determining *characteristic* of that state. So, for example, an intentional impulse dominated by generosity would have a root of alobha. To reiterate, I take it, then, that roots are conditions that are primary moral characteristics of volitional mindstates rather than primary generative conditions of such states. 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) 32136 From: robmoult Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 2:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kiriyacittas Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > So, a root for a volitional mindstate is not a central condition for > the *arising* of that state, but something more like a central > morality-determining *characteristic* of that state. So, for example, an intentional impulse > dominated by generosity would have a root of alobha. > To reiterate, I take it, then, that roots are conditions that are > primary moral characteristics of volitional mindstates rather than primary > generative conditions of such states. This is correct. One of the benefits of studying Abhidhamma is that it helps us to realize the more subtle aspects of our observed mind. For example, when it comes to roots, the Abhidhamma tells us: - Lobha root always arises together with moha root - Dosa root always arises together with moha root - Lobha and dosa are mutually exclusive - Restlessness and doubt are examples of moha root without lobha or dosa - Alobha and adosa always arise together - When there is panna, there is always alobha and adosa as well In other words, after studying the Abhidhamma, I can take your example, "an intentional impulse dominated by generosity would have a root of alobha." and add that adosa must also be present at the same moment. Metta, Rob M :-) 32137 From: Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 3:19pm Subject: VISM.XIV 74 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 74. Again, all matter is of three kinds according to the visible (sanidassana) triad, the kamma born triad, etc. (see Dhs., p.2). Herein, as regards the gross, a visible datum is 'visible with impact'; the rest are 'invisible with impact'; all the subtle kinds are 'invisible without impact'. So firstly it is of three kinds according to the visible triad. 32138 From: Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 3:49pm Subject: immaterial space Hi Nina, I have a doubt about the reality status of the four bases of immaterial jhana. These are: "boundless space", "boundless consciousness", "nothingness", and "neither perception nor non-perception". I believe these are classified as concepts because the objects of the lower levels of jhana are concepts and because they are not listed in the list of realities. However, it seems to me (1) a base is a reality, (2) the description of the base of neither perception nor non-perception sounds like a reality, and (3) the 'profitable consciousness' of the fine-material sphere is associated with jhana factors (realities) and the 'profitable consciousness' of the immaterial sphere is associated with the bases [this suggests to me that the bases are realities]. If this is the case then there are three kinds of space: the rupa (delimitation), the concept of the rupa (imagined space), and immaterial 'boundless' space. What is your view on this? Larry 32139 From: Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 2:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (was, satipatthanasutta) jon: Thanks for going to the trouble of drawing out the differences between us, which you've done very well. I am clearer now on what you are saying. I think we're in agreement on one essential point, and that is that the expression 'contemplating impermanence' in the teaching "I shall breath in...shall breath out contemplating impermanence" is a reference to insight into the impermanence of any of the five aggregates (i.e., of any presently arisen dhamma). Hope I'm not putting words in your mouth here ;-)) jack: Jon, the usual explanation is it involves realization of the impermanence of the 5 aggregates, the 12 links of Dependent Origination and the 6 internal sense bases. jon:I'd like to respond on some of your individual comments also. Apologies for the length and technicality of what follows, but you've raised some fine points. Jack: Jon, Yes, that [i.e., the different sections ('tetrads' --groups of four) involve the breath in different ways] is what my next sentences below say.> Anapanasati is translated as mindfulness of breathing. All the 16 steps > involve learning anicca/dukkha/anatta through contemplation of > breathing. For > instance, the 13th step involves learning impermanence by observing the breath. Jon:Thanks for this clarification. To make sure that we're on the same page, may I just say that to my reading the term 'anapanasati/mindfulness of breathing' is used in the texts in two senses, namely, as samatha bhavana (i.e., concentration/jhana with breath as object) and as vipassana bhavana (i.e., insight into the true nature of a presently arising reality/dhamma, somehow associated with breath as object of consciousness). Is this how you see it too? Now the relevance of this, to my understanding, is that the precise moment of samatha bhavana/jhaana with breath as object cannot be a moment of insight into the true nature of a presently arising reality (for one thing, at that moment the object of consciousness is a mental image ('nimitta') of the breath). Sure. A minor point is that I think the Visud. says that a nimitta arising is not necessary for samatha bhavana/jhana. One may attain samatha bhavana/jhana without a nimitta. jon: And furthermore, nor can a moment of insight of the level of vipassana have breath as object, at least not in quite the same sense that breath is object of samatha bhavana/jhaana, since the dhammas/five aggregates do not include a dhamma of 'breath'. jack: I'm still not sure of your point here. It's evident that using the breath as object during samatha is different than during insight. When mindful of the breath, all 5 aggregates are involved. jon: What the Anapanasati Sutta does, as I see it, is to show how despite this lack of 'overlap' insight can be nonetheless be developed, following upon or arising interspersed with moments of samatha bhavana with breath as object, without sacrificing the samatha bhavana aspect. jack: I don't think it is saying that. The first 3 triads are strengthening the mind for the 4th triad which involves insight. It is a progression of teachings, each building on the ones before. Al the teaching use mindfulness of the breath. Jack: I'm not sure what impermanence in the general sense means. In the Anap. Sutta, we are taught to recognize impermanence in all phenomena (is this what you mean by the general sense?) through mindfulness of particular breaths. Jon:Here I'm going to get a bit technical but not, I hope, unintelligible ;-)) Because impermanence in the context of insight is impermanence as a *characteristic pertaining to* dhammas, it is something that can be known only by the development of insight into the true nature of dhammas, and this of course must be a presently arisen dhamma. This development is gradual and long-term, and it is only after the particular nature of individual dhammas has been known that their shared characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta also become apparent to panna. Jack: Do you see this as different than what I have been saying in the last quote of mine above? jon: Now as I think you can see from the above, impermanence as a characteristic of conditioned dhammas would not be the same thing as, for example, noticing the impermanence of thoughts, feelings, etc by directing one's attention to those thoughts, feelings etc. The latter is something that anyone could observe and acknowledge; it doesn't need any wisdom to see that thoughts, feelings etc are impermanent in the general sense of the word (and the same goes for breath). jack: I disagree here. Realizing the impermanence of the breath, emotions, etc., is not just realizing that they have a beginning and an end. It is realizing each breath, to use breath as an example, is different, i.e., our internal world, our external world and the interaction between them is ever changing each moment. Realization of impermanence also involves realization of not-self and suffering. So, realization of the impermanence of the breath is the same as realizing the impermanence of any conditioned dhamma. Jack:I don't know what you mean when you say emphasis on the occurance rather than on its doing. Jon: This needs a close reading of the text (which I've repasted below). The text explains that 'person contemplating impermanence' means that the person *is possessed of contemplation on the impermanence* of five aggregates. My point is that rather than pointing out something 'to be done', or a deliberate practice, the text is referring just to the occurrence of insight into impermanence. jack: I would say a close reading of the text would cause one to come to a different conclusion, that deliberate practice is called for. But, that is something I think we just accept as a difference in the way we interpret the texts. Jack: As we are mindful of the breath, all of what we think of as 'I' or a person (the 5 aggregates) can come into play. As we become aware of the body sensation of a breath in our nose, we can watch consciousness, sensation, perception and mental formations all arise. Though mindfulness of the breath we can see that this breath phenomena is impermanent, unsatisfactory and empty. We are thus lead to see that all phenomena is impermanent, unsatisfactory and empty. Jon: Yes, but as explained above the text is making a distinction between moments when (image of) breath is the object of consciousness (i.e., samatha bhavana) and other moments when any of the five aggregates is object of insight (i.e., vipassana bhavana). The two cannot co-occur at precisely the same moment. jack: I don't understand why you think this is a response to my previous paragraph. Why is their not occuring at the same moment, of which I agree, important here? Jack: I think we have a basic disagreement but I don't know what it is. Are you thinking the teaching of "I shall breath in...shall breath out contemplating impermanence" means that we should contemplate the general concept of impermanence as we breath? I think it means we should watch our breaths and try to discover that the breath and all that arise with it is impermanent. Jon:Well, perhaps one of the areas of disagreement is the point I've just mentioned, that the moments with breath as object will be different moments to those where the characteristic of impermanence of the five aggregates is apparent. I hope my explanation on this has been clear (I fear it hasn't). jack: As I said above, I don't see the relevance to our discussion. Furthermore (and this is just a corollary to what I've said above about the purpose or effect of the sutta), in my view the sutta does not go so far as to say that if the aim is to develop the insight that sees the impermanence of all dhammas, then one should first develop samatha bhavana with breath as object. This is perhaps another area of disagreement. jack: Yes, it seems to be a point of disagreement. Jon: (from previous post) Visuddhi-Magga VIII, 234 ... explains that in order to understand what is meant by 'contemplating impermanence' in the sutta, one needs to understand the 4 terms (a) the impermanent, (b) impermanence, (c) the contemplation of impermanence and (d) one contemplating impermanence. As to these terms, it says: (a) Herein, the five aggregates are 'the impermanent', because their essence is rise and fall and change.' (b) 'Impermanence' is the rise and fall and change in those same aggregates, or it is their non-existence after having been; the meaning is, it is the break-up of produced khandhas through their momentary dissolution since they do not remain in the same mode. (c) 'Contemplation of impermanence' is contemplation of materiality, etc., as 'impermanent' in virtue of that impermanence. (d) 'One contemplating impermanence' possesses that contemplation. I agree with the above but don't see its relevance here. The internet is an imperfect means of communication. When I say above that I don't agree, don't see the relevance, etc., I am trying to understand your reasoning not attacking it. jack 32140 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 6:47pm Subject: Re: Recognizing the Dhamma - 7. Persistence (§ 7.1.) Hi all, It occurs to me that persistence is about right effort: "And what, monks, is right effort? [i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen. [iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort." -- SN XLV.8 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/samma-vayamo.html Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > 7. Persistence > > > § 7.1. > "'This Dhamma is for one whose persistence is aroused, not for one > who is lazy.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? > There is the case where a monk keeps his persistence aroused for > abandoning unskillful mental qualities and taking on skillful mental > qualities. He is steadfast, solid in his effort, not shirking his > duties with regard to skillful mental qualities. 'This Dhamma is for > one whose persistence is aroused, not for one who is lazy.' Thus was > it said. And with reference to this was it said. > > [AN VIII.30] > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html#persistence 32141 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 7:10pm Subject: Re: Recognizing the Dhamma - 7. Persistence (§ 7.2, § 7.3) Hi all, At the first glance it seems to me that the passage § 7.2. is not about persistence. It gives me a sense of urgency with "As if struck by a sword, as if his head were on fire," The passage mentions being mindful and abandoning of sensual passion and it reminds me of mindfulness as a factor for Awakening and it's relation to persistence: "[1] On whatever occasion the monk remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world, on that occasion his mindfulness is steady & without lapse. When his mindfulness is steady & without lapse, then mindfulness as a factor for Awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development. "[2] Remaining mindful in this way, he examines, analyzes, & comes to a comprehension of that quality with discernment. When he remains mindful in this way, examining, analyzing, & coming to a comprehension of that quality with discernment, then analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development. "[3] In one who examines, analyzes, & comes to a comprehension of that quality with discernment, unflagging persistence is aroused. When unflagging persistence is aroused in one who examines, analyzes, & comes to a comprehension of that quality with discernment, then persistence as a factor for Awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development. "[4] In one whose persistence is aroused, a rapture not-of-the-flesh arises. When a rapture not-of-the-flesh arises in one whose persistence is aroused, then rapture as a factor for Awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn54-013.html And the relation between persistence and rapture is found in passage § 7.3: "Furthermore, the monk finds pleasure & delight in developing [skillful mental qualities], finds pleasure & delight in abandoning [unskillful mental qualities]. Comments are welcome. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > § 7.2. > As if struck by a sword, > as if his head were on fire, > a monk should live the wandering life > -- mindful -- > for the abandoning of sensual passion. > > [Thag I.39] > > > § 7.3. > "Furthermore, the monk finds pleasure & delight in developing > [skillful mental qualities], finds pleasure & delight in abandoning > [unskillful mental qualities]. He does not, on account of his > pleasure & delight in developing & abandoning, exalt himself or > disparage others. In this he is diligent, deft, alert, & mindful. > This is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original > traditions of the noble ones." > > [AN IV.28] > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html#persistence 32142 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 7:14pm Subject: Recognizing the Dhamma - 7. Persistence (§ 7.4) § 7.4. "And how is a monk devoted to wakefulness? There is the case where a monk during the day, sitting & pacing back & forth, cleanses his mind of any qualities that would hold the mind in check. During the first watch of the night [dusk to 10 p.m.], sitting & pacing back & forth, he cleanses his mind of any qualities that would hold the mind in check. During the second watch of the night [10 p.m. to 2 a.m.], reclining on his right side, he takes up the lion's posture, one foot placed on top of the other, mindful, alert, with his mind set on getting up [either as soon as he awakens or at a particular time]. During the last watch of the night [2 a.m. to dawn], sitting & pacing back & forth, he cleanses his mind of any qualities that would hold the mind in check. This is how a monk is devoted to wakefulness." [AN IV.37] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html#persistence 32143 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 7:16pm Subject: Recognizing the Dhamma - 7. Persistence (§ 7.5) § 7.5. The Buddha: To me -- resolute in exertion near the river Nerañjara, making a great effort, doing jhana to attain security from bondage -- Namuci[1] came, speaking words of compassion: "You are ashen, thin. Death is in your presence. Death has 1,000 parts of you. Only one part is your life. Live, good sir! Life is better. Alive, you can do acts of merit. Your living the holy life, performing the fire sacrifice, will heap up much merit. What use is exertion to you? Hard to follow -- the path of exertion -- hard to do, hard to sustain." Saying these verses, Mara stood in the Awakened One's presence. And to that Mara, speaking thus, the Blessed One said this: "Kinsman of the heedless, Evil One, come here for whatever purpose: I haven't, for merit, even the least bit of need. Those who have need of merit: those are the ones Mara's fit to address. In me are conviction austerity, persistence, discernment. Why, when I'm so resolute do you petition me to live? This wind could burn up even river currents. Why, when I'm resolute, shouldn't my blood dry away? As my blood dries up gall & phlegm dry up. As muscles waste away, the mind grows clearer; mindfulness, discernment, concentration stand more firm. Staying in this way, attaining the ultimate feeling,[2] the mind has no interest in sensual passions. See: a being's purity! Sensual passions are your first army. Your second is called Discontent. Your third is Hunger & Thirst. Your fourth is called Craving. Fifth is Sloth & Drowsiness. Sixth is called Terror. Your seventh is Uncertainty. Hypocrisy & Stubbornness, your eighth. Gains, Offerings, Fame, & Status wrongly gained, and whoever would praise self & disparage others. That, Namuci, is your army, the Dark One's commando force. A coward can't defeat it, but one having defeated it gains bliss. Do I carry muñja grass?[3] I spit on my life. Death in battle would be better for me than that I, defeated, survive. Sinking here, they don't appear, some priests & contemplatives. They don't know the path by which those with good practices go. Seeing the bannered force on all sides -- the troops, Mara along with his mount -- I go into battle. May they not budge me from my spot. That army of yours, that the world with its devas can't overcome, I will smash with discernment -- as an unfired pot with a stone. Making my resolve mastered, mindfulness well-established, I will go about, from kingdom to kingdom, training many disciples. They -- heedful, resolute, doing my bidding -- despite your wishes, will go where, having gone, there's no grief." Mara: "For seven years, I've dogged the Blessed One's steps, but haven't gained an opening in the One Self-awakened & glorious. A crow circled a stone the color of fat -- 'Maybe I've found something tender here. Maybe there's something delicious' -- but not getting anything delicious there, the crow went away. Like the crow attacking the rock, I weary myself with Gotama." As he was overcome with sorrow, his lute fell from under his arm. Then he, the despondent spirit, right there disappeared. [Sn III.2] Notes: 1. Mara. [Go back] 2. The highest equanimity that can be attained through jhana. [Go back] 3. Muñja grass was the ancient Indian equivalent of a white flag. A warrior expecting that he might have to surrender would take muñja grass into battle with him. If he did surrender, he would lie down with the muñja grass in his mouth. The Buddha, in asking this rhetorical question, is indicating that he is not the type of warrior who would carry muñja grass. If defeated, he would rather die than surrender. [Go back] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html#persistence 32144 From: Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 3:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 4/11/04 4:43:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, James (and Jon) - > ... > James, I agree with you about "mere belief". However, knowing > what to look for sometimes helps one's direct investigations (though, > of course, it can also skew them). I have long had a phenomenalist > view, but I have now also had it confirmed to an extent by "direct > looking". It has become experientially clear to me that I don't "hear > rain," I hear sound. I don't "see a tree," I see a (patterned) sight. > I don't "feel my body," I feel bodily sensation. But I do *think* of > hearing rain, seeing trees, and feeling my body. After a while, when > direct looking is practiced along with clear comprehension of what > one actually experiences, the theory does not remain as theory. > > With metta, > Howard > > Jon: > But 'direct looking' is not part of the teachings found in the suttas > (unless it is your own term for something else mentioned there). So > whatever a person experienced or realized as a result of such a > practice would not be the understanding of which the Buddha spoke, > regardless of how great the similarities may appear to the person. > > Jon ========================== I honestly don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. What is vipassana/satipatthana, then, if not "direct looking" - that is, seeing what actually arises, and not substituted for with concepts? I'm talking about ongoing mindfulness and clear comprehnsion of what actually arises and ceases at any time. Are you saying this is not Dhamma?!! With metta and not just a little perplexity, 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) 32145 From: m. nease Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sankhaarupaadaana, for Nina and Suan Hi Suan, Thanks for the response. ----- Original Message ----- From: "abhidhammika" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 7:02 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Sankhaarupaadaana, for Nina and Suan Dear Mike, Nina, Chris, Sarah and all Mike, when you wrote "sankhaarupaadaana", did you mean "sankhaarupekkhaa"? No--I was interested in your translation (activation aggregate) which you've explained below--but most particularly in the context of the upaadaanakhandhas. Sankhaarakhanda could be translated as the activation aggregate because it refers to activation (cetanaa cetasika). However, even though cetanaa cetasika is used as the head term (siisena), the activation aggregate covers all the remaining mental associates (cetasikas) as well - that is to say, those mental associates excepting feeling (vedanaa) which is covered by the feeling aggregate, and memory (saññaa) which is covered by the memory aggregate. Understood-- On the other hand, the term "sankhaara" in the expression "sankhaarupekkhaa" covers all the five psychosomatic aggregates, and is the same term that occurs in the famous statements of the Buddha on three characteristics "Sabbe sankhaaraa aniccaa, sabbe sankhaaraa dukkhaa, sabbe sankhaaraa suññaa, sabbe dhammaa anattaa." Interesting--I wasn't familiar with 'sankhaarupekkhaa', though of course I'm familiar with this quotation. "All phenomena are impermanent." "All phenomena are misery." "All phenomena are empty (of self)." This I pretty much take for granted! Thanks Suan, mike 32146 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Hi Howard, Thanks for writing. I'll tell Lodewijk. I tell you later what you said and what we were talking about you. Nina. op 11-04-2004 16:50 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > Howard: > Now I'm wondering: What did I say? What did I say?" ;-)) > ----------------------------------------------- > ========================= > I *do* believe that vipassana is a matter of directly seeing what is > actual, and seeing it "right here and right now"! I do *not* believe that one > must be immersed in a jhana in order for wisdom "at the level of vipassana" to > be operative, though Sariputta's example shows that insight from a jhanic base > is a "way". 32147 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:22pm Subject: Re: Illusion of Control Hi Rob M, You were saying: -------------------------- > For now, I only have time to reply to this portion; expect another message in a few days (this reply should be controversial enough to last until then). > -------------- :-) Do we agree that there is only nama and rupa? Given that fact, we need only to know it with deeper and deeper certainty. --------------- RM: > Saying that the Dhamma is phenomenological is taking the Dhamma out of context and that is very dangerous. ------------------- You are saying, no doubt, that the Abhidhamma (the teaching of ultimately real phenomena) is not the whole Dhamma. I'm not so sure: I think the suttas give the same teaching but in a number of different ways. ------------------ RM: > The Abhidhamma has a very different focus than the Suttas. I am not aware of any areas of disagreement between the two, but the treatment is very different. Much of the Abhidhamma focuses on "ultimate realities". I do not believe that the Pali word for ultimate reality, "Paramattha Dhamma" can be found in the Suttas. ----------------- That argument is a non-starter. The suttas deal (directly and indirectly) in realities and the ancient commentators gave those realities the overall name, paramattha dhammas. If we don't like that name, we can use another one. ----------------- RM: > The Abhidhamma provides the theory that underpins the Dhamma, but if you want guidance on how to apply the Dhamma, I strongly suggest looking into the Suttas rather than the Abhidhamma. The Suttas do not focus on ultimate realities. > ---------------- I think they do. Take the Satipatthana-sutta where it gives the simile of the butcher: Having slaughtered and butchered a cow he looks at the remains thinking, "this is heart, this is liver, this is kidney" without any idea "this is a cow." You and I, in our way, do the same thing when we study Abhidhamma. When we are learning about this citta, that cetasika, that rupa, we are not thinking, "this is me." It's an intellectual practice but it's a good start. ---------------- RM: > I am concerned that focusing on ultimate realities to guide your practice may be applying the Abhidhamma out of context. > --------------- My main problem, I think, is I don't fully comprehend that the namas and rupas I am learning about are, in fact, here right now. Looking forward to your next instalment :-) Kind regards, Ken H 32148 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Root condition (was, kiriyacittas) Howard I applaud this reply of yours, not because you are agreeing with the Abhidhamma (I don't think you have given your verdict on the point yet anyway!) but because you are prepared to consider the explanation given on its merits rather than in terms of the label assigned to it (in this case, 'root condition'), and I know this is something you have on occasion found difficult to do. --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Rob - Howard: Okay, I believe I see what you are driving at. A root or mula is defined as follows (from Nyanatiloka): 'roots', also called hetu (q.v.; s. paccaya, 1), are those conditions which through their presence determine the actual moral quality of a volitional state (cetaná), and the consciousness and mental factors associated therewith, in other words, the quality of karma Jon: Of course, choice of label has significance, but we should not let that aspect intrude on our assessment of the underlying matter. To do so is to make our appreciation of the teachings slave to current language usage and conventions and cultural conventions. So whether or not we regard 'root' as the best or even an appropriate choice of label for what is being discussed here is of relatively little significance; what matters is the nature of the condition being described. Howard: So, a root for a volitional mindstate is not a central condition for the *arising* of that state, but something more like a central morality-determining *characteristic* of that state. So, for example, an intentional impulse dominated by generosity would have a root of alobha. To reiterate, I take it, then, that roots are conditions that are primary moral characteristics of volitional mindstates rather than primary generative conditions of such states. Jon: Similar considerations apply as regards the use of 'condition' to describe something co-arising with what is being conditioned. To our (21st century, western) way of thinking, a co-arising aspect of something is a characteristic of it rather than a condition for it which, as you say, contains a 'generative' implication. This, however, is yet another 'labeling' difference to be put to one side while we review the underlying explanation. In the teachings, conditions describe the relationship between 2 dhammas (that's perhaps an over-generalization, but will do for present purposes), according to the pattern 'Dhamma A (the conditioned dhamma) is related to Dhamma B (the conditioning dhamma) by way of X condition', or, more colloquially, 'B is X condition for A'. Now according to this approach, the conditioning dhamma can precede, co-exist with or even succeed the conditioned dhamma, so obviously 'condition' is being used differently here to what you or I may have experienced before coming across it in the teachings. But, so what? No-one has a monopoly on assigning labels/defining terms. As long as it is done for a reason and the label is used consistently, we should be able to follow without difficulty, and without feeling the need to judge the underlying explanation by reference to the chosen label (although as a legislative drafter with the power to declare that black means white, I'm well aware that there is definitely an appropriate and an inappropriate way to choose and use labels ;-)). Anyway, to get back to my reason for writing, glad to see you not finding difficulty with the choice of label here. Now if only we could persuade you to adopt the same approach in considering other parts of the Abhidhamma (for example, those parts that carry the labels paramattha dhammas, nutriment/nutritive essence, space; I think there may be a few others too) ;-)) Jon 32149 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 0:49am Subject: Re: Anapanasati Sutta (was, satipatthanasutta) Friends Jon, Jack and All, I have been following this discussion about mindfulness of breathing (Anapanasati Sutta) and I have been finding it very amusing. ;-)) It is easier for me to find discussions amusing if I am not participating in them. ;-)) Here we have Jon going to great lengths to explain why the sutta isn't really talking about breath at all, since that is a concept and not a dhamma, and on the other side we have Jack who is patiently answering observations that don't seem to make any sense to him (much more patiently than I probably would ;- ). This reminds me of the following story found in the book `Thoughts Without a Thinker': "In the early days of my interest in Buddhism and psychology,I was given a particularly vivid demonstation of how difficult it was going to be to forge an integration between the two. Some friends of mine had arranged for an encounter between two prominent visiting Buddhist teachers at the house of a Harvard University psychology professor. These were teachers from two distinctly different Buddhist traditions who had never met and whose traditions had in fact had very little contact over the past thousand years. Before the worlds of Buddhism and Western psychology could come together, the various strands of Buddhism would have to encounter one another. We were to witness the first such dialogue. The teachers, seventy-year-old Kalu Rinpoche of Tibet, a veteran of years of solitary retreat, and the Zen master Seung Sahn, the first Korean Zen master to teach in the United States, were to test each other's understanding of the Buddha's teachings for the benefit of the onlooking Western students. This was to be a high form of what was being called _dharma_ combat (the clashing of great minds sharpened by years of study and meditation), and we were waiting with all the anticipation that such a historic encounter deserved. The two monks entered with swirling robes -- maroon and yellow for the Tibetan, austere grey and black for the Korean -- and were followed by retinues of younger monks and translators with shaven heads. They settled onto cushions in the familiar cross-legged positions, and the host made it clear that the younger Zen master was to begin. The Tibetan lama sat very still, fingering a wooden rosary (_mala_) with one hand while murmuring, _"Om mani padme hum"_ continuously under his breath. The Zen master, who was already gaining renown for his method of hurling questions at his students until they were forced to admit their ignorance and then bellowing, "Keep that don't know mind!" at them, reached deep inside his robes and drew out an orange. "What is this?" he demanded of the lama. "What is this?" This was a typical opening question, and we could feel him ready to pounce on whatever response he was given. The Tibetan sat quietly fingering his mala and made no move to respond. "What is this?" the Zen master insisted, holding the orange up to the Tibetan's nose. Kalu Rinpoche bent very slowly to the Tibetan monk near to him who was serving as the translator, and they whispered back and forth for several minutes. Finally the translator addressed the room: "Rinpoche says, 'What is the matter with him? Don't they have oranges where he comes from?" The dialog progressed no further." Hehehe…I find this story so hilarious! ;-)) Metta, James 32150 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 1:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Howard (and Nina and Lodewijk) --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Nina (and Jon, and Lodewijk) - ... Howard: I *do* believe that vipassana is a matter of directly seeing what is actual, and seeing it "right here and right now"! I do *not* believe that one must be immersed in a jhana in order for wisdom "at the level of vipassana" to be operative, though Sariputta's example shows that insight from a jhanic base is a "way". Jon: I have not forgotten your earlier post with its reference to the Anupada Sutta (MN 111), but have not had time to reply in detail on that part of the post. This is a quick reply before we leave for Bangkok (after what I expect to be a very busy day at work tomorrow). In that post you said: <> You don't say which passage you rely on for your last sentence, but it runs counter to what I've read elsewhere. The BB translation of the sutta has a footnote from the commentary which reads: "The Elder Sariputta cultivated serenity and insight in paired conjunction and realised the fruit of non-returning. Then he entered the attainment of cessation, and after emerging from it he attained arahantship." From this I'd be inclined to think that it's a case of jhana and insight arising alternately, as described elsewhere in relation to serenity and insight in paired conjunction, where the citta accompanied by insight takes the (just previously occurring) jhana citta as its object. Happy to discuss further, but would appreciate some more detailed reference from you for the particular passage(s) from the sutta that you have in mind. Howard: But insight into the nature of dhammas can arise - no, *will* arise - whenever the exact assemblage of conditions for that is in place, and these conditions include a properly cultivated mind. Jon: Yes, a properly cultivated mind. Indeed, apart from that and a sense of urgency, are any other conditions necessary? Howard: What I do believe is that long and intensive conventional cultivation is required to mold the mind into an instrument suitable for effective investigation of dhammas, and this cultivation is multi-pronged and includes formal and informal methods of training that produce heightened mindfulness, calm, concentration, and clarity of attention and rather consistent non-grasping. I also strongly believe that mere waiting for results without establishing conditions that will lead to the results is an unfortunate error. Jon: I think I detect a veiled reference to myself and others in your last sentence, Howard ;-)). Perhaps the NAG label should be changed to WAG (Waiting for Action Group). Some damn us for tripping off to Bangkok and India, others think we are just waiting for results. It's a no-win situation around here!! Jon 32151 From: Ken O Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 2:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Illusion of Control Hi RobM RM: > The Abhidhamma provides the theory that underpins the Dhamma, but if you want guidance on how to apply the Dhamma, I strongly suggest looking into the Suttas rather than the Abhidhamma. The Suttas do not focus on ultimate realities. > k: If you have the book Dispeller of Delusion, please read the section on mindfullness, I dont think you give a fair judgement that Abdhidhamma dont apply the dhamma. I think in certain ways, Abdhidhamma teaches the detail application of the damma. They both work hand in hand, they complement each other and not exlusive. IMHO Abdhidamma is like an extension of the sutta pitika, making the difficult terms in sutta easy to understand. Just like the word we have discuss sampajaano (I hope got the spelling right)(translated as awareness), only in the Abhidhamma the term is explain fully. Just like the word dukkha is explain in eight ways and aggregates in 11 ways. Without Abhidhamma, it is a very difficult to teach the sutta and I have seen practitioners have fallen into the trap of wrong views. Recently I seen someone who said that Buddha preaches an inherent wisdom which is like the Buddha nature of the Mahayana. The person got it all wrong because, he does not read the Abhidhamma, the commentary and ask questions or investigate about the meaning. It is dangerous to read sutta without Abhidhamma because even the word sankhara is used differently in different context, confusion arise and wrong views developed. That is to me very sad and sadder to have it preach to others. So one cannot say that it is the sutta that show the dhamma, it is both the sutta and the Abdhidamm that show the dhamma. One does not take precedence of the other because they are like two legs that help us walk. Ken O P.s. When could we have a cup of coffee again, this time my turn to pay, maybe together with Jaran ;-). 32152 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 3:38am Subject: Re: dialogue on satipatthana Friend Jon and All, Jon: Some damn us for tripping off to Bangkok and India, others think we are just waiting for results. It's a no-win situation around here!! James: I have never said anything negative about your trips to Bangkok (heck, I may want to join you all there one day! ;-), but with this statement you are implying that trips to Bangkok and India are somehow following the Buddha's path. I don't believe that this is true. One doesn't need to go anywhere to follow the Buddha's path. Not only that, pleasure vacations are definitely not a way to free one's self from the five cords of sensual pleasure. If I ever joined you in Bangkok I would be completely honest with myself and others that the trip was only marginally related to the dhamma. Again, this all goes back to what the Buddha taught. We all need to take a personal inventory of ourselves to determine where the three poisons influence our thoughts/feelings, actions, and words. Of course, we all have these three poisons in us (sensual desire, ill will, and delusion) but I believe we each have different concentrations of each. We should focus first on the worst areas and then after focus on the less worse areas (It may be hard to tackle them all at once unless you become a monk). And we have to be brutally honest with ourselves about this evaluation. For example, my greatest weakness is sensual desire. I try to seek pleasure, and avoid pain, in many different ways (sometimes in ways that make me very ashamed). This is something I continue to work on. I am not so bad in the areas of ill will and delusion. I have a good heart (I think so and many people tell me so) and I am pretty grounded in reality (I think so and many people tell me so). My advice is that you determine where you are the weakest and go from there. Create a plan of self-improvement: don't just meditate or study the dhamma and have no idea why you are doing it. Don't just expect results like pennies from heaven ;-)). Be proactive in your Buddhist practice. If you do this I don't think anyone could call you a member of the NAG anymore ;-). Metta, James 32153 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 3:44am Subject: Re:_[dsg]_Recognizing_the_Dhamma_-_6._Seclusion(§_6.5.) Hi Victor, This is just a note to see that I'll be very glad to summarize the posts, answer your qus, but you've caught me at a busy time - I'll try to get back on some other posts and these tomorrow, but I'll depend on work and so on. I have some students for assessments and so on. Meanwhile, appreciate your feedback and posts on 'persistence'. I hope others respond too. Apologies for any delays. Metta, Sarah ======= --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks for this message. It would be helpful if you don't mind > summarizing your points. 32154 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 6:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti, Q. Bgk Dear Jon and Howard, First, Jon, about concepts. I asked A. Sujin: when we reflect in the right way on paramattha dhammas, the object is still a concept so long as panna does not directly realize the dhamma that appears. We are still thinking *about* realities. Answer: yes. This is a good subject to discuss. Thus we have to make this distinction: when does a concept represents conventional truth and when ultimate truth, she also stressed that point. We are thinking anyway. Should't we know what the object of thinking is? Now Howard's post below. op 12-04-2004 04:26 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: Jon: But 'direct looking' is not part of the teachings found in the suttas >> (unless it is your own term for something else mentioned there). So >> whatever a person experienced or realized as a result of such a >> practice would not be the understanding of which the Buddha spoke, >> regardless of how great the similarities may appear to the person. > ========================== H: What is vipassana/satipatthana, then, if not "direct looking" - that is, seeing what > actually arises, and not substituted for with concepts? I'm talking about > ongoing mindfulness and clear comprehnsion of what actually arises and ceases > at any time. Are you saying this is not Dhamma?!! N: I think Howard knows that observing is not direct *seeing*. Here is the word direct looking, but this stands for direct seeing or understanding. That is, without thinking. Vipassana means: seeing clearly. The word anupassana is also used: anu: following (the object). Passati: seeing, or dassana. : understanding and mindfulness are faculties, indriyas, and when they have been developed they become powers, balas. (See Ven. Nyanaponika who explains this very well!) Then they can arise in any situation, at any time. But, beginning is beginning. When it is a power, I do not think it can be directed to be a non-stop mindfulness. Here the Abhidhamma can help: the processes of cittas, sense-door and mind-door processes. Bhavangacittas in between. And then, understanding is the most important, it is accompanied by sati. Now Howard's post to Lodewijk. He appreciated it, though it is above his head, he said. I lift out a few points worthy of discussion in Bgk, because Jon does not have much time now. H: < I *do* believe that vipassana is a matter of directly seeing what is actual, and seeing it "right here and right now"! I do *not* believe that one must be immersed in a jhana (snip) But insight into the nature of dhammas can arise - no, *will* arise - whenever the exact assemblage of conditions for that is in place, and these conditions include a properly cultivated mind. What I do believe is that long and intensive conventional cultivation is required to mold the mind into an instrument suitable for effective investigation of dhammas, and this cultivation is multi-pronged and includes formal and informal methods of training that produce heightened mindfulness, calm, concentration, and clarity of attention and rather consistent non-grasping. I also strongly believe that mere waiting for results without establishing conditions that will lead to the results is an unfortunate error. > N: this point: seems the essence for mental development. That stubborn root lobha, it is not yet uprooted. When we do certain things, like listening, according to inclination and circumstances, such moments just arise because of conditions, but, lobha can come in, one wants more mindfulness. One hopes for something. Very human. Difficult to see. But this is bhavana, mental development: with understanding, and also alobha, detachment. The goal is detachment and it has to be with detachment. N: very good point. Lodewijk agrees very much here. The conditions, often repeated also by Jon: association with the right friend, listening, considering and practice in accordance with the Dhamma. Many of my Thai friends are in the position to listen early morning to the many radio programs, they rush to work, but, because of listening they remember the Dhamma. In the weekened there is time for personal discussion at the Foundation. It depends again on conditions: inclination and circumstances of life, and these are also conditioned. Good to discuss. What if there is no time for any listening, only hurry to work? Reading a sutta now and then, following a discussion on dsg? Is that enough? But circumstances cannot be forced. And all the time: we have to be on the look out for lobha. To conclude with breath, Sarah asked me to rephrase. I think there is breath as meditation subject as described in the Vis. (it appears at nosetip or upperlip) and there is breath in a wider, conventional sense. My Q was: is breathing through the mouth also included in the Vis? And what is blowing , and what is air? Air is not breath. But what is it, a conventional notion? These are Q. people ask. Some observations. Because of the dialogue between Larry and Howard I realize more how much I cling to breath. It is my life, my breath. This may be the reason that it is the first subject under mindfulness of the Body. Recently heard: all the dhammas such as parts of the body, hair, nails, etc. or breath we take for self, all the other subjects in the Satipatthana sutta are explained here as a means to be mindful of dhammas, realities, that are appearing. Breath is only the rupa of hardness, softness, heat, cold, motion or pressure. Nina. 32155 From: Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 3:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Hi, Jon (and Nina and Lodewijk) - In a message dated 4/12/04 4:25:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard (and Nina and Lodewijk) > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Nina (and Jon, and Lodewijk) - > ... > Howard: > I *do* believe that vipassana is a matter of directly seeing > what is actual, and seeing it "right here and right now"! I do *not* > believe that one must be immersed in a jhana in order for wisdom "at > the level of vipassana" to be operative, though Sariputta's example > shows that insight from a jhanic base is a "way". > > Jon: > I have not forgotten your earlier post with its reference to the > Anupada Sutta (MN 111), but have not had time to reply in detail on > that part of the post. This is a quick reply before we leave for > Bangkok (after what I expect to be a very busy day at work tomorrow). > In that post you said: > > < detailing the approach to and attaining of final enlightenment by > Sariputta, shows how the jhanas themselves, and the fact of their > being subject to the tilakkhana, can be a basis for liberating > vipassana. This sutta shows as well that all the cetasikas required > for analysis of dhammas are present when in absorption - at least in > the sort of absorption that Sariputta attained.>> > > You don't say which passage you rely on for your last sentence, but > it runs counter to what I've read elsewhere. The BB translation of > the sutta has a footnote from the commentary which reads: > "The Elder Sariputta cultivated serenity and insight in paired > conjunction and realised the fruit of non-returning. Then he entered > the attainment of cessation, and after emerging from it he attained > arahantship." > > From this I'd be inclined to think that it's a case of jhana and > insight arising alternately, as described elsewhere in relation to > serenity and insight in paired conjunction, where the citta > accompanied by insight takes the (just previously occurring) jhana > citta as its object. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Here's just one example, Jon. There is the same for all the higher jhanas through the sphere of nothingness: *********************** Again, bhikkhus, Saariputta, dispelling pleasantness and unpleasantness, earlier having overcome pleasure and displeasure purifying mindfulness with equanimity abides in the fourth jhaana These things of the fourth jhaana such as equanimity, neither unpleasant nor pleasant feelings, observed feelings not enjoyed, purified mindfulness, one pointedness of mind, contact, feelings, perceptions, intentions, interest, resolution, effort, equanimity and attention, follow one after the other to him. They rise, persist and fade with his knowledge. He knows, these things come to be and cause feelings to rise. When these things follow one after the other, he abides with a mind that does not settle, is not bound, is released and unyokedand is unrestricted. knows there is an escape beyond this. With much practise they come to him. ************************ I particularly point out "contact, feelings, perceptions, intentions, interest, resolution, effort" as cetasikas conducive to analysis of dhammas. When, in the context of equanimity, concentration, and purified mindfulness there are also present contact, recognition, volition, interes t, and resolve, then cetasikas adequate to vipassana are present. --------------------------------------------------- > > Happy to discuss further, but would appreciate some more detailed > reference from you for the particular passage(s) from the sutta that > you have in mind. > > Howard: > But insight into the nature of dhammas can arise - no, *will* arise - > whenever the exact assemblage of conditions for that is in place, and > these conditions include a properly cultivated mind. > > Jon: > Yes, a properly cultivated mind. Indeed, apart from that and a sense > of urgency, are any other conditions necessary? > > Howard: > What I do believe is that long and intensive conventional > cultivation is required to mold the mind into an instrument suitable > for effective investigation of dhammas, and this cultivation is > multi-pronged and includes formal and informal methods of training > that produce heightened mindfulness, calm, concentration, and clarity > of attention and rather consistent non-grasping. I also strongly > believe that mere waiting for results without establishing conditions > that will lead to the results is an unfortunate error. > > Jon: > I think I detect a veiled reference to myself and others in your last > sentence, Howard ;-)). Perhaps the NAG label should be changed to > WAG (Waiting for Action Group). > > Some damn us for tripping off to Bangkok and India, others think we > are just waiting for results. It's a no-win situation around here!! > > 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) 32156 From: Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 9:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Hi again, Jon - Just one more tid bit about the Anupada Sutta. In his book Abhidhamma Studies, Ven Nyanaponika Thera sites that discourse "as a sutta source for Abhidhamma terminology," and he does so after a strong defense of its authenticity against an attack by Ms. Rhys Davids to the effect that this sutta is a clear after-the-fact compilation and not the Buddha word. Ms. Rhys Davids, according to the Venerable, apparently also went off the deep end in what he calls her "hypercriticism" of Abhidhamma, itself. It seems that she thought not only that the Abhidhamma Pitaka is not likely the literal word of the Buddha, for which many think a good argument can be made, but that it is not even "the message of the Founder" and was concocted by later monks. The inference I draw from Nyanaponika is that she thought that the Abhidhamma was largely cut from whole cloth. 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) 32157 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 2:25pm Subject: Re: dialogue on satipatthana Friend Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, Jon - > > Just one more tid bit about the Anupada Sutta. In his book Abhidhamma > Studies, Ven Nyanaponika Thera sites that discourse "as a sutta source for > Abhidhamma terminology," and he does so after a strong defense of its > authenticity against an attack by Ms. Rhys Davids to the effect that this sutta is a > clear after-the-fact compilation and not the Buddha word. > Ms. Rhys Davids, according to the Venerable, apparently also went off > the deep end in what he calls her "hypercriticism" of Abhidhamma, itself. It > seems that she thought not only that the Abhidhamma Pitaka is not likely the > literal word of the Buddha, for which many think a good argument can be made, > but that it is not even "the message of the Founder" and was concocted by later > monks. The inference I draw from Nyanaponika is that she thought that the > Abhidhamma was largely cut from whole cloth. > > With metta, > Howard I think I agree with Ms. Rhys Davis. That sutta doesn't seem to make a bit of sense to me. I believe I have expressed my incredulity about that sutta before…remember? I was not aware of this scholarship by Ms. Rhys Davis (I don't own that book you reference). The Anupada Sutta claims that Sariputta was able to combine jhana and vipassana in such a way that the Buddha doesn't describe in other suttas. It is just plain weird! ;-)) I still do not believe it is possible or that the Buddha gave that sutta. Not only that, the sutta states: 19. "Again, bhikkhus, by completely surmounting the base of neither- perception-nor-non-perception, Sariputta entered upon and abided in the cessation of perception and feeling. And his taints were destroyed by his seeing with wisdom. (1052) 20. "He emerged mindful from that attainment. Having done so, he recalled the states that had passed, ceased, and changed, thus: `So indeed, these states, not having been, come into being; having been, they vanish.' (1053) Regarding those states, he abided unattracted, unrepelled, independent, detached, free, dissociated, with a mind rid of barriers. He understood: `There is no escape beyond,' and with the cultivation of that [attainment], he confirmed that there is not (1054) Note 1052: MA offers this explanation of the passage, transmitted by "the elders of India": "The Elder Sariputta cultivated serenity and insight in paired conjunction and realized the fruit of non- returning. Then he entered the attainment of cessation, and after emerging from it he attained arahantship." Note 1053: Since there are no mental factors in the attainment of cessation, MA says that "these states" here must refer either to the states of material form that were occurring while he attained cessation, or to the mental factors of the preceding fourth immaterial attainment. Note 1054: Note the realization that there is "no escape beyond" the attainment of arahatship. Now, my reading of this is that Sariputta attained arahantship during jhana meditation, like the Buddha did. Does this match the facts? NO!! Sariputta attained arahantship while fanning the Buddha and listening to a discourse on feelings! He was not in jhana meditation when he destroyed the taints. From SN 74 "To Dighanakha": 14. Now on that occasion the venerable Sariputta was standing behind the Blessed One, fanning him. Then he thought: "The Blessed One, indeed, speaks to us of the abandoning of these things through direct knowledge; the Sublime One, indeed, speaks to us of the relinquishing of these things through direct knowledge." As the venerable Sariputta considered this, through not clinging his mind was liberated from the taints. (738) Note 738: MA: Having reflected on the discourse spoken to his nephew, Ven. Sariputta developed insight and attained arahantship. Dighanakha attained the fruit of stream-entry. James: Now, obviously one of these two suttas is incorrect. It is not possible for Sariputta to have destroyed the taints and become an arahant on two different occasions and in two different ways. I believe the "To Dighanakha" sutta is the correct one because it is recorded in the Theragatha how Sariputta attained arahantship: "Two stanzas in the Theragatha (995, 996) relate, in words ascribed to the Venerable Sariputta himself, the way in which he attained Arahatship. There he tells us: "It was to another that the Blessed One was teaching the Dhamma; to the Dhamma-preaching I listened intently for my own good. And not in vain, for freed from all defilements, I gained release."" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel090.html James: I believe that if the Anupada Sutta is mistaken in this very important and telling fact, the entire thing should not be trusted. (Sorry…I know you like this sutta :-( Metta, James 32158 From: Jeffrey Brooks Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 9:25am Subject: One should pursue pleasure (jhana) within oneself. One should pursue pleasure (jhana) within oneself. Often it is heard that one should avoid the ecstasies of the absorption states, because one might become "addicted" or "side tracked." And those who do not revere noble ones even say they are "bliss bunnies" for seeking the ecstasies. I do not seem to have become "addicted" to bliss and ecstasy. Every day I am just more happy, more content and fulfilled than I can ever recall being. If that is an addiction to being a "bliss bunny," I'll take it over an anxiety disorder, depression or dependence on stimulants and depressants. The historic Buddha said, bliss and ecstasy "should be pursued ... it should be developed ... should be cultivated, and ... should not be feared." Aranavibhanga Sutta, MN 139 3. "One should not pursue sensual pleasure...and one should not pursue self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, and unbeneficial. The Middle Way discovered by the Tathagata avoids both extremes; giving vision, giving knowledge, it leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana... 9. ..."One should know how to define pleasure, and knowing that, one should pursue pleasure within oneself"..."Here bhikkhus, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enter upon and resides in the first (absorption) jhana"... (through 4th jhana). "This is called the bliss of renunciation, the bliss of seclusion, the bliss of peace, the bliss of enlightenment. I say of this kind of pleasure that it should be pursued, that it should be developed, that it should be cultivated, and that it should not be feared." "So it was in reference to this that I said, 'One should know how to define pleasure, and knowing that, one should pursue pleasure within oneself." 13. Here, bhikkhus, the bliss of renunciation, the bliss of seclusion, the bliss of peace, the bliss of enlightenment, is a state without suffering (dukkha)... and it is the right way. Therefore this is a state without conflict." (Majjhima Nikaya trans. Bhikkhus Nanamoli & Bodhi, Wisdom, 1995) Jhanasamyutta, SN 34 "Therein, bhikkhus, the meditator who is skilled both in meditation regarding absorption (jhana) and in attainment regarding absorption (jhana) is the chief, the best the foremost, the highest, the most excellent of these four kinds of meditators." (Samyutta Nikaya tans. Bhikkhu Bodhi, Wisdom, 2000) Jhanasamyutta, SN 9.53 "Bhikkhus, just as the River Ganges slants, slopes and inclines toward the East, so too a bhikkhu who develops and cultivates the four absorptions (jhanas) slants, slopes, and inclines toward nibbana." (Samyutta Nikaya tans. Bhikkhu Bodhi, Wisdom, 2000) In conclusion it appears that the historic Buddha taught an 8 fold practice path, that included right or noble mindfulness (samma-sati). Based upon the Satipatthana Sutta, MN 10, we can conclude he called the cultivation of mindfulness (sati) "satipatthana" (DN 22), not "vipassana." And, the conclusion, or successful execution, of satipatthana was specifically for giving rise to right or correct meditation (samma-samadhi) (DN 22.21); which he defined in terms of the four material, or rupa jhanas, (DN 22.21); which he called "Di.t.thadhammasukhavihaaraa;" which is often translated as a "pleasant abiding in the here and now" (MN 8); which he considered to be supramundane (Lokuttara) (NM 31.10-18). Kindest regards, Jeff Brooks 32159 From: Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 0:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana Hi, James - In a message dated 4/12/04 5:26:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Now, my reading of this [The Anupada Sutta] is that Sariputta attained > arahantship > during jhana meditation, like the Buddha did. Does this match the > facts? NO!! Sariputta attained arahantship while fanning the > Buddha and listening to a discourse on feelings! He was not in > jhana meditation when he destroyed the taints. From SN 74 "To > Dighanakha": > > 14. Now on that occasion the venerable Sariputta was standing behind > the Blessed One, fanning him. Then he thought: "The Blessed One, > indeed, speaks to us of the abandoning of these things through > direct knowledge; the Sublime One, indeed, speaks to us of the > relinquishing of these things through direct knowledge." As the > venerable Sariputta considered this, through not clinging his mind > was liberated from the taints. (738) > > Note 738: MA: Having reflected on the discourse spoken to his > nephew, Ven. Sariputta developed insight and attained arahantship. > Dighanakha attained the fruit of stream-entry. > > James: Now, obviously one of these two suttas is incorrect. It is > not possible for Sariputta to have destroyed the taints and become > an arahant on two different occasions and in two different ways. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Very interesting. It would certainly seem these two are mutually contradictory! -------------------------------------------- I > > believe the "To Dighanakha" sutta is the correct one because it is > recorded in the Theragatha how Sariputta attained arahantship: > "Two stanzas in the Theragatha (995, 996) relate, in words ascribed > to the Venerable Sariputta himself, the way in which he attained > Arahatship. There he tells us: > "It was to another that the Blessed One was teaching the Dhamma; to > the Dhamma-preaching I listened intently for my own good. And not in > vain, for freed from all defilements, I gained release."" > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel090.html > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Good point, James. (BTW, you're becoming quite the adept scholar! :-) --------------------------------------------------- > > James: I believe that if the Anupada Sutta is mistaken in this very > important and telling fact, the entire thing should not be trusted. > (Sorry…I know you like this sutta :-( > > -------------------------------------------------- So what? There are lots of things I like. :-) ======================== This is a very interesting analysis you have provided, James. I'd be very interested in reading what others have to say about this issue. 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) 32160 From: Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 5:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Hi Nina and all, This is a good exercise that everyone could do, even Lodewijk. Try to explain satipatthana in a simple but comprehensive way with an emphasis on cogency (no jargon or specialist knowledge). Here's my attempt; I would like to see one from everyone. Be bold! 'Sati' means recognition of the Buddha's teaching as it arises in present experience. Experience is divided into 4 parts and the teaching is divided into 3 parts, in this case. 'Sati' is usually translated as 'mindfulness', and 'patthana' means '4 parts' (usually translated as '4 foundations'). So 'satipatthana' = 'four foundations of mindfulness'. The 4 parts of experience are body, feeling, emotions, groups. The arising of individual instances of any kind of materiality is included in body. The arising of individual instances of pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral feelings is included in feeling. The arising of any kind of emotion, eg. love, hate, bewilderment etc., is included in emotions. Understanding and misunderstanding are also included in emotions. Emotions can be virtuous or not virtuous. 'Groups' is the arising of these factors in a group such as a person. The 3 parts of the teaching are impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, not-self. An easy way to understand 'not-self' is as not me or mine. So the idea is to recognize in the arising of an instance of any one of these 4 areas of experience that it is impermanent, or unsatisfactory, or not me or mine. There is also a fifth kind of recognition that is implicit in this procedure. That is the recognition that a concept that arises in discursive thinking is not an experience. If I am thinking about satipatthana or anything else I am not experiencing satipatthana etc. Concepts are empty of experience. Recognizing the emptiness of concepts can lighten one's burden as much as recognizing the impermanence of a pleasant or unpleasant feeling. Now you. Larry 32161 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 10:49pm Subject: Re:_[dsg]_Recognizing_the_Dhamma_-_6._Seclusion(§_6.6.) Hi Victor, --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Thank you for this message. I didn't know that talk on seclusion is > a favourite of yours. ..... S: Yes, talk on seclusion, solitutude and living alone is the most inspiring aspect of the Tipitaka for me. Indeed, while suttas like the Migajala sutta have always been my favourites, I read all the texts as being concerned with this theme. Desire is the mate, always looking for its partner to date amongst the sense objects, the feelings, the experienes, the mental states and the fantasy worlds we live in based on these elements. It wanders around looking for a ‘trophy’ visible object, a ‘model’ new sound or taste or that very transitory pleasant feeling. When wrong view accompanies it, it’s convinced that if the scenery is changed, all will be well, not realizing that any of its dates are so very temporary and that sickness, old age and death are on the way. .... > Living with husband or wife is not living in seclusion, not living > alone. The Buddha was speaking on how living alone is perfected in > its details. It is not that there are two meanings of 'living > alone' - true ideal or commonplace. ..... As Ken O wrote (regarding the Thera sutta): > the in this sutta you quote > The Blessed One said: "And how is living alone perfected in its > details? There is the case where whatever is past is abandoned, > whatever is future is relinquished, and any passion & desire with > regard to states of being attained in the present is well subdued. > That is how living alone is perfected in its details." .... --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Thank you for this message. Could you summarize your points? --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks for this message. It would be helpful if you don't mind > summarizing your points. > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Thank you again this message. > > What would be the benefit of living in seclusion? ..... S: I hope you’ll accept a little light verse for my summary this time for a change, Victor: [to pick uo on some other threads too -] *** If you live with a WAG And you’re known as a NAG Life sometimes seems a DRAG..... *** [On the other hand -] *** If by Dhamma you’re led And by DSG fed Seclusion’s here ‘tis said. *** [So, to answer your last qu.....] *** You can live in a crowd Even Hong Kong’s allowed. It’s only inner noise that’s loud. **** Metta, Sarah p.s [and a last thought....] *** Though Nibbana you aspire When your mate is desire There’s no escaping the fire. **** =================== 32162 From: sarahdhhk Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 10:59pm Subject: Re: Essentially Inherent Freedom ! Dear Ven Samahita, I looked through the Bk of 5s in both Numerical Discourses (an anthology) and the fuller PTS bk, but can't find the sutta you're translating or quoting. Nor can I understand your reference to [2-3] as the Pali ref (as in PTS transl given) starts at [3-1] for Bk of 5s. Can you give more help? Thank you. Sarah ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Bhikkhu Samahita wrote: > Friends: > > No choice necessary ! > > Ananda, no moral one needs to speculate about: > 'How shall I be freed of regret ?' because absence > of remorse is essentially inherent in morality itself. > > No-one freed of regret has to worry about: > 'How shall I be glad ?' since joyous gladness is > essentially inherent in absence of remorse itself. > No glad one needs to ponder about: > 'How shall I be happy ?' because happiness is > essentially inherent in gladness itself. > No happy one has to choose: > 'How can I relax ?' since calmness is > essentially inherent in happiness itself. <....> > Source: > The Numerical Sayings of the Buddha. > Anguttara Nikaya V [2-3]: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/index.html .... 32163 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 11:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] immaterial space Hi Larry & All, A quick 'butt in' as I'd intended to post the following passage anyway for consideration: --- LBIDD@w... wrote: >If > this is the case then there are three kinds of space: the rupa > (delimitation), the concept of the rupa (imagined space), and immaterial > 'boundless' space. What is your view on this? .... Lots of good reflections, Larry. A good piece on satipatthana too. Hope others will follow your lead. From the Debates Commentary (comy to Kathavatthu, Points of Controversy, PTS), chV1, V1: “Now follows the controversy about space. ‘Space is of three modes: as confined or delimited [S:pariccheda or aakaasa ruupa], as abstracted from object (kasi.n’ugghaatim-, referring to Jhana procedure only), as open (aja.ta-). Of these the first is conditioned, the other two are mere concepts. But some, like the Uttaraapathakas and Mahi.msaasakas hold that the two latter modes also, inasmuch as (being mental fictions) they are not conditioned, must therefore be unconditioned.’(Points of Controversy, p192).” Metta, Sarah p.s I looked through more of Karunadasa’s references on ‘space’ such as those in Milindapanha. I take these as referring to the third kind ‘as open’. As he says, it’s ‘not the same as the space-element listed in the Dhammasangani.’ To conclude therefore that in general all kinds of space are concepts is incorrect and also to conclude that any anipphanna rupas (non-concrete) rupas are concepts is not correct as I discussed with B.Bodhi and as Nina has been pointing out with the Vism extracts. Nina, I appreciate your notes a lot. I had also noted that ~Naa.namoli had inserted one or two somewhat misleading references to conceptual when referring to these rupas. ======================= 32164 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 11:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana Hi James (& Howard). > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi again, Jon - > > > > Just one more tid bit about the Anupada Sutta. In his book > Abhidhamma > > Studies, Ven Nyanaponika Thera sites that discourse "as a sutta > source for > > Abhidhamma terminology," and he does so after a strong defense of > its > > authenticity against an attack by Ms. Rhys Davids to the effect > that this sutta is a > > clear after-the-fact compilation and not the Buddha word. ... James, if you're interested to read Nyanaponika's 'Abhidhamma Studies', it's a slim. inexpensive paperback now from Wisdom and also on line: http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebidx.htm Here's an extract on the authenticity of the Abhidhamma: THE EVALUATION OF ABHIDHAMMA AND THE QUESTION OF ITS AUTHENTICITY Even in olden days opinions about the Abhidhamma Pitaka moved between the extremes of unquestioning veneration and entire repudiation. Very early there were doubts about the authenticity of the Abhidhamma Pitaka as genuine Buddha word. The early sect of the Sautrantikas regarded, as their name indicates, only Sutta and Vinaya as canonical, but not the Abhidhamma. It may have been a follower of that sect who is introduced in the //Atthasalini// as criticising the Abhidhamma lecture of a monk thus: 'You have quoted, O preacher, a long Sutta that seems to girdle Mount Meru. What is the name of it?' - 'It is an Abhidhamma Sutta.' - 'But why did you quote an Abhidhamma Sutta? Is it not befitting to cite a Sutta that has been proclaimed by the Buddha?' - 'And by whom do you think the Abhidhamma was proclaimed?' - 'It was not proclaimed by the Buddha.' Thereupon that monk is severely rebuked by the preacher, and after that the //Atthasalini// continues: 'He who excludes the Abhidhamma (from the Buddha-Word) damages the Conqueror's Wheel of Dhamma (//jina-cakkam paharam deti//). He excludes thereby the Omniscience of the Tathagata and impoverishes the grounds of the Master's Knowledge of Self-confidence' (//vesarajja-nana// 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.' This very severe attitude seems somewhat extreme, but it may be explained as a defensive reaction against sectarian tendencies at that period. The main arguments of Theravada against those who deny the authenticity of the Abhidhamma, are as follows: 1) The Buddha has to be regarded as the first Abhidhammika, because, according to the //Atthasalini//, 'he had already penetrated the Abhidhamma when sitting under the tree of Enlightenment.' 2) 'The Abhidhamma, the ultimate doctrine, is the domain of the omniscient Buddhas only, not the domain of others' (Asl). These profound teachings are unmistakably the property of an enlightened being, a Buddha. To deny this is as senseless as stealing the horse of a World Ruler, unique in its excellency, or any other possession of his, and showing oneself in public with it. And why? Because they obviously belong to and are befitting for a king (Asl). ***** Metta, Sarah p.s I loved the orange story too;-)Beautifully told. ================================== 32165 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 11:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kiriyacittas Hi James & All, --- buddhatrue wrote: > MN 70 "At Kitagiri" > 22. "Bhikkhus, I do not say that final knowledge is achieved all at > once. On the contrary, final knowledge is achieved by gradual > training, by gradual practice, by gradual progress. > 23. And how is final knowledge achieved by gradual training, gradual > practice, and gradual progress? Here one who has faith [in a > teacher] visits him; when he visits him, he pays respect to him; > when he pays respect to him, he gives ear; one who gives ear hears > the Dhamma; having heard the Dhamma, he memorizes it; he examines > the meaning of the teachings he has memorized; <....> > From this passage, it can be seen that the Buddha intended the > Dhamma to be of a nature so that a person could memorize it. Is it > possible to memorize the Abhidhamma? I don't think so! One would > have to be a literal genius to do such a thing! .... S: Actually there are people (mostly bhikkhus) who do just this! However, I’m not convinced that this is what is meant here, though of course all the texts were memorized. I can’t follow all the Pali, but the key word for ‘he memorizes’ seems to be ‘upaparikkhati’ which according to the Buddhadatta dict means ‘he investigates or he examines (it)’. And then for where it gives ‘he examines ...’ above, the Pali gives ‘nijjhaayati’, which according to the dictionary means ‘he reflects....’. I'll welcome any input for those more familiar with the terms. The investigation and reflection must be with wise attention (yoniso manasikaara). ... >Any teachings > beyond the ability to memorize them is overkill and unproductive to > the Buddha's path, in my opinion and according to what he taught. .... S: It always comes back to the wise consideration and understanding, regardless of whether memorized or not. What was ‘natural’ for a bhikkhu at that time may certainly not be natural for us, so I think we’re in agreement here;-) Metta, Sarah ====== 32166 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 0:17am Subject: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana Friend Sarah, Sarah: James, if you're interested to read Nyanaponika's 'Abhidhamma Studies', it's a slim. inexpensive paperback now from Wisdom and also on line: http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebidx.htm James: I checked out this link and I cannot find `Abhidhamma Studies' among the texts linked (I found Nina's book though! She's famous! ;-)) I found a different book by Nyanaponika on the Abhidhamma called `The Abhidhamma Philosophy'. Can you give me a direct link if it is online? I wish to read about the points and counterpoints concerning Ms. Rhys Davis. Sarah: [Abhidhamma Studies]: The main arguments of Theravada against those who deny the authenticity of the Abhidhamma, are as follows: 1) The Buddha has to be regarded as the first Abhidhammika, because, according to the //Atthasalini//, 'he had already penetrated the Abhidhamma when sitting under the tree of Enlightenment.' James: This type of argument is circular and makes no sense. It is the same type of argument used by monotheists: Of course God created the universe because only God can create a universe. ;-)) 2) 'The Abhidhamma, the ultimate doctrine, is the domain of the omniscient Buddhas only, not the domain of others' (Asl). These profound teachings are unmistakably the property of an enlightened being, a Buddha. To deny this is as senseless as stealing the horse of a World Ruler, unique in its excellency, or any other possession of his, and showing oneself in public with it. And why? Because they obviously belong to and are befitting for a king (Asl). James: If the Abhidhamma is the `domain of omniscient Buddhas only' then only omniscient Buddhas would be able to comprehend it. What would be the point of teaching it to worldlings or devas? Really, this is the same argument as number one but worded differently. Sarah: I loved the orange story too;-)Beautifully told. James: Glad that you liked it. So, is it an orange, a collection of rupas processed by cittas, or both or neither? ;-)) Metta, James 32167 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 0:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Illusion of Control Hi KenO & RobM, RM: > The Abhidhamma provides the theory that underpins the Dhamma, > but if you want guidance on how to apply the Dhamma, I strongly > suggest looking into the Suttas rather than the Abhidhamma. > The Suttas do not focus on ultimate realities. > > > k: If you have the book Dispeller of Delusion, please read the > section on mindfullness, I dont think you give a fair judgement that > Abdhidhamma dont apply the dhamma. I think in certain ways, > Abdhidhamma teaches the detail application of the damma. They both > work hand in hand, they complement each other and not exlusive. .... S: Certainly U Narada in his introduction to the transl of Dhaatu-Kathaa, an Abhidhamma text (PTS:Discourse on Elements) agrees with what you say, Ken O. “The Abhidhamma is presented in technical language where the philosophical terms, denoting ultimate truths, are defined and explained. The Suttas are presented in conventional language though philosophical terms are included. So a good knowledge of the Abhidhamma is essential for grasping the true significance of the Teaching of the Suttas. Therefore it must be studied before the latter so that a deeper and clearer knowledge of them may be gained.” ... S: Like you, KenO, I prefer to see them ‘work hand in hand’. Without the Abhidhamma would be understand the conditioned nature of elements? Two more quotes from the same introduction: “The elements are not permanently present. They arise to exhibit their own characteristic natures and perform their own characteristic functions when the proper conditions are satisfied, and they cease after their span of duration. Thus no being has any control over the arising and ceasing of the elements and they are not at his mercy or will however mighty and powerful he may be. In other words, the elements have no regard for anyone, show no favour to anyone and do not accede to the wishes of anyone. They are entirely dependent on conditions. “For example, when the four conditions: a visible object, the sense of sight, light and attention, are present, the eye-consciousness element arises. No power can prevent this element from arising when these conditions are present or cause it to arise when one of them is absent.” .... “....But because the functions of the elements give rise to the concepts of continuity, collection and form the ideas arise of 1) the initial effort that has to be exerted when a deed is about to be performed and 2) the care that has to be taken while the deed is being performed to its completion. And this leads to the subsequent ideas 3) “I can perform” and 4) “I can feel”. Thus these 4 imaginary characteristic functions of being have brought about a dep-rooted belief in their existence. But the elements have not the time or span of duration to carry out such functions.” **** Metta, Sarah ==== KenO:>IMHO > Abdhidamma is like an extension of the sutta pitika, making the > difficult terms in sutta easy to understand. Just like the word we > have discuss sampajaano (I hope got the spelling right)(translated as > awareness), only in the Abhidhamma the term is explain fully. Just > like the word dukkha is explain in eight ways and aggregates in 11 > ways. Without Abhidhamma, it is a very difficult to teach the sutta <...> 32168 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 0:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > Friend Sarah, > > Sarah: James, if you're interested to read Nyanaponika's 'Abhidhamma > Studies', it's a slim. inexpensive paperback now from Wisdom and > also on line: http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebidx.htm > > James: I checked out this link and I cannot find `Abhidhamma > Studies' among the texts linked .... Hmmm....I got from there through a google search and can't retrace my steps. Try this one: http://www.buddhanet.net/abhidh02.htm Metta, Sarah ======= 32169 From: Ken O Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 0:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kiriyacittas Hi James Have you heard Buddha said anything about Abhidhamma invented by others and not Buddha himself. In fact Buddha approves the Higher Dhamma (which is usually refering Abdhidhamma) in Mahagosina Sutta MN 32. Regardless of what B Bodhi say, but the approval itself (even B Bodhi cannot disprove) shown that it is already taught and practise in Buddha times. Even one can say it is invented by others, the mere approval shown that it dhamma. Why would the Sumpreme One approve it in the first place if it is not the dhamma that benefit for generations to come? Ken O 32170 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 0:59am Subject: Re: kiriyacittas Friend Sarah (and Howard), Sarah: Actually there are people (mostly bhikkhus) who do just this! James: Memorize all seven books of the Abhidhamma?? You must be joking!! ;-)) Give me the name of one. Sarah: However, I'm not convinced that this is what is meant here, though of course all the texts were memorized. James: I can never convince you of anything you disagree with already!! Even when the evidence is unquestionable and overwhelming. And again, the Abhidhamma was not memorized. It is obviously a written text that was formulated. I have read this in numerous locations but I won't quote them here because I know you still `won't be convinced' ;-)). Sarah: I can't follow all the Pali, but the key word for `he memorizes' seems to be `upaparikkhati' which according to the Buddhadatta dict means `he investigates or he examines (it)'. And then for where it gives `he examines ...' above, the Pali gives `nijjhaayati', which according to the dictionary means `he reflects....'. I'll welcome any input for those more familiar with the terms. The investigation and reflection must be with wise attention (yoniso manasikaara). James: Pali words can have twenty different meanings each so it is important to look at the context. It would be redundant for the sutta to read "one who gives ear hears the Dhamma; having heard the Dhamma, he examines it; he reflects on the meaning of the teachings he has examined;" Examines and reflects mean the same thing; so to keep the parallelism of the teaching that the Buddha intended different meanings for those Pali words must be intended. (BTW, do you have the Pali versions of the entire Tipitaka??!! If so, why?) Sarah: It always comes back to the wise consideration and understanding, regardless of whether memorized or not. James: I disagree. If the teachings aren't memorized the wise consideration and understanding will last only as long as the text is in front of you. The Buddha intended for Buddhist practice to be an ongoing activity. Again, I believe that the teachings must be of a nature which can be memorized. (Even today, Bhikkhus ever day recite the teachings of the Buddha, which are memorized.) Sarah: What was `natural' for a bhikkhu at that time may certainly not be natural for us, so I think we're in agreement here;-) James: No, we're not in agreement here; I have no idea what you are referring to. (Do you notice that sometimes you write statements and give voluminous information which is unrelated to what I wrote?) Can you please explain why you think we are in agreement? No where in this post do I write about what is `natural' for a bhikkhu at that time as compared to nowadays. We still have the same brains today as then. If we put effort into it, we can memorize the teachings. Howard has noticed that I have become quite the scholar recently. That is because I read suttas, and various other Buddhist articles online, everyday and I remember everything I read. Why do I remember everything I read? I remember everything I read, and where I read it, because I meditate. Meditation helps to make my mind clear and sharp and able to remember. Meditation and Dhamma Study are not mutually exclusive. Metta, James 32171 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vipassanaa As A Synonym Of Anupassanaa In Satipa.t.thaana Suttam Dear Suan (& Jeff), Thank your for your further kind assistance, --- abhidhammika wrote: > > The Pali term "anussati" has the verb form "anussarati". The > linguistic meaning of "anussarati" is simply to recollect, remember > again and again. .... S: ‘again and again’ or repeatedly are better than ‘constant’ I think too. .... > Thus, the Pali term "sati" means remembering or recollecting or > following of the present phenomena while "anussati" would mean > consistent remembering or consistent following of the same phenomenon > again and again. > > Mindfulness as a translation of the Pali term "sati" is now more > popular and well established. But, I tend to feel that being mindful > is the result of remembering the present phenomenon. .... S: Yes, mindfulness is generally used now. Actually, I like ‘awareness’ too. I have some difficulty with ‘remembering’, because it’s conventional useage of thinking about and not forgetting (concepts) is so ingrained for me. Even when there is conventional forgetfulness, there can be awareness. don’t you think? .... > To keep the vipassanaa practice within our conceptual control, I > prefer the operational understanding of sati as remembering or > consistent following of our present fresh experiences of phenomena as > they occur. > > The result of such consistent remembering or consistent following of > the present phenomena would be mindfulness, of course. .... S: I’m not quite with you here. I’m not sure if it’s just the use of our words or whether there is any fundamental difference in understanding. .... > In the meanwhile, either you or Chris, please reproduce here a > translation of "Aaka~nkheyya" Suttam from Majjhimanikaaya by Bhikkhu > Bodhi. I saw a translation of the same Suttam from Anguttaranikaaya > by Thannissaro Bhikkhu in asscesstoinsight. The version from > Majjhimanikaaya is more elaborate than the Anguttara one. .... Perhaps Jeff might help us with this other translation of this interesting sutta he posted?? .... > The following is the Pali passages from Vibha~nga as you requested. .... S: Thanks Suan, these are commonly used terms in the suttas: .... > 358. Viharatiiti. Iriyati vattati paaleti yapeti yaapeti carati > viharati. Tena vuccati "viharatii"ti. .... S: English: 358: “’Dwells’ means: Assumes the four postures, exists, protects, keeps going, maintains, turns about, dwells. Therefore this is called ‘dwells’.” ***** > 359. Aataapiiti. Tattha katamo aataapo? Yo cetasiko viiri > yaarambho …pe… sammaavaayaamo– ayam vuccati "aataapo". Iminaa > aataapena upeto hoti samupeto upaagato samupaagato upapanno sampanno > samannaagato. Tena vuccati "aataapii"ti. .... S: English: 359: “ ‘Ardent’ means: therein what is ardour? That which is the arousing of mental energy, :see para 220: right effort. This is called ardour. Of this ardour he is possessed, well possessed, attained, well attained, endowed, well endowed, furnished. Therefore this is called ‘ardent’.” (220 is the long para on the controlling faculties). How about we go back to the beginning of this section on the ‘Analysis of the Foundation of Mindfulness’? Would you kindly give me the Pali for 355 and I’ll add the English after I get back next week. Many thanks for your help and these interesting discussions, Suan. Metta, Sarah ===== 32172 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi Larry, S:I forgot to reply to a couple of short qus here: --- Larry wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > The autocommentary is an explanation of what I wrote to you and > James regarding what James replied to you, but James didn't > understand it, hence the autocommentary on > the text at the bottom (not included here) . .... S: As long as James was clear;-) .... > ----------------------------------------------- > L: We are just talking about you, me and James. Do you directly know > the sense bases or anything other than the objects of the 5 doors and > emotions? > -------------------------------------------- .... S: Only pa~n~na that can ever know. What about the sense experiencing cittas such as seeing and hearing? Also thinking? These are more ‘obvious’ than the sense bases I think. By emotions, I think you mean various cetasikas, right? In that case, feelings too can be known, though no need to pinpoint whether it’s say lobha or pleasant feeling, dosa or unpleasant feeling at any given moment. I think that any pa~n~na is so brief in the beginning that it can easily be followed by doubt or ignorance. It’s not necessary or helpful, I find, to check or count, otherwise it’s clinging again. ..... > > >So sankhara in the sense of mental formation > > > is concept. > > .... > > S: Not as I understand. > > -------------------------------------------- > L: Are combinations of rupa concepts _for_you? > ------------------------------------------ ... S: We were talking about either sankhara khandha (50 cetasikas) or ‘combinations of rupa’ here, we use concepts to describe realities. Like a group of elements - it’s nothing more than the elements themselves arising in combinations and under specific conditions. ..... > -------------------------------------------------- > L: Is concept classified as asankhara in abhidhamma? > ------------------------------------------------- ... S: Not that I know of. Asankhara is only used as ‘unconditioned’ to refer to nibbana. We can say concept is not conditioned, but that doesn’t mean it’s ‘unconditioned’. .... > ----------------------------------------------------------- > L: I agree. That's why I used parentheses around "exists". ... S: Thx for clarifying. A good and brave description of satipatthana, Larry. Sorry, I’m out of time for new threads, but hope to read others. Metta, Sarah ===== 32173 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] VISM.XIV 74, remarks. VISM.XIV 74 > "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV > > 74. Again, all matter is of three kinds according to the visible > (sanidassana) triad, the kamma born triad, etc. (see Dhs., p.2). Herein, > as regards the gross, a visible datum is 'visible with impact'; the rest > are 'invisible with impact'; all the subtle kinds are 'invisible without > impact'. So firstly it is of three kinds according to the visible triad. Remarks: Dhammas can be classified as triads. We see for example in the Gradual Sayings, and even more so in the Abhidhamma that dhammas are grouped as ones, twos, threes, etc. This may seem technical, but there are several reasons for it. In this way it becomes easier to recite and memorize the texts, especially at a time when there was only the oral way of handing down the Dhamma. The classification by way of numbers is a way of teaching different aspects for people with different inclinations: for people who are capable to be taught (veneya satta). This method is also a recapitulation and it serves as a way to verify for ourselves whether we have really understood what we learnt. In this case there are all the twentyeight rupas dealt with again, but now under other aspects. Here the visible triad is dealt with first. The only rupa that is visible is visible object or colour. The gross rupas are the five senses and the relevant sense objects that impinge on them. Only visible object is visible and impinging, the others are invisible and impinging. As to the third of the visible triad: those are the subtle rupas that are invisible and not impinging. We read in te Matika of the Dhammasangani: 22: States [dhammas] that are visible and reacting; invisible and reacting; neither. We read in § 980: The sphere of [mental] states is dhammaayatana, which includes the subtle rupas that can be experienced only through the mind-door. These are: feminine faculty, masculine faculty, life-faculty, bodily intimation, verbal intimation, space, the three rupas of changeability (lightness, plasticity and wieldiness), the four rupas as characteristics, nutrition. We are reminded that there is only one rupa that is visible: colour or visible object. It seems that we are seeing all day long, but seeing falls away and then countless other types of cittas arise. If we had not learnt about the cittas arising and falling away in processes and also in between processes, we would not know that each citta falls away immediately. It seems that we can see people and things, but we are clinging to an image we remember. When we touch something, tangible object is experienced through the bodysense. Tangible object is invisible. The aspect of the visible triad can remind us of the truth. Hardness is invisible and impinging. The subtle rupas do not impinge, they are the third triad: invisible and not reacting. One may believe that verbal intimation impinges on the earsense, but this is not so. As we read in the Vis: Thus, it is not the speech sound, it is a subtle rupa that is the condition for it. Studying this triad can be of help to correct wrong understanding of dhammas. **** Nina P.S. I may not use the Tiika here, but I will make a selection for § 75. 32174 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Dear Jon and Larry, Larry, Lodewijk thanks you and finds your post very helpful and sympathetic. I like to add a little more to the last part, on thinking. op 13-04-2004 02:35 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...:> > So the idea is to recognize in the arising of an instance of any one of > these 4 areas of experience that it is impermanent, or unsatisfactory, > or not me or mine. There is also a fifth kind of recognition that is > implicit in this procedure. That is the recognition that a concept that > arises in discursive thinking is not an experience. If I am thinking > about satipatthana or anything else I am not experiencing satipatthana > etc. Concepts are empty of experience. Recognizing the emptiness of > concepts can lighten one's burden as much as recognizing the > impermanence of a pleasant or unpleasant feeling. N: We keep on thinking about concepts and stories, and these are not realities, in fact, when the object of citta is not a reality, it is a concept. But, we should not forget that there are these roots, we think with unwholesome roots most of the time. We take the thinking for self, and we never think with indeterminate cittas, it is either with kusala citta or with akusala citta, but most of the time with akusala citta. In the fourth application of mindfulness the hindrances are pointed out as objects of mindfulness so that we see them as only dhammas. Two of these are roots: sensuous desire and anger (or aversion). In some classifications ignorance is added as a hindrance. Thus then the three akusala hetus are complete. (This is not a contradiction but a matter of stress on certain aspects). There is seeing of visible object and afterwards we define what we see: this or that person or thing. Even before we realize it, akusala citta has already arisen. Even before we spin out long stories with attachment or aversion. When we learn more about the cittas arising in processes, we understand how extremely fast cittas succeed one another. Unwholesome roots are unwelcome but they can serve as reminders and this is very useful. They are realities, dhammas, and suitable objects of awareness. That is the only way leading to their eradication. This morning I discussed satipatthana again with Lodewijk. He thinks that the confusion about it is also caused by the language used to explain it. I gave him the three definitions of satipatthana: sati of satipatthana which is actually sati-sampaja~n~na: mindfulness and understanding of nama and rupa. Satipatthana: the objects of mindfulness grouped as four applications. And the third: the way Buddhas and disciples walked. As to the second: as said before, all the aspects of the body in the first application serve as a means to being non-forgetful of rupas. There is the body all the time, when standing, sitting, going, lying down, but we are forgetful of the dhammas that are bodily phenomena. There are pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling, indifferent feeling all the time, but we are forgetful. The same for all the other aspects in the other two applications. They all serve to bring us back to reality. Often we are dreaming but sometimes there can be non-forgetfulness of visible object, or sound, just one dhamma at a time. Non-forgetfulness without thinking, without using terms. That is the characteristic of sati that is directly aware of a dhamma. When we discern the difference between moments of forgetfulness and a moment, even a single moment, of sati, we can verify its characteristic. This is the right condition for it to develop. Lodewijk thinks that when I say vipassana is the same, the eightfold Path is the same as satipatthana I create confusion. He suggests: vipassana developed in stages leads to lokuttara by means of satipatthana. The goal is understanding that can eradicate defilements. As to the development of the eightfold Path, panna together with the other factors is developed to reach enlightenment. This is also done by means of satipatthana. Maybe Jon has more suggestions. Nina. 32175 From: Philip Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 4:51am Subject: Re: A Single Excellent Night - and Year Hello all I hope you've been well. I have been busy and not studying dhamma as intently as I was last month, but I'm happy to report that the benefits I gained from even a small degree of right understanding thanks to Nina's books and articles and discussions at this post are carrying through. Having a sense -albeit an intellectual one - of conditioned dhammas rising and falling in the world has been consistently liberating. Really don't become annoyed or frustrated by people. Who's there to get annoyed at? I was looking through the Useful Posts and came across this kind greeting from Andrew, which I apparently failed to acknowledge the first time, back in December. If there are any newcomers reading this, I recommend reading the below post, as well as the other posts in the "new to the list" section of the Useful Posts Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > Hi Philip > Nice to hear from you and to learn a little bit about Japan. Don't > be afraid to post more as there are many like you and I whose > knowledge of Dhamma is limited - but growing (and that's the main > thing to keep in mind). > > You wrote: I certainly don't want to revive the past- it makes me > queasy just > > thinking about it!- but I do believe in revisiting it. I've been > > going through my diaries from the last 3 years rather obsessively > > during the last week, finding patterns of backliding and diversions > > from the path. I think I've learned a lot about how to avoid the > > mistakes I've made in the past and conduct my life more skillfully > > this year. > > I, too, have a tendency to revisit the past - mostly in an unskilful > manner. I re-live my "glorious" moments (doesn't take long) and > agonise over past bad "choices". While I'm revisiting the past and > planning the future, the present moment passes unskilfully and I > don't really learn anything. In the sense given in the sutta, > reviving the past involves taking delight in thoughts about the past - > I take this to mean not just "I want" thoughts but also "I don't > want" thoughts. Sometimes, doing this is actually a form of conceit > (mana) in which we wallow in thoughts of our "inferiority". > I think re-visiting the past is useful IF AND ONLY IF we can do it as > a means of wise reflection on Reality as taught by the Buddha. > > Philip, you may have already noticed that, on DSG, words > like "practice" and "meditation" spark debate. Sometimes, > the "debaters" can't agree. Sometimes they define their terms and > find some stratum of agreement. If only a Buddha were teaching > today, we could all go and ask him directly! But he isn't and we all > do our individual best to comprehend his Teachings as they have come > down to us. Some interesting areas of controversy are: > 1. the teaching of conditionality - do we really have "choices" or is > choice an illusion? > 2. when does "Dhamma practice" become the fetter of merely adhering > to rules and rituals? > 3. what to do with the doctrine of "anatta" (not-self) - leave it to > the monks and Ariyans or at least grapple with it on an intellectual > level. > If interested, you can always search the archives and read the > differing views that have been expressed on these topics. If you are > at all like me, these things take a long time to digest but I think > the results are worthwhile. > Personally speaking, I have gone from blaming myself for not being > able to keep "on the Path" to believing that, whatever happens (good > or bad) can become an object for Insight. To me, it's understanding > the present that really matters. Too much re-visiting the past can > cloud that. Do you agree? > With metta > Andrew > > > > 32176 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Robber Guests Hi Connie & Victor, I had intended to include your interesting quote below in my post to Victor on seclusion for his comments, but have only just located it: --- connie wrote: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/suttanipata/index.html > section IV. Atthaka Vagga: > <1. Although these poems were originally composed for an audience of > wandering, homeless monks, they offer valuable lessons for lay people as > well. Even the passages referring directly to the homeless life can be > read as symbolic of a state of mind. Ven. Maha Kaccana's commentary, > mentioned above, shows that this has been done ever since canonical > times. Addressing a lay person, and commenting on a verse describing the > behavior of a sage who has abandoned home and society, he interprets > "home" as the khandhas and "society" as sense impressions. Thus in his > hands the verse develops an internal meaning that lay people can apply > to their lives without necessarily leaving their external home and > society. Other verses in the poems can be interpreted in similar ways. > .... S:This is from the very detailed commentary that has always been part of the Sutta Pitaka as far as I understand, rehearsed at the First Council. There's no English translation as yet, though I keep hoping;-)Pls add any further useful comments T.B. or anyone gives. Connie, do you have a poem (as I gave mine, I was thinking you'd be the one to wax lyrical;-)) or a little on satipatthana following Larry's suggestion? Metta, Sarah p.s Thanks for your other post to me: Connie> "But there's always someone/group out there to back up any opinion we might have...all those pegs." ======== 32177 From: Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anapanasati Sutta (was, satipatthanasutta) In a message dated 4/12/04 12:50:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: Here we have Jon going to great lengths to explain why the sutta isn't really talking about breath at all, since that is a concept and not a dhamma, Jon, James pointed out something here that I didn't pay any attention to in my response to you. I keep forgettting I am talking to non-doers. When the Buddha (or I) am talking about paying attention to the breath, he is using the concept of breath to point us toward an area of attention. I think this is a valid use of the concept of breath. The usual method of meditation instuction is to, at first, teach to pay attention to the breath in general. Then farther down the road, the instuctions are to pay attention to the body sensations at one point where the breath touches the body. We are taught to reduce the breath down to ultimates such as hot/cold. hardness, etc. Another point is that the first teaching in the Anap. Sutta is to pay attention to a long breath. "Long breath" is a concept that uses a comparison. One point of doing this is to show us to be mindful of the effect that a long breath has on the body and mind. Some people with a lot of experience using the Anap. Sutta in their practice start off each of their meditation sessions with deliberately breathing long and being mindful of what is happening then breathing short (the 2nd teaching) and being mindful of that, working themselves through each step. But, once the deliberate invocation of a step is completed, they leave that technique behind. There would be no deliberately breathing long, for instance. They are just mindful, pure seeing in the seeing. jack 32178 From: Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anapanasati Sutta (was, satipatthanasutta) In a message dated 4/12/04 12:50:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: The teachers, seventy-year-old Kalu Rinpoche of Tibet, a veteran of years of solitary retreat, and the Zen master Seung Sahn, the first Korean Zen master to teach in the United States, were to test each other's understanding of the Buddha's teachings for the benefit of the onlooking Western students. James, What was your reaction to this story? Mine was that here was two valid (effective) Buddhist techniques colliding. I don't believe that either technique was shown to be wrong or are wrong. jack 32179 From: Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana Hi, James - This seems to be it: http://www.buddhanet.net/abhidh01.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) 32180 From: Eznir Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:25am Subject: [dsg] Re: the self. . . how ? #1. Dear Sukin, I see that you have reviewed your post. I too did the same and wish to say something about it. We seem to have discussed the dhamma from two different platforms, Abhidhamma and The Suttas. Perhaps this may be the reason why our views do not tally. It's like you are seated on top of a tall wall with an admirable view and I, at the foot of this wall, peeping through the crevices and discussing the same view. Our views should tally in an ultimate sense. It's just the defilements that stands in the way. Metta eznir --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Dear Eznir (and Sarah), > > I appreciate that you put in so much effort into responding and > trying to make me understand. I had composed as always, long replies > to your posts. But every time I read over them, I want to change > something and add something else, and the posts get even longer. > This is not a big problem. However, I also see that something is > lacking, but I can't put my finger on it. I get the feeling that I > am not doing justice to your well considered replies and am mostly > only repeating the same points even as I try to change contexts. > So Eznir, I am thinking that maybe we let this thread go?! Besides > the points I make are the same ones that others seem to be making on > other threads. And these are the evergreen topics of dsg. ;-) So I > am sure we will have plenty of opportunity to discuss them together > in the future. > > Sarah, it seems like I've got only so much stamina. Hope you are not > disappointed. ;-) See you in a few days. > > Metta, > Sukin > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Eznir" > wrote: > > Dear Sukin, > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh > Narula" > > wrote: 32181 From: Ken O Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana Hi James That is the problem with people who dont practise the Abdhidhamma. There are many scholars in Abdhidhamma and they have arrived with many conclusions but there are very few who practise for salvation and fewer who know what is non-action. People who practise Abhidhamma will have the fullest confidence that it is taught by the Buddha, likewise for people who believe in action group will believe that the Satipatthana sutta is all about concepts ;-). We always forget that cittas are very fast, the so called moment for Ven Sariputta to fan the Buddha, millions of cittas will have arise and ceased. During this fanning, Ven Sariputta will have enter jhanas countless times in and out. Time is relative, to a mosquito, a average two months lifespan is the same as the 80 years of a human life. I hope this answer both suttas and there is no contradictions. Ken O 32182 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:48am Subject: Re: Anapanasati Sutta (was, satipatthanasutta) Friend Jack, Jack: What was your reaction to this story? James: I laughed hysterically! ;-)) Jack: Mine was that here was two valid (effective) Buddhist techniques colliding. I don't believe that either technique was shown to be wrong or are wrong. James: You are right, the author did tell the story to show the differences in approaches, not to say that one was right or wrong. However, personally, I agree with the Tibetan Lama. It is an orange, plain and simple. Maybe you can describe it in different ways: object of the five senses, spherical object orange in color, citrus fruit, orange ball, ripened ovaries of a seed-bearing tree, formation of rupas processed by cittas, object of impermanence- suffering-nonself, illusion, void, etc. I don't think it would make a difference how one describes it. They are all concepts. What is important is that one doesn't cling to the orange or think of the orange in terms of me or mine…and this is something that is beyond words to explain to others. Metta, James 32183 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:51am Subject: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James - > > This seems to be it: http://www.buddhanet.net/abhidh01.htm > > With metta, > Howard Thanks Howard. I will search for the section you refered to. Metta, James 32184 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana Friend Ken O, Ken: That is the problem with people who dont practise the Abdhidhamma. James: How are people supposed to practice the Abhidhamma? Ken: During this fanning, Ven Sariputta will have enter jhanas countless times in and out. James: Does the Abhidhamma really say that!! You mean I am entering jhanas countless of times while I write this post? Wow, that is pretty convenient! I should save my legs and back and stop meditating for jhana! ;-)) Seriously, I don't believe the Buddha taught this. (This reminds me of a funny link I found regarding Buddhism, just perfect for the NAG! ;-)): http://www.serve.com/cmtan/buddhism/Lighter/GoodKarma/index.html ) Metta, James 32185 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) James --- buddhatrue wrote: > Friend Jon, > > Thank you for this sutta quote and commentary but it doesn't answer > the statement you made before. ... > ... You would have to have a statement from the > Buddha that stated, to the effect "Mindfulness of the breath alone > can not lead to insight. Insight must have a dhamma as its > object". What you quoted doesn't say that. ... I think that you should also only > believe what the Buddha said and not extrapolate various meanings > from what he taught. I don't think I suggested that my statement was a direct quote of the Buddha's. I see nothing wrong with summaries, re-statements or 'extrapolations' as long as they correctly reflect the Buddha's teaching (if only direct quotes were allowed we'd all be limited to exchanging sutta excerpts with each other ;-)). I'm sorry that you find the quote already provided insufficient to support the statement. I'll try and do better, but I think I'll first have to narrow down the exact point(s) in contention, as it will need more than one quote. Which one (or more) of the following would you take issue with in particular: - The dhammas/five aggregates spoken of in the suttas do not include 'breath'. - The object of the development of insight (vipassana bhavana) is always a dhamma/one of the five aggregates. - Samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana are separate and distinct forms of bhavana leading to different outcomes -- jhaana and rebirth in an appropriate plane, in the case of samatha bhavana, and enlightenment with no further rebirth, in the case of vipassana bhavana. > ... No, actually the first sutta I have in mind is MN 62 "The > Greater Discourse of Advice to Rahula". > ... He starts with the > section that you quote in this post "Breathing in long, he > understands: `I breathe in long'; or breathing out long, he > understands: `I breathe out long. Etc." But then the section ends > with "He trains thus: `I shall breathe in contemplating > impermanence'; he trains thus: `I shall breathe out contemplating > impermanence.' He trains thus: `I shall breathe in contemplating > fading away'; he trains thus: `I shall breathe out contemplating > fading away. Etc." As you'll have noticed, I've been discussing this same passage (from another sutta) with Jack, together with the commentary on the statement "He trains thus: `I shall breathe in contemplating impermanence'; he trains thus: `I shall breathe out contemplating impermanence.' In brief, it seems to mean impermanence as a characteristic of any of the five aggregates. > Jon, do you develop mindfulness of breathing? If not, why? As you'll also have seen from my exchanges with Jack, mindfulness of breathing can refer to either samatha bhavana or vipassana bhavana. Whichever you're referring to, I don’t exclude it, just as I don’t exclude any other form of kusala. The > Buddha taught that it is of great fruit and great benefit. Yes, if properly developed and cultivated, that is. And we shouldn't forget that many other aspects of samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana are also highly praised by the Buddha in different suttas. Only > Mara, the Evil One, tried to convince people not to practice > mindfulness of breathing. Hmm, are you trying to say something here? ;-)) Just for the record, I have never tried to convince anyone not to practice mindfulness of breathing (of course, I may have disagreed with others as to what mindfulness of breathing involves). > Are you under the influence of Mara? Are > your intentions pure or evil? (And I am being completely serious). I appreciate your concern about my being in the grip of Mara ;-)). My answer to your 2 questions is the same as anyone else's would be, I believe: for the first, technically yes, as I understand it, whenever the citta is akusala, (i.e., most of the time), and for the second, mixed but again technically more impure than pure ;-)) I'd be interested to know what your own answers to these 2 questions would be. Jon 32186 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) James --- buddhatrue wrote: > Friend Jon, ... > Jon: I think the main thrust of the comments has been that the > distinction between dhammas and concepts needs to be known. > > James: Again, quote where the Buddha said this very specifically, > without extrapolating, and I will believe you. Let me rephrase my statement. The reference in the suttas to conditioned dhammas, the five aggregates, the sense-bases, the elements, dependent origination, the four foundations of mindfulness, and the Four Noble Truths do not include concepts. There is no direct statement in the suttas to exactly this effect (and nor is there one to the contrary). The explanation is to be found in the Abhidhamma and the commentaries. But I fear that won't suffice for you ;-)) Jon 32187 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (was, satipatthanasutta) Jack Thanks for following up again. We are in agreement that the sutta distinguishes between moments of samatha bhavana (i.e., when [image of] breath is the object of consciousness) and moments of vipassana bhavana (i.e., when any of the five aggregates is object of insight); but you question the relevance of that distinction to the present discussion. Again this brings us to the nub of the matter. The distinction is relevant when we come to consider what the sutta is saying about the relationship between the two forms of bhavana. We have touched on this point briefly already. In general terms, the sutta could be saying any of the following: 1/ If insight is to be developed, then samatha with breath as object should first be developed ; 2/ Insight can be better developed if samatha with breath as object is also developed; 3/ Samatha with breath as object will be of greater value if insight is also developed in conjunction with the samatha. To my reading, No. 3 comes closest. I base this not only on the commentary but also on the wording of the sutta itself. Consider the oft-quoted passage: <> The emphasis here is on how to 'make the most' of samatha with breath as object, rather than being a general exhortation on the importance of the development of insight. Let's not forget that there are hundreds of suttas that give a teaching on the development of insight, and do so without mentioning mindfulness of breathing. So this sutta is for those who already have a particular interest in samatha with breath as object, i.e., in whom that skill is well developed. Consider also the somewhat oblique way the five aggregates are referred to in the sutta, notwithstanding their central importance to it, in contrast to the prominence given to the five aggregates in numerous other suttas dealing with the development of insight. Consider also the necessary 'qualifications' for inclusion among those to whom the sutta is addressed: <<"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. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out.>> How many people are there today for whom this would be a description of their regular daily life, in whom mindfulness is developed to the stage where it can be 'set to the fore' just like that, who can remain 'always mindful' as they breathe in and out. This does not describe any person I know or have heard of. This I believe is a teaching for those who are not only ready for enlightenment but who have the potential for that enlightenment to be attained with jhana as base. That's the relevance as I see it. I think what I've said addresses most of the comments in your post, but I'll reply separately on what remains, as all your points are of interest. Jon --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: ... > Jon: Yes, but as explained above the text is making a distinction > between > moments when (image of) breath is the object of consciousness > (i.e., > samatha bhavana) and other moments when any of the five aggregates is > object of insight (i.e., vipassana bhavana). The two cannot > co-occur at precisely the same moment. > > jack: I don't understand why you think this is a response to my > previous > paragraph. Why is their not occuring at the same moment, of which I agree, > important here? ... > Jon:Well, perhaps one of the areas of disagreement is the point > I've just > mentioned, that the moments with breath as object will be different > moments to those where the characteristic of impermanence of the five > aggregates is apparent. I hope my explanation on this has been > clear (I fear it hasn't). > > jack: As I said above, I don't see the relevance to our discussion. 32188 From: Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Nina: "We keep on thinking about concepts and stories, and these are not realities, in fact, when the object of citta is not a reality, it is a concept. But, we should not forget that there are these roots, we think with unwholesome roots most of the time." Hi Nina, This is a good point. How should we analyze it? Is it unwholesome vitakka and vicara? Can we say concepts are produced by consciousness in the same way as intimation? Where do concepts come from? Is discursive thinking a form of speech? Larry 32189 From: Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 4:05pm Subject: Vism.XIV 75 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 75. According to the kamma-born triad, etc., however, that born from kamma is 'kamma-born'; that born from a condition other than that is 'not-kamma-born'; that not born from anything is 'neither-kamma-born-nor-not-kamma-born' That born from consciousness is 'consciousness-born'; that born from a condition other than consciousness is 'not-consciousness-born'; that not born from anything is 'neither-consciousness- born-nor-not-consciousness-born'. That born from nutriment is 'nutriment-born'; that born from a condition other than that is 'not-nutriment-born'; that not born from anything is 'neither-nutriment-born-nor-not- nutriment-born'. That born from temperature is 'temperature-born'; that born from a condition other than that is 'not-temperature-born'; that not born from anything is 'neither-temperature-born- nor-not-temperature-born'. 32190 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 4:26pm Subject: Re:_[dsg]_Recognizing_the_Dhamma_-_6._Seclusion(§_6.6.) Hi Sarah, Just a short note: I think this verse of yours is quite neat/cool!! Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor, [snip] > S: I hope you'll accept a little light verse for my summary this time for > a change, Victor: > > [to pick uo on some other threads too -] > *** > If you live with a WAG > And you're known as a NAG > Life sometimes seems a DRAG..... > *** > [On the other hand -] > *** > If by Dhamma you're led > And by DSG fed > Seclusion's here `tis said. > *** > [So, to answer your last qu.....] > *** > You can live in a crowd > Even Hong Kong's allowed. > It's only inner noise that's loud. > **** > Metta, > > Sarah > > p.s [and a last thought....] > *** > Though Nibbana you aspire > When your mate is desire > There's no escaping the fire. > **** 32191 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 4:44pm Subject: Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi Jon and James, Jon, regarding what you said : - The dhammas/five aggregates spoken of in the suttas do not include 'breath'. you might find the following quote helpful: "Now, lady, what are fabrications?" "These three fabrications, friend Visakha: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, & mental fabrications." "But what are bodily fabrications? What are verbal fabrications? What are mental fabrications?" "In-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications." "But why are in-&-out breaths bodily fabrications? Why are directed thought & evaluation verbal fabrications? Why are perceptions & feelings mental fabrications?" "In-&-out breaths are bodily; these are things tied up with the body. That's why in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Having first directed one's thoughts and made an evaluation, one then breaks out into speech. That's why directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental; these are things tied up with the mind. That's why perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn044.html Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > James > [snip] > > I'm sorry that you find the quote already provided insufficient to > support the statement. I'll try and do better, but I think I'll > first have to narrow down the exact point(s) in contention, as it > will need more than one quote. Which one (or more) of the following > would you take issue with in particular: > - The dhammas/five aggregates spoken of in the suttas do not include > 'breath'. [snip] > > Jon 32192 From: Philip Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:22pm Subject: Misuzu Kaneko Hello all I've been translating some poems by my favourite Japanese children's poet Misuzu Kaneko. (She lived at the turn of the century, and sadly killed herself at the age of 26 when she was forbidden by her abusive husband to continue writing.) I don't know to what degree she was influenced by the Buddha's teaching - probably not much- but some of her poems get at dhamma in a very lovely way. Please allow me to share one of my favourites. (I'll include the original Japanese in romaji in case Rob K is reading or in case anyone else is interested in Japanese.) Lotus Renge softly open hirai-i-ta softly shut tsu-u-bonda the lotus in the pond o-tera no ike de of the temple renge no hana ga softly open hirai-i-ta softly shut tsub-u-bonda a ring of children o-tera no niwa de holding hands te tsunaide kodomo in the temple yard softly open hi-i-raita softly shut tsu-u-bonda beyond the temple o-tera no soto de the houses o-ie ga and the town o-machi ga For me, this poem very nicely expresses the feeling I've had since coming across the Abdhidhamma, and beginning to understand paramattha dhamma. All is rising, and falling, and rising, and falling, in all people, and living creatures, and even inanimate objects. This leads to a sense of peace, I think, and a maintainable preview of ultimate liberation. Metta, Phil 32193 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:10pm Subject: FW: greetings from Rob Epstein. For those who know Rob Epstein, here are his greetings and familiy news. Maybe Sarah could react? Van: Robert Epstein Datum: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 07:21:18 -0700 (PDT) Aan: nina van gorkom Onderwerp: Re: greetings Hi Nina. Thank you for your kind greeting, and Happy Easter to you! I do miss my friends at dsg, but I have felt that dropping in every now and then just to say hello or throw in a comment was a bit annoying to some of the more serious posters. The dsg discussions tend to move with great energy and intensity, which I always enjoyed, but I haven't wanted to "interrupt the flow" after trying it a few times. We have had nice Holidays. We went to a Seder for Passover and also had a bit of fun with Easter eggs on Easter morning. It is nice to have a few traditions to fool around with! : ) My book is not yet finished, but I am about ready to do the "final editing" [I hope.] I am sure you have written another book or two while I have been procrastinating. You are pretty inspirational in that sense! Emily is doing great. She is in Kindergarten and is just a great girl. She is doing her ballet and struggling a bit to learn to play the violin. We manage to keep her fairly busy! She is very sweet, going on 6 years old. My work with actors is going along quite well. I have a new group that I am teaching who are doing quite well. It is a process that I have now been involved with for over twenty years, which is somewhat mind-boggling. It's hard to believe that I have been at something for that long. But it is also nice to do something consistently and feel that you are a *bit* [only] of an expert. At least there is some sense of contributing something to a particular field. I know you must have this satisfaction with all the translations and writings that you have given to practitioners. Well, it is so nice to hear from you. Thank you for thinking of me. It is very nice to know that I am not completely removed from my dsg comrades! Please give my best wishes to all of my friends on dsg, and tell them I miss them too! Best Regards, Robert 32194 From: Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: greetings from Rob Epstein. Hi, Nina - Thanks for passing this on to the group. It'sreally good to hear from Rob! 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) 32195 From: Eznir Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 10:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamupada Dear Sarah, On closer examination of the meanings of Sankhara in the different contexts as given in the Suttas one would find that they all converge to a basic meaning that "Things are based on other Things". That is to say, Things(sankhata dhamma) are based on other Things(sankhara). The Thing that is based on, is a sankhara. Hence this bhava is based on merit/demerit performed in the past(punna, apunnabhisankhara). And so is bodily, verbal and mental activity based on kaya, vaci and cittasankhara. This is very much like how a `Greeting' is understood by different nations with respect to their backgrounds. Let me give an illustration: See how a greeting is performed in different countries. Some hug, some kiss, some shake hands, some bow, some keep on bowing twice or thrice, still some dance! Therefore to understand what is being said or done one has to understand the respective cultures of different nations to get at the meaning of the performance(which is a greeting). A person from the Middle East if he were to go to India and start hugging his penpal an Indian in the form of a greeting he would be misunderstood, right? Or if an European were to go to the Middle Eastern country and started kissing his penpal on the road as a form of a greeting he would be arrested according to the laws of that country, right? Therefore to understand what is being said or done one has to understand the respective cultures of different nations to get at the meaning of the performance(which is a greeting). But the fundamental meaning of the performance is a greeting, whatever the nation may be, which is the *essence* of the performance. Hence in Sankhara, like `greeting' above, the essence is the same whatever the context. Sweeping statements that the Buddha made like " Sabbe sankhara anicca", " Sabbe sankhara dukkha" is better understood when the essence of Sankhara is known. This is how I see Sankhara. Metta eznir --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear Eznir, > > You're having a good discussion with Sukin. I hope you continue. > > --- Eznir wrote: > > Refer Sammaditti Sutta MN-09 > > > > With the arising of taints there is the arising of ignorance. Now one > > of the taints is the taint of ignorance. Which means that with the > > arising of ignorance there is the arising of ignorance. Therefore the > > foundation of ignorance is ignorance itself! This implies that to an > > uninstructed person it is intrinsically impossible to know that he is > > ignorant, to know what he is ignorant of, since he is in ignorance. > ... > > Your post on ignorance was very clear and helpful. Do you have any similar > clear comments or quotes on sankhara (formations) as used in D.O.? As I > just wrote in the post to Nina and all, I think we have to clearly > distinguish the meanings in different contexts. Perhaps you can extract > the references from your earlier post to me which were just related to > this D.O. meaning. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== > > 32196 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 0:21am Subject: [dsg] Re: Illusion of Control Hi Howard, ---------------------- H: > Yes, it all can be understood in such a manner. But there is understanding, and there is understanding. An intellectual translation of the Buddha's suttic teachings into "ultimate form" is not the sort of understanding that is liberative, though it can certainly be useful. ---------------------- Mere intellectual understanding is liberating in its way. To understand that there is no self, only nama and rupa, is to have a weight lifted from your shoulders. Don't you get this from your own, phenomenalist viewpoint? ---------------------- Howard: > Yes, all true. However - there are complex relations that hold among the momentary actualities, and a concept such as that of a process of meditation is a way of (indirectly) grasping not only the actualities involved, but also the multi-layered pattern of relations among them. --------------------- I agree that we have to know how concepts are created. I am not convinced, however, that the concept of a process of meditation bears any relation to actual, momentary, meditation. I believe there can be outward, conceptual, signs that right understanding has been developed. For example, an arahant, walking on his alms round, fixes his gaze one plough-length ahead. This is because he has no desire to be looking about in search of visual stimulation. But there would be no sense in your or my walking in this way: it is not a ritual for creating wisdom. ----------------- H: > Using the intellect to conceive of a world of actuality is still involving oneself in the world of concepts, but we can easily fool ourselves into thinking otherwise. ----------------- I'm not sure of the danger you are warning against, here. While we are merely studying Dhamma, are we especially likely to be fooling ourselves? Wouldn't there be a greater risk if we presumed to be practising -- rather than studying -- Dhamma? ---------------------------- H: > The fact is, we start where we are, not where we would hope to be. -------------------------- No, the fact is, there is no we; there is only nama and rupa. That is either true or false: there are no half measures. ------------------------ H: > The Buddha addressed beings like us, fully immersed in the sham world of mental construct, and he taught us to proceed with specific efforts from within our current sham world which cultivate, and train, and purify, so that we take ourselves from within the very midst of the darkness of ignorance into the light of wisdom. --------------------------- So, for all your phenomenalist beliefs, you resort to concepts when it comes to the crunch. You don't have to, you know: it is not necessary to throw your understanding of nama and rupa out the window. ---------------------------- H: > But substituting belief in a intellectual theory of ultimate reality is an ineffective alternative to engaging in the conventional practices taught by the Buddha that lead to purification of mind and to liberation. -------------------- But is that so? Did the Buddha specify conventional practices? Here at dsg, we are shown a wealth of evidence to the contrary. Why side against it? Why not stay true to your phenomenalist leanings? Kind regards, Ken H 32197 From: Ken O Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 2:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana Hi James > James: How are people supposed to practice the Abhidhamma? k: Practising paramatha dhammas and not concepts - and that make a lot of difference ;-). And know the difference between rupas and nama > James: Does the Abhidhamma really say that!! You mean I am entering >> jhanas countless of times while I write this post? Wow, that is > pretty convenient! I should save my legs and back and stop > meditating for jhana! ;-)) Seriously, I don't believe the Buddha > taught this. k: I told you already, a moment is different for different people. I remember a story about this disciple who jump down from a cliff, then while falling down, he attain enlightment and enter jhanas. time is a concept, where our one secs, is not one secs to a person who is enlighted. One secs in the higher heavens means a few hours or minute of human life. Ken O 32198 From: Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 2:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Illusion of Control Hi, Ken - In a message dated 4/14/04 3:24:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > ---------------------- > H: >Yes, it all can be understood in such a manner. But there is > understanding, and there is understanding. An intellectual > translation of the Buddha's suttic teachings into "ultimate form" is > not the sort of understanding that is liberative, though it can > certainly be useful. > ---------------------- > > Mere intellectual understanding is liberating in its way. To > understand that there is no self, only nama and rupa, is to have a > weight lifted from your shoulders. Don't you get this from your > own, phenomenalist viewpoint? > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Correct intellectual understanding - and we can't be too sure when our understanding *is* correct - is helpful. It is an important factor. In itself, however, it is only liberating, as you say, "in its way". ------------------------------------------------ > > ---------------------- > > Howard: >Yes, all true. However - there are complex relations that > hold among the momentary actualities, and a concept such as that of > a process of meditation is a way of (indirectly) grasping not only > the actualities involved, but also the multi-layered pattern of > relations among them. > --------------------- > > I agree that we have to know how concepts are created. I am not > convinced, however, that the concept of a process of meditation > bears any relation to actual, momentary, meditation. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I haven't a clue as to what "momentary meditation" might be. Meditation, of any stripe, is a multi-faceted process lasting over many mind-moments. -------------------------------------------------- > > I believe there can be outward, conceptual, signs that right > understanding has been developed. For example, an arahant, walking > on his alms round, fixes his gaze one plough-length ahead. This is > because he has no desire to be looking about in search of visual > stimulation. But there would be no sense in your or my walking in > this way: it is not a ritual for creating wisdom. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, I sure agree with that! ----------------------------------------------- > > ----------------- > H: >Using the intellect to conceive of a world of actuality is > still involving oneself in the world of concepts, but we can easily > fool ourselves into thinking otherwise. > ----------------- > > I'm not sure of the danger you are warning against, here. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: The danger is in fooling oneself - in thinking that one sees "face to face", when it it really yet "through a glass, darkly." ----------------------------------------------- While we > > are merely studying Dhamma, are we especially likely to be fooling > ourselves? Wouldn't there be a greater risk if we presumed to be > practising -- rather than studying -- Dhamma? ------------------------------------------------ Howard: We can be fooling ourselves in either case - whenever we mistake what we seem to understand and what we seem to be doing for what is actually understood and done. In particular, we are fooling ourselves when we mistake beief and view for wisdom. ---------------------------------------------- > > ---------------------------- > H: >The fact is, we start where we are, not where we would hope to > be. > -------------------------- > > No, the fact is, there is no we; there is only nama and rupa. That > is either true or false: there are no half measures. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh, suddenly attempting to switch language style, Ken? Look at what you wrote earlier in your post. Didn't you say "you" and "I", and didn't you speak of an "arahant" and of "the Dhamma" as if these were actual phenomena. Ken we are *conversing*, which means we are using concepts. Concepts are tools for communication, between minds and within a mind. There is *no* speech or thought without concepts. It is a different matter as to whether one sees through concepts or not. ----------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------ > H: >The Buddha addressed beings like us, fully immersed in the sham > world of mental construct, and he taught us to proceed with specific > efforts from within our current sham world which cultivate, and > train, and purify, so that we take ourselves from within the very > midst of the darkness of ignorance into the light of wisdom. > --------------------------- > > So, for all your phenomenalist beliefs, you resort to concepts when > it comes to the crunch. You don't have to, you know: it is not > necessary to throw your understanding of nama and rupa out the > window. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay, Ken, I'll play your game. Ready? Okay, here goes: "Why, Ken! How silly! There are no such things as beliefs - they are concept only; there is nothing called "phenomenalism" either. Oh, and guess what? As soon as you *talk* about namas and rupas, as soon as you *think* about them, you are dealing with mere concept and not actuality. Oh, yes - also, as soon as you talk or think about concept, that, itself, is mere concept. In fact, Ken, in order to think or talk without concept, and yet to deal only with experiential reality, the thinking and talking must take the form of what follows between the subsequent corner brackets: < >." ------------------------------------------------ > > ---------------------------- > H: >But substituting belief in a intellectual theory of ultimate > reality is an ineffective alternative to engaging in the > conventional practices taught by the Buddha that lead to > purification of mind and to liberation. > -------------------- > > But is that so? Did the Buddha specify conventional practices? > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, indeed. --------------------------------------------------- Here > > at dsg, we are shown a wealth of evidence to the contrary. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: And in the 45 years of the Buddha's teaching as recorded in the Sutta Pitaka, we are shown exactly what I claim. If I need to choose between the two, you can be assured that there is little doubt as to my decision. -------------------------------------------------- Why side > > against it? ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Because I am a *Buddhist* (!), not a DSG-er or even an Abhidhammika. ----------------------------------------------- > Why not stay true to your phenomenalist leanings? > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I most assuredly do. To be a thoroughgoing phenomenalist doesn't require not communicating. It only requires understanding the difference between what is merely manner of speaking and what is actuality. ----------------------------------------------- > > Kind regards, > Ken H > ====================== 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) 32199 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:41am Subject: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Friend Jon, Jon: I don't think I suggested that my statement was a direct quote of the Buddha's. I see nothing wrong with summaries, re-statements or 'extrapolations' as long as they correctly reflect the Buddha's teaching (if only direct quotes were allowed we'd all be limited to exchanging sutta excerpts with each other ;-)). James: Hey, that would be fun!! ;-)) Yea, you are right that there is nothing inherently wrong with extrapolating from the Buddha's teachings. Ven. Sariputta did it quite often in various suttas. However, the key here is if these extrapolations `correctly reflect the Buddha's teaching'. In this case, we have the Buddha speaking about how mindfulness of breath can be used to lead to liberation, and we have you directly contradicting this by assembling various meanings from obscure commentaries and adding your own interpretations to even these commentaries. It is not necessary to go through so many layers of thought and interpretation to figure out what the Buddha was teaching. He was teaching mindfulness of breath! You know: breathing! Pulling air into your lungs and pushing it back out again by contracting and expanding the diaphragm. What is so difficult to understand about that? Jon: I'm sorry that you find the quote already provided insufficient to support the statement. I'll try and do better, but I think I'll first have to narrow down the exact point(s) in contention, as it will need more than one quote. Which one (or more) of the following would you take issue with in particular: - The dhammas/five aggregates spoken of in the suttas do not include 'breath'. - The object of the development of insight (vipassana bhavana) is always a dhamma/one of the five aggregates. - Samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana are separate and distinct forms of bhavana leading to different outcomes -- jhaana and rebirth in an appropriate plane, in the case of samatha bhavana, and enlightenment with no further rebirth, in the case of vipassana bhavana. James: This shouldn't need more than one quote. You are making this far more complicated than it has to be. For starters, give me a quote (one quote) from the Buddha that directly states your number 2: "the object of the development of insight is always a dhamma/one of the five aggregates". This shouldn't be difficult to find because it is a key issue: development of insight. If you can provide a quote, I will leave you alone ;-). Jon: As you'll have noticed, I've been discussing this same passage (from another sutta) with Jack, together with the commentary on the statement "He trains thus: `I shall breathe in contemplating impermanence'; he trains thus: `I shall breathe out contemplating impermanence.' In brief, it seems to mean impermanence as a characteristic of any of the five aggregates. James: If you sit down and do it, mindfulness of breathing, you will eventually figure out what it means. There is no reason to start looking at numerous commentaries to figure it out. It means that the person will breathe in and out contemplating the impermanence of samsara. Samsara would include dhammas and those things that are fabricated...and the breath. They are all impermanent. Doing this can rid the mind of defilements through non-clinging. It is almost as if you see Enlightenment as `knowing something', and it is to a certain extent, but Enlightenment is more freeing the mind of those things which keep in enslaved. Mindfulness of the breath can free the mind in this regard. Almost anything can free the mind in this regard. For example, as we have been discussing, Sariputta became enlightened just thinking about what the Buddha was teaching. His mind was completely engaged in concepts when it was freed of the taints. Freedom from the taints doesn't require contemplation of raw phenomena in all cases (though in most cases it does because that will greatly assist in fostering non-clinging). Metta, James 32200 From: Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 4:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi, James & Jon - In a message dated 4/14/04 10:47:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > > Friend Jon, > > Jon: I don't think I suggested that my statement was a direct quote > of the Buddha's. I see nothing wrong with summaries, re-statements or > 'extrapolations' as long as they correctly reflect the Buddha's > teaching (if only direct quotes were allowed we'd all be limited to > exchanging sutta excerpts with each other ;-)). > > James: Hey, that would be fun!! ;-)) Yea, you are right that there > is nothing inherently wrong with extrapolating from the Buddha's > teachings. Ven. Sariputta did it quite often in various suttas. > However, the key here is if these extrapolations `correctly reflect > the Buddha's teaching'. In this case, we have the Buddha speaking > about how mindfulness of breath can be used to lead to liberation, > and we have you directly contradicting this by assembling various > meanings from obscure commentaries and adding your own > interpretations to even these commentaries. It is not necessary to > go through so many layers of thought and interpretation to figure > out what the Buddha was teaching. He was teaching mindfulness of > breath! You know: breathing! Pulling air into your lungs and > pushing it back out again by contracting and expanding the > diaphragm. What is so difficult to understand about that? > > Jon: I'm sorry that you find the quote already provided insufficient > to > support the statement. I'll try and do better, but I think I'll > first have to narrow down the exact point(s) in contention, as it > will need more than one quote. Which one (or more) of the following > would you take issue with in particular: > - The dhammas/five aggregates spoken of in the suttas do not include > 'breath'. > - The object of the development of insight (vipassana bhavana) is > always a dhamma/one of the five aggregates. > - Samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana are separate and distinct > forms of bhavana leading to different outcomes -- jhaana and rebirth > in an appropriate plane, in the case of samatha bhavana, and > enlightenment with no further rebirth, in the case of vipassana > bhavana. > > James: This shouldn't need more than one quote. You are making this > far more complicated than it has to be. For starters, give me a > quote (one quote) from the Buddha that directly states your number > 2: "the object of the development of insight is always a dhamma/one > of the five aggregates". This shouldn't be difficult to find > because it is a key issue: development of insight. If you can > provide a quote, I will leave you alone ;-). > > Jon: As you'll have noticed, I've been discussing this same passage > (from another sutta) with Jack, together with the commentary on the > statement "He trains thus: `I shall breathe in contemplating > impermanence'; he trains thus: `I shall breathe out contemplating > impermanence.' > > In brief, it seems to mean impermanence as a characteristic of any of > the five aggregates. > > James: If you sit down and do it, mindfulness of breathing, you will > eventually figure out what it means. There is no reason to start > looking at numerous commentaries to figure it out. It means that > the person will breathe in and out contemplating the impermanence of > samsara. Samsara would include dhammas and those things that are > fabricated...and the breath. They are all impermanent. Doing this > can rid the mind of defilements through non-clinging. > > It is almost as if you see Enlightenment as `knowing something', and > it is to a certain extent, but Enlightenment is more freeing the > mind of those things which keep in enslaved. Mindfulness of the > breath can free the mind in this regard. Almost anything can free > the mind in this regard. For example, as we have been discussing, > Sariputta became enlightened just thinking about what the Buddha was > teaching. His mind was completely engaged in concepts when it was > freed of the taints. Freedom from the taints doesn't require > contemplation of raw phenomena in all cases (though in most cases it > does because that will greatly assist in fostering non-clinging). > > Metta, James > ========================== I think you are both right! We worldlings, are typically unable to attend directly to paramattha dhammas during "ordinary" mindstates. Pretty much all that we experience is passed through a more or less opaque filter of conceptualization. This is where we begin. When the Buddha directs attention to the breath, he is directing our attention to a somewhat restricted range of experience which we conceptualize as in-breathing and out-breathing. The realities subsumed by breathing are earth (solidity), air (motion), fire (temperature), and water (dryness - wetness), and, of course, a variety of derivative touch sensations. Those that are subsumed by in-breathing are somewhat different from those subsumed by out-breathing (for example, coolness vs warmth). Mindfulness of breath begins at the conceptual level. Even at that level, mundane understanding of impermanence and conditionality arises, but it is of minor import. However, the relative restriction of domain of attention tends to heighten the level of concentration. If by effort, with other conditions cooperating, one can maintain clarity and resist succumbing to sloth and torpor, then there is a corresponding heightening of mindfulness and comprehension, and one begins to see through the obfuscating conceptual filter a bit, getting somewhat closer to attending to actualities. At the pinnacle of this process, one attends directly to the subsumed paramattha dhammas, at which point there is the possibilty for supermundane insight into the tilakkhana to arise as the mind gains direct insight into the hindrances, the khandhic elements, the internal and external sense media, the enlightenment factors, and the four noble facts of dukkha. 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) 32201 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] immaterial space Hi Larry, op 12-04-2004 00:49 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > I have a doubt about the reality status of the four bases of immaterial > jhana. These are: "boundless space", "boundless consciousness", > "nothingness", and "neither perception nor non-perception". I believe > these are classified as concepts because the objects of the lower levels > of jhana are concepts and because they are not listed in the list of > realities. However, it seems to me (1) a base is a reality, (2) the > description of the base of neither perception nor non-perception sounds > like a reality, and (3) the 'profitable consciousness' of the > fine-material sphere is associated with jhana factors (realities) and > the 'profitable consciousness' of the immaterial sphere is associated > with the bases [this suggests to me that the bases are realities]. If > this is the case then there are three kinds of space: the rupa > (delimitation), the concept of the rupa (imagined space), and immaterial > 'boundless' space. What is your view on this? N: See first: Sarah quotes: From the Debates Commentary (comy to Kathavatthu, Points of Controversy, PTS), chV1, V1: “Now follows the controversy about space. Space is of three modes: as confined or delimited [S:pariccheda or aakaasa ruupa], as abstracted from object (kasi.n’ugghaatim-, referring to Jhana procedure only), as open (aja.ta-). Of these the first is conditioned, the other two are mere concepts. But some, like the Uttaraapathakas and Mahi.msaasakas hold that the two latter modes also, inasmuch as (being mental fictions) they are not conditioned, must therefore be unconditioned.’(Points of Controversy, p192). N: I can add something. Aakaasa , often is added: aakaasa dhaatu: the element of space, so that it is clear that it is a reality: an element. Element is devoid of self. Dhaatu can be used synonymous with dhamma: bearing its own characteristic. Space like the air is a concept. The object of Jhana also a concept, but we can look at more details. Boundless space, a concept, but special. As I wrote in a former post to Howard, objects can be classified as: Slight (paritta, all sense objects), mahaggata (exalted, of jhana) and appamaa.na, boundless, here: lokuttara dhammas. Apart from these there are objects called: not so classifiable, navattaba, see Vis III, 117, note 32. This is very detailed. The object of boundless space when someone contemplates it is navatabba, it is a concept. Second jhana and third jhana have paramattha dhammas, namely cittas as object. L: What is the difference between delimitation and shape? The rupa that delimites the groups of rupa is not shape, it is space element. Shape is not a rupa, not a reality but a concept. See above: shape and form, thought of on account of seeing visible object. Nina. 32202 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Misuzu Kaneko Dear Philip, Thank you for the lovely poem. I find it a good idea you included the Japanese. Very artistically and professionally done. You made my day. It inspires me to some remarks on Dhamma. Buddhism is so entrenched in the Japanese mind, it is extraordinary. And you see how language is such a means to come into contact with other religions, cultures. It fills me with respect when I learn about them. op 14-04-2004 05:22 schreef Philip op plnao@j...: >> Lotus Renge > > softly open hirai-i-ta > softly shut tsu-u-bonda > the lotus in the pond o-tera no ike de > of the temple renge no hana ga> > For me, this poem very nicely expresses the feeling I've had > since coming across the Abdhidhamma, and beginning to understand > paramattha dhamma. All is rising, and falling, and rising, and > falling, in all people, and living creatures, and even inanimate > objects. This leads to a sense of peace, I think, and a maintainable > preview of ultimate liberation. N: It sounds so severe when we hear: this is colour, only colour that is seen, colour and seeing are paramattha dhammas, and thinking of a flower is thinking of a concept. There seems to be so much insistence on paramattha dhammas, and why? Because it is deep, difficult to understand. It is the truth and developing understanding of what is true can lead to a lessening of defilements. Defilements cause sorrow. Since paramattha dhammas is a new subject to many, so much time is spent to explain about them, and about the benefit of knowing them: no self behind it all. But now about the Middle Way! It is beneficial to understand what dhamma is, what reality is. To know what is dhamma and what is a concept. To realize when we are clinging to dhammas, and also clinging to concepts. But, understanding must be developed very naturally, not in a rigid way. No separation of my meditation life and my daily life. We should not reject concepts and then, we can be reminded of the Dhamma when looking at the lotus: softly open, softly shut. Certainly, we *think* of impermanence, we do not realize it from moment to moment, but this can bring us back to reality: be it thinking, or the concept of flower we think of, or seeing, or colour. But it must come naturally, not by force. Otherwise our life is so strained, artificial. I think of Rob Ep's letter: so natural, so simple, when writing: < We went to a Seder for Passover and also had a bit of fun with Easter eggs on Easter morning. > For those who do not know: Seder is the Judaic tradition, commemorating the exodus of the Jews from exile in Egypt to their promised country. The youngest child has to ask: I find it a very moving tradition. (Appreciated if Howard adds more). So we see, it is helpful to incorporate just the whole of our daily life, our traditions into Dhamma. I hope others will do this too, not being afraid that this is off-topic. This is the balance we have to find: understand realities, but develop it naturally, in the midst of your life full of concepts. When you are with A. Sujin or the other Thai friends you will know what the Middle Way means. And you will see, that if you do not *try* to know just paramattha dhammas, pushing away your thinking of concepts, or, all the things you like to do and do naturally, or your own tradition, the development of understanding can become very natural. After all, understanding of our own life, accumulations, inclinations must be developed naturally. Otherwise, the goal cannot be reached. And that is Abhidhamma. I like to help people see that Abhidhamma is life. All these classifications can jump out of the book, be part of our life, they are about life. But there is another thing, the language. When one can read Pali, the texts, also of the suttas, come to life. Take the Brahmajalasutta (D.N, no 1), I used to find it rather tough. When I read it in Pali it was quite a different sutta and much more lively. The same with all the suttas, the same with the Vis. and Tiika now. These are texts well worth reflecting on. We cannot avoid that much gets lost in the translations and not everybody is inclined to learn Pali. I have to make extra efforts to make the texts come to life! Philip, your post made me understand more about the necessary balance as found in the Middle Way. Unknowingly there may be a certain stress to know nama and rupa, although one has realized in theory that this will only counteract the development. How true. A. Sujin also said: when you do not try, I will guarantee that panna will develop. We all have to find out with ups and downs! The Abhidhamma can help us not to be stressed: effort, sati, understanding, concentration, they are all cetasikas performing their functions. The more understanding of cetasikas and all dhammas develops the more there will be balance in our life. Attachment, sadness, these shake us up, but they can be known as only conditioned dhammas. Thank you, with much appreciation and a bow to you, Nina. 32203 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Hi Larry, op 14-04-2004 00:59 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Nina: "We keep on thinking about concepts and stories, and these are not > realities, in fact, when the object of citta is not a reality, it is a > concept. But, we should not forget that there are these roots, we think > with unwholesome roots most of the time." L: This is a good point. How should we analyze it? Is it unwholesome > vitakka and vicara? N: When the root is unwholesome all the accompanying cetasikas are also akusala. Conditioned by way of conascence, also reciproxity, and other conditions. But, these akusala dhammas can and should be realized as only conditioned namas. L:Can we say concepts are produced by consciousness in > the same way as intimation? N: No. Intimation is a subtle rupa, an unique change in the elements, originated by citta. Concept is an object of citta which thinks. But it is not a paramattha dhamma: not citta, cetasika or rupa. For details see Vis. Ch VIII, note 11. L: Where do concepts come from? N: They do not come from anywhere, they do not arise and fall away. But when thinking falls away people have the impression that the concept, the object of thinking also falls away. On account of all the sense objects citta thinks of concepts. Even shortly after seeing, when we do not think stories, we pay attention to shape and form and define the object. That is not seeing, but thinking. Sa~n~naa plays an important part here. It remembers a whole of impressions and we take it for something that is real. It is necessary to know when the object of citta is a paramattha dhamma and when a concept. But, as I wrote to Philip, we do not have to avoid concepts. Our life is full of concepts and the development of understanding should be quite natural. Concepts is not a forbidden area. We should not avoid either the thinking with unwholesome roots, it arises naturally and it can be known when it appears. There could be an overreaction towards concepts and thinking. That is not the Middle Way. Dhamma students (me included) complain that they have a lot of thinking and no awareness of realities. At that very moment they hinder sati, they slow down the development of right understanding. Only when we can be naturally aware, also of thinking, we shall know the difference between concepts and realities more clearly. L: Is discursive thinking a form of speech? N: Vitakka and vicara (applied and discursive thought) play a role in speaking, but they are not the only cetasikas which do so. Vitakka hits or strikes the object so that citta can know it. Nina. 32204 From: Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 6:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (was, satipatthanasutta) Jon, I think I will bow out of this discussion. I have addressed most of your points to the best of my ability in previous posts. This sutta to me is deep but very straightforward. I think you are making something difficult out of something straightforward. This sutta to me is describing a series of steps that one can follow in one's practice to reach enlightenment. In other teachings, the Buddha described other methods emphasizing other aspects of practice. If one believes these two points as I do, your questions aren't relevant. If one believes as you do, they are. 1. Disagree that samatha bhavana involves only image of breath: addressed that in previous post. 2. Vipassana defined as when one of 5 aggegates is object of meditation: addressed that in previous post. 3. Moments of vipassana vs. moments of samatha: that is not the point of this sutta as I addressed in previous post. 4. "rather than a general exhortation on the importance of insight": I didn't address this in previous posts because I didn't think it necessary to explain the importance of insight. I think the Buddha is unequivocal in stating the importance of insight. Only things I have not addressed before is that I don't think the Anap. Sutta is limited to those whose skill using the breath as object is well developed. Most beginners I know start off their meditation practice using their breath as object. I also think you misread the quote, "where a monk...setting mindfulness to the fore..." This describes most people who sit down to meditate and is an easy instruction to try to follow. Be well. Jack Thanks for following up again. We are in agreement that the sutta distinguishes between moments of samatha bhavana (i.e., when [image of] breath is the object of consciousness) and moments of vipassana bhavana (i.e., when any of the five aggregates is object of insight); but you question the relevance of that distinction to the present discussion. Again this brings us to the nub of the matter. The distinction is relevant when we come to consider what the sutta is saying about the relationship between the two forms of bhavana. We have touched on this point briefly already. In general terms, the sutta could be saying any of the following: 1/ If insight is to be developed, then samatha with breath as object should first be developed ; 2/ Insight can be better developed if samatha with breath as object is also developed; 3/ Samatha with breath as object will be of greater value if insight is also developed in conjunction with the samatha. To my reading, No. 3 comes closest. I base this not only on the commentary but also on the wording of the sutta itself. Consider the oft-quoted passage: <> The emphasis here is on how to 'make the most' of samatha with breath as object, rather than being a general exhortation on the importance of the development of insight. Let's not forget that there are hundreds of suttas that give a teaching on the development of insight, and do so without mentioning mindfulness of breathing. So this sutta is for those who already have a particular interest in samatha with breath as object, i.e., in whom that skill is well developed. Consider also the somewhat oblique way the five aggregates are referred to in the sutta, notwithstanding their central importance to it, in contrast to the prominence given to the five aggregates in numerous other suttas dealing with the development of insight. Consider also the necessary 'qualifications' for inclusion among those to whom the sutta is addressed: <<"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. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out.>> How many people are there today for whom this would be a description of their regular daily life, in whom mindfulness is developed to the stage where it can be 'set to the fore' just like that, who can remain 'always mindful' as they breathe in and out. This does not describe any person I know or have heard of. This I believe is a teaching for those who are not only ready for enlightenment but who have the potential for that enlightenment to be attained with jhana as base. That's the relevance as I see it. I think what I've said addresses most of the comments in your post, but I'll reply separately on what remains, as all your points are of interest. Jon --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: ... > Jon: Yes, but as explained above the text is making a distinction > between > moments when (image of) breath is the object of consciousness > (i.e., > samatha bhavana) and other moments when any of the five aggregates is > object of insight (i.e., vipassana bhavana). The two cannot > co-occur at precisely the same moment. > > jack: I don't understand why you think this is a response to my > previous > paragraph. Why is their not occuring at the same moment, of which I agree, > important here? ... > Jon:Well, perhaps one of the areas of disagreement is the point > I've just > mentioned, that the moments with breath as object will be different > moments to those where the characteristic of impermanence of the five > aggregates is apparent. I hope my explanation on this has been > clear (I fear it hasn't). > > jack: As I said above, I don't see the relevance to our discussion. 32205 From: Philip Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:42pm Subject: Buddhist fundamentalism? Hello James, and all. Jon and James exchanged thoughts on extrapolating from the Buddha's teaching. > James: Yea, you are right that there >is nothing inherently wrong with extrapolating from the Buddha's >teachings. Ven. Sariputta did it quite often in various suttas. >However, the key here is if these extrapolations `correctly reflect >the Buddha's teaching'. Ph: There is a question that always pops into my mind. Strictly speaking, how can we truly know what correctly reflects the Buddha's teaching? Strictly speaking, isn't the whole Pali canon an extrapolation, in a sense, albeit it one that varies from the original teaching in a thankfully small way? I mean, we know that the teachings were passed down orally over several centuries before being transcribed in Sri Lanka. Is it blasphemous to suggest that they cannot possibly be 100% faithful to the Buddha's intended teaching and must in some way reflect forces at work in the sangha during those two centuries? I ask this not to question the value of the sutta - because I'm not an idiot, thankfully- but just to say that I question an approach which relies on a fundamentalist interpretation of the sutta. I think the Buddha wanted us to examine our experience - didn't he? - using his teachings as signposts on the road rather than detailed maps to adhere to without lifting one's eyes to look and learn from the reality in and around oneself. Pardon the prattle. I am just trying to get at a question I have about arguing dhamma based on interpretations of sutta. I am by no means an anti-intellectual - that's not my point. I can see the value of debating, and, of course, referring to sutta is the most reliable and proper way to do so, but I question one's ability to announce victory in an argument based on sutta. Not that announcing victory is anyone's point in this group. I'm thinking more of a group I once belonged to in which sutta questions were thrown around like bricks. I guess I am just antsy about fundamentalist Buddhism - Lord knows there's enough fundamentalism in the world already! BTW, James, I was grabbed by something you wrote a few weeks ago, about how you used to believe that everything comes down to the moment, but now that you have come to believe that everything comes down to the Buddha's teaching. That is a loose paraphrase. Do you remember your exact words? It was interesting. Wouldn't you say that the Middle Way would apply there? BTW again, James, another thing you wrote has stayed with me. When I first joined the group and was feeling kind of feverish with enthusiasm, you suggested that I relax and not try to study dhamma too hard and instead work on mindfulness. That was good advice, and I've been following it. Thanks! Metta, Phil 32206 From: Philip Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:53pm Subject: For fellow beginners - the thought process laid out Hello all. Reading through a resonse from Rob M to my post about mudita from a few weeks back (I print out responses and only catch up with them properly some time later) I came across this wonderful quotation he identified as his favourite section of the Honeyball Sutta. (Mn 18) I think it might be very helpful for any Abhidhamma beginners like myself. It certainly lays out the thought process very clearly: "Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a condition there is feeling. What one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one thinks about. What one thinks about, that one mentally proliferates. 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." Rob adds : "I interpret the last sentece as meaning that one gets wrapped up in their own fantasy world." Hope this helpful. It certainly was for me. :) Metta, Phil 32207 From: ashkenn2k Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:29am Subject: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana Hi James, Jack and anyone who loves satipatthana Now I know why concepts cannot be an object of satipatthana, because concepts do not have the three characteristics. Hence we cannot practise using concepts because an object without the three characteristics cannot assist us in understanding the world with the three characteristics. Hence breathing cannot assist us to understand impermanence, that is why when we read the Anapanasati Sutta, we have breathing in, he focus on inconstancy, he no longer focusing on the breath but focusing on one of the three inconstancy, in order words he has left samatha meditation to vipassana meditation. Then again, however since breath is a concept, he is not looking at breath per se, he is experiencing four great elements as only them can exihibit the three characteristics while breath does not. So when he focus on breath as inconsistant, he is practising the understanding to paramatha dhammas and not concepts. Ken O 32208 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:14am Subject: Re: Buddhist fundamentalism? Friend Phil, Hi, how are you? I hope you are fine. I hope school is going nicely. I read the Japanese poem you posted a few days ago. It was very sad, lovely, and wonderful. I hope you will post more if you happen to have them. Okay, to your questions: Phil: There is a question that always pops into my mind. Strictly speaking, how can we truly know what correctly reflects the Buddha's teaching? James: We cannot know for sure. Memorized or written, there can be mistakes in either mode. Humans are not infallible. Personally, I really trust the Sutta Pitaka because it is pretty consistent in content and style. The Buddha seemed to speak in a different manner than Ven. Sariputta and Ananda and later monks. They all speak about the same things but style is important to consider when analyzing the validity of the suttas. For example, there has been a long controversy for years concerning if Shakespeare really wrote his plays or if someone else wrote them. Some people find it hard to believe that an actor, who used to be a grammar school teacher, could be so brilliant. (BTW, after the Buddha, Shakespeare is my favorite ;-)) Professor Ward Elliott of Claremont McKenna College created a database to analyze Shakespeare's writing compared to the other writings of the Renaissance period. He used linguistic tests that measured things like the number of relative clauses and hyphenated compound words and length of words and sentences, and a new test that used a pattern recognition technique. He couldn't determine if Shakespeare wrote his plays but he did determine that only one person wrote them all. I believe that if the same type of test was applied to the Sutta Pitaka it would be found that they were spoken by one person. Of course, that one person would be the Buddha. Thankfully, in this group the validity of the Sutta Pitaka doesn't come up too often; that can get very irritating. Of course, some suttas may not be valid (As I analyzed with the Anupada Sutta…) Phil: Strictly speaking, isn't the whole Pali canon an extrapolation, in a sense, albeit it one that varies from the original teaching in a thankfully small way? James: I don't think so. How did you come to this conclusion? The Sutta Pitaka is supposed to contain direct quotes of the various bhikkhus, laypeople, and kings which are identified in each sutta. They are not paraphrases or summaries. Phil: I mean, we know that the teachings were passed down orally over several centuries before being transcribed in Sri Lanka. Is it blasphemous to suggest that they cannot possibly be 100% faithful to the Buddha's intended teaching and must in some way reflect forces at work in the sangha during those two centuries? James: I don't think so for two reasons: 1. The style is consistent, as I stated earlier; 2. It would be lying to have a sutta which states "And the Blessed One Said…" and then to make up something he supposedly said. This could have happened for a few suttas but probably not most. There would have been a huge outcry. Bhikkhus have great integrity after all (or are supposed to). Phil: I ask this not to question the value of the sutta - because I'm not an idiot, thankfully- but just to say that I question an approach which relies on a fundamentalist interpretation of the sutta. James: So, are you saying that I am a `Fundamentalist Buddhist'? I wouldn't describe myself that way. I have questioned the validity of the Abhidhamma and some of the suttas. I don't strictly adhere to anything just because it has been labeled `Buddha Word'. Doing that would make me fundamentalist. Now, an `anything goes' approach to Buddhism isn't the opposite of fundamentalism, it is just plain ignorant thinking. ;-)) Phil: I think the Buddha wanted us to examine our experience - didn't he? - using his teachings as signposts on the road rather than detailed maps to adhere to without lifting one's eyes to look and learn from the reality in and around oneself. James: Yes he did. What is your point? Didn't you learn this by reading the Sutta Pitaka? How would you have known to do this otherwise? Phil: I guess I am just antsy about fundamentalist Buddhism - Lord knows there's enough fundamentalism in the world already! James: I don't think I am being fundamentalist. I also don't like fundamentalism either. But I think I dislike `anything goes' even more…maybe this makes me fundamentalist in your eyes?? Phil: BTW, James, I was grabbed by something you wrote a few weeks ago, about how you used to believe that everything comes down to the moment, but now that you have come to believe that everything comes down to the Buddha's teaching. That is a loose paraphrase. Do you remember your exact words? It was interesting. Wouldn't you say that the Middle Way would apply there? James: That is an incorrect paraphrase. What I stated, and it was just a joke anyway, is that my new catchphrase, instead of "It all comes down to the present moment" will be "It all comes down to what the Buddha taught". This is not a change in my perspective; it is the same perspective I have always had. I don't think that simply `knowing' the present moment will lead to liberation…what one needs to realize is that the present moment, as well as the past and future moment, are inherently suffering. Phil: BTW again, James, another thing you wrote has stayed with me. When I first joined the group and was feeling kind of feverish with enthusiasm, you suggested that I relax and not try to study dhamma too hard and instead work on mindfulness. That was good advice, and I've been following it. Thanks! James: You are quite welcome. I'm glad that you are taking a more relaxed and productive approach rather than a stressed and unproductive approach. Metta, James 32209 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:34am Subject: The 2 Ancient Protectors ! Friends: Which two Qualities Protect the whole World ? Guilty Conscience loathing any wrong-doing like excrement or urine is a protector of the whole world! Self-esteem is it's immediate cause. Fearful Shame afraid of retribution like fearing the Boss is a protector of the whole world! Respect for others is it's immediate cause. Whenever these are present, humans approach the Divine. Whenever these are absent, humans behave like animals. Morality is therefore a true Treasure! Mighty powerful is Virtue! Ensuring future safety! The Buddha on Conscience: Past bad deeds cannot be undone, but guilt can be overcome: SN XLII.8 As a basis for acquiring understanding: AN VIII.2 As a quality that safeguards the world: Iti 42 As a rare and fine quality: SN I.18 As a treasure: AN VII.6 As a guardian: AN II.9 Associated with skillful qualities: Iti 40 The Buddha on Shame: As a treasure: AN VII.6 As a guardian: AN II.9 As a quality that safeguards the world: Iti 42 All yours in the Dhamma. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.msn.com/DirectDhamma/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/TrueDhamma 32210 From: eireen30 Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 0:21pm Subject: Abidhamma Hello, I am new in this group, my name is Andrea. I have a question. Where can I find good informations about Abidhamma. It seems to be difficult, to find a good book, or online articles about this subject. It would be great, if someone could give me some hints, where I can find good literature ... Best regards, Andrea 32211 From: Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana Hi, Ken and all - In a message dated 4/15/04 4:29:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi James, Jack and anyone who loves satipatthana > > Now I know why concepts cannot be an object of satipatthana, because > concepts do not have the three characteristics. Hence we cannot > practise using concepts because an object without the three > characteristics cannot assist us in understanding the world with the > three characteristics. Hence breathing cannot assist us to > understand impermanence, that is why when we read the Anapanasati > Sutta, we have breathing in, he focus on inconstancy, he no longer > focusing on the breath but focusing on one of the three inconstancy, > in order words he has left samatha meditation to vipassana meditation. > Then again, however since breath is a concept, he is not looking at > breath per se, he is experiencing four great elements as only them can > exihibit the three characteristics while breath does not. So when he > focus on breath as inconsistant, he is practising the understanding to > paramatha dhammas and not concepts. > > > > Ken O > > ============================ It's a good bet that right before reading this post, you did not have the idea of a tree in mind but that now, by reading this, the concept of tree has arisen in your mind. Later, when you busy yourself with other matters, the concept of tree will no longer be present. Is that not impermanence? On the other hand!!! Here I'm about to attempt to zero in, in a precise way, on an analysis to the effect that there *are no such things* as concepts at all! What exactly is it which comes and goes when, as I say, the concept of a tree arises and ceases in the mind? I think that it is, in fact, not a single phenomenon at all. A number of different things arise and cease. Among these are at least the following: (Typically fuzzy) mental tree images (and these may actually be sequences of visual experiences, and not a single ones), moments of wordless identification or recognition (sa~n~na), sequences of mental states that constitute memories, and sequences of internalized sounds constituting the unspoken word 'tree' and associated with a complex sequence of just-passed mental phenomena. So, what I'm saying is that not only is the referent of a concept often nonexistent, but concepts themselves may not be existent. There may only be sequences of multi-faceted mental events, which are mentally grouped and named AS IF a single mental phenomenon. That grouping and naming activity is what we call "concept formation", but there is no single, direct element of experience, no single phenomenon, that is a concept. Thus, concepts themselves are concept only!! ;-)) 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) 32212 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 5:22am Subject: Re: Abidhamma Hi Andrea, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "eireen30" wrote: > I am new in this group, my name is Andrea. I have a question. Where > can I find good informations about Abidhamma. It seems to be > difficult, to find a good book, or online articles about this > subject. It would be great, if someone could give me some hints, > where I can find good literature ... Welcome to DSG! I recommend Nina van Gorkom's book "Buddhism in Daily Life" followed by her "Abhidhamma in Daily Life". They are avaialble for download from Zolag and other sites. I strongly recommend that you supplement your reading with asking questions here on DSG as they arise. You may get answers from Nina, Sarah / Jon the moderators, myself or others. Let me start the ball rolling by asking you a question... what sparked your interest in the Abhidhamma? Metta, Rob M :-) 32213 From: Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana In a message dated 4/15/04 5:19:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: On the other hand!!! Here I'm about to attempt to zero in, in a precise way, on an analysis to the effect that there *are no such things* as concepts at all! Howard and All, In a sense, concepts irrefutably do exist. The arising and falling away of the sound of a bell ringing is no different than the arising and falling away of a thought of a tree. My meditation and reading of the Abhidhamma and Visud. reinforces the similarity of the mind's reaction to phenomena arising at the 6 sense doors not just the 5 physical senses. A sound of a bell is no less or no more real than a thought of a tree. The difference between vipassana and samatha is not in the difference of the object of attention but in the way the mind handles the object of attention. Going off in another direction, it seems to me that a concept can be taken two different ways. One way is that it is a sense object arising and falling away. That is what I tried to describe in the first paragraph above. The other sense of a concept is how it is constucted and de-constructed. The concept of tree involves my mind making a lot of decisions in what is a tree and what isn't. At times, when I have discomfort, I can de-construct that discomfort and see how it is entirely mind-made. Seeing I am causing myself discomfort, I drop it. But, during meditation mode, that might not be relevant. The suffering arises and falls away. It is as it is. Some musings on a beautiful Spring morning. jack 32214 From: Htoo Naing Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 8:04am Subject: Seeing and seeing of seeing ( 01 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, In the whole universe, there is nothing but nama dhamma and rupa dhamma. Rupa dhamma can never know itself and others while nama dhamma can know both nama dhamma and rupa dhamma. Nama dhamma are cittas and cetasikas. Cittas are always accompanied by a group of cetasikas depending on conditions favouring them arising. Dhamma are being studied and dhamma are known. Dhamma are seen. This is seeing. This is knowledge. This is awareness. This is wisdom. This is sight. This is light. What is this light, what is this sight, what is this wisdom, what is this awareness, what is this knowledge, what is this 'seeing'? Dhamma are happening all the time. Nothing is static and nothing is stagnant. In the flow of lives that is life after life or wheel of life, there stick jati or rebirth with existing and this again is stuck with leaving or death. In between are full of sufferings. A life starts with jati. That jati is dukkha. Rebirth is dukkha. Rebirth is suffering. Anyone who has been born has started getting old. This oldness is jara. Jara is dukkha. In a life there are a lot of mishaps including diseases and accidents and all these byadhi are suffering and all these are dukkha. Soka or sorrow, parideva or lamentation, dukkha or physical pains, domanassa or mental pains, upayasa or great despair are all suffering and all these are dukkha. All feelings are a khandha and this vedanakkhandh is dukkha. All perceptions are a kghandha and this sannakkhandha is dukkha. All mental fabrications are a khandha and this sankharakkhandha is dukkha. All consciousness are a khandha and this vinnanakkhandha is dukkha. All these 4 namakkhandha are dukkha. Nama dhamma have to arise due to conditions. Among these conditions rupa dhamma are included. Rupa dhamma are a khandha and this rupakkhandha is dukkha. All these five upadanakkhandha are dukkha. Living with hatred beings or things are dukkha. Departing from beloved ones is also dukkha. When one wants something but it is not available to him is also dukkha. All these things are dukkha.This is seeing. When this seeing arises the practitioner knows it and he sees that he sees. This seeing of seeing is recognising the dhamma. He sees this because he is mindful, alert, effortful, well concentrated, well-tracked, and well-lighted. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htootintnaing@y... 32215 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] root and non-root Hi Larry, op 11-04-2004 16:53 schreef Larry op LBIDD@w...: All rooted consciousness > is rooted in ignorance. N: Only the cittas that are akusala and have akusala hetus are rooted among others in ignorance. This root accompanies each akusala citta. L: To be rooted means to be drawn from the > reservoir of one's accumulations. An arahant has accumulations also > but they aren't a mass of ignorance. N: The three akusala hetus are lobha, dosa and moha. They have conditions for their arising so long as the latent tendencies (anusayas) have not been eradicated by lokuttara citta. The latent tendencies are powerful and they can condition the raising of akusala citta at any time. L:Somehow the change of lineage > consciousness instantaneously purifies this entire reservoir and > millennia of confusion and bewilderment suddenly makes sense. This > happens in 4 stages and culminates in the complete purification of > the arahant's accumulations. N: Change of lineage, gotrabhu, experiences nibbana, but it does not eradicate latent tendencies. This moment marks the transition from mundane citta to supramundane citta, or, in conventional terms from being a worldling to becoming an ariyan. It is followed by the maggacitta that eradicates. It all proceeds extremely fast. As you say, this happens in four stages of enlightenment, and at the moment of arahatship millennia of confusion and bewilderment are left behind. This is enormous, thus we can imagine the long, long journey before this can be reached. L: Perhaps we can gain a little > understanding of an arahant's mahakiriya cittas by studying the > rootless nature of rupas. Rupas are not happy or sad or confused. > They are just what they are. It is a fine distinction but I think we > can discriminate between the rootless mind-door rupa of intimation > and the consciousness rooted in ignorance that produces it. N: I would like to add a little. The rupa of bodily and verbal intimation is indeed non-root, not sad or happy. It can be a doorway of kamma through body and speech, but it is not always doorway. It is rupa, not mind-door. The citta that produces it can be citta rooted in sobhana hetu or in akusala hetu. When we notice someone else who is angry, making gestures, the rupa that is bodily intimation has nothing to do with anger, it is non-root. The citta with anger falls away, the rupa falls away. We know about it because of thinking. And when it happens to ourselves we can think about it. But who can be aware and directly know it? When the coarse rupas are not known by insight how can such a subtle rupa be known? It is far, thus difficult to penetrate. Nina. 32216 From: Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 3:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] immaterial space Hi all, This is a repost of one that disappeared. Looks like Yahoo is experiencing difficulties. -------------------------- Hi Nina and Sarah, Thanks for the additional info on space. I'm not going to take a position for now. Here's a few more bits and pieces I picked up from Vism. X. The physical support for the space kasina (called 'limited-space' kasina) would be something like a piece of wood with a hole in it. The space of the hole would be the object of focus and, as with all kasinas, that object would be imaginatively idealized. Thence the 4 jhanas arise in order if conditions permit. If one wants to enter the immaterial jhanas an antipathy towards even the idea of materialty has to be developed. Once the fourth jhana is established attention is removed from that ideal physical object and what is left is just space. In other words, one stops generating that idea. The space kacina is not used if one wants to enter the immaterial jhanas. I think this is because the contrast between ideal physical space being there and not being there wouldn't be enough to make a significant difference. This remaining space is called endless or boundless or infinite space. It is a 'base' (ayatana) "in the sense of habitat for the jhana whose nature it is associated with, as the 'deities' base' is for deities". The Base of Infinite Consciousness and the Base of Nothingness is a base in the same sense. The Base of Neither Perception Nor Nonperception is a base "because it is included in the mind base (manayatana) and the mental-object base (dhammayatana). Larry 32217 From: Philip Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:50pm Subject: Re: Buddhist fundamentalism? Hi James Thanks for your response to my rather peculiar post. I think I was just thinking through some things about my own approach to sutta rather than trying to criticize you or anyone else. I've ordered the Bhikkhu Bodji MN anthology and am wondering how to approach it. As you said, I wouldn't know enough to examine present realities if it weren't for the Sutta Pitaka. But I think it's a valid point that seeking to settle disputes by sutta references can become a vain enterprise, because the Sutta Pitaka is so broad that either side can usually find justification for their cause, within reason. (e.g the need or lack of need for jhanas in enlightenment) The only true settling of dispute lies in experience of insight that is beyond words, I would say. I enjoy reading your posts with their insistent lines of thinking. and I especially value the way no one is stirred to expressions of irritation when you challenge them in an excessively- I would say- way. (i.e Jon as a puppet of Mara, the Evil One ) Most commendable! I hope your ex-pat life is continuing nicely, and that your classes are going well. I have a new one starting today, so I'm a wee bit anxious. Thanks again for your guidance in that very helpful post back then, and in advance for the guidance to come. :) Metta, Phil 32218 From: Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana Hi, Jack - In a message dated 4/15/04 9:57:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jackhat1@a... writes: > In a sense, concepts irrefutably do exist. The arising and falling away of > the sound of a bell ringing is no different than the arising and falling > away of > a thought of a tree. My meditation and reading of the Abhidhamma and Visud. > reinforces the similarity of the mind's reaction to phenomena arising at the > 6 > sense doors not just the 5 physical senses. A sound of a bell is no less or > no > more real than a thought of a tree. > ========================= Jack, I'm going to do some ""thinking out loud" now. My first inclination was to say "No, that's not so - the sound is a single paramattha dhamma, whereas the 'thought of a tree' is actually a sequence of phenomena." But I realize that you are correct. They are very much the same sort of thing. Not that the tree-thought is a single paramattha dhamma, but that the bell-sound is *not* a single paramattha dhamma! It, also, may be a sequence of differing sounds. The "bell sound" just like the "tree thought" may be a sequence of phenomena. Now, in fact, this matter makes me wonder: Is there actually such a thing as a single sound-event not consisting of parts that differ from each other? What is the fact of the matter? If there is such a thing, then it would be a single rupa, a single material "abhidhammic" phenomenon. But if there is not, if, instead, for example, the sound of a bell occurs across time as a fluctuating, varying, experiential event, then the distinction between paramattha dhamma and pa~n~natti would lose its force. There would just remain the distinction between "actual" and "merely imagined" in the sense that whatever is experienced via a single sense door, and is cognized as impermanent, as impersonal, and as dependent (i.e., not self-existent) is actual, but whatever seems to be experienced via more than one sense door or is cognized as permanant or personal or self-existent is merely imagined. So, the changing, fluctuating bell sound as a conditioned, impersonal phenomenon would be an actuality, but a bell sound as as an independent entity would not be, and a tree would not be. 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) 32219 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:03pm Subject: Re: Buddhist fundamentalism? Friend Phil, Phil: Thanks for your response to my rather peculiar post. James: You're welcome. I will usually respond if I can understand the post. I have to take your posts apart a lot, sentence by sentence, to respond…glad that doesn't bother you. Phil: I've ordered the Bhikkhu Bodji MN anthology and am wondering how to approach it. James: I think you should just start reading it from cover to cover, don't skip anything or jump around. Use two bookmarks so that you can constantly check the commentary (B.B. is kind of excessive with the commentary notes at times, but you get used to it ;-). That is the collection I am currently reading. Phil: But I think it's a valid point that seeking to settle disputes by sutta references can become a vain enterprise, because the Sutta Pitaka is so broad that either side can usually find justification for their cause, within reason. James: I don't think that you will find that to be the case. Phil: I enjoy reading your posts with their insistent lines of thinking. James: Thank you…not sure what you mean but thanks. ;-) (Please don't bother to explain…it's not important). Phil: and I especially value the way no one is stirred to expressions of irritation when you challenge them in an excessively- I would say- way. (i.e Jon as a puppet of Mara, the Evil One ) Most commendable! James: That's sure a back-handed compliment! ;-)) Phil, we are all puppets of Mara…but Mara especially likes to pick on those who are close to enlightenment or leading others to enlightenment. Jon may not have understood it, but I was paying him a compliment and expressing concern. Sometimes I pick up vibes about things. You can just think I am weird, that's fine. Let's drop it, please ;-). Phil: I hope your ex-pat life is continuing nicely, and that your classes are going well. I have a new one starting today, so I'm a wee bit anxious. James: My ex-pat life is going fine (though I plan to go to an Asian country next), and good luck on your new class. Phil: Thanks again for your guidance in that very helpful post back then, and in advance for the guidance to come. :) James: Hmmm…'guidance' would be two strong of a word. I don't see myself as giving anyone guidance, just my opinion. Metta, James 32220 From: Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:54pm Subject: Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi, all - I propose the following for your consideration. In Abhidhamma, a so called paramattha dhamma is an actual experiential phenomenon/condition/event as opposed to so called pa~n~natti, which are purely mental constructs and not direct and actual elements of experience. Typically, a paramattha dhamma is viewed as never being a complex, but as an elementary, irreducible experiential phenomenon occuring during a discrete and delimited time interval. Jack raised the issue of a bell sound being no more real than concepts. This was in response to my pointing out that a concept isn't a single phenomenon, but a complex sequence of events, mentally grouped together and dealt with as a unit. Jack pointed out that "the arising and falling away of the sound of a bell ringing is no different than the arising and falling away of a thought of a tree." He stated quite correctly that "a sound of a bell is no less or no more real than a thought of a tree." This has led me to thinking that the Abhidhammic notion of a paramattha dhamma (or an "ultimate reality") not being a complex, but being unitary and "discrete" or "momentary" may not be "quite right". It occurs to me that, for example, there might not actually be a single sound-event that does not consist of parts. Instead, the sound of a bell might well be a phenomenon that occurs across time as a fluctuating, varying, experiential event, so that impermanence may include not only cessation, but change! If this is so, then the distinction between paramattha dhamma and pa~n~natti (concepts/mind constructs) as it seems to be drawn by Abhidhamma would lose its force. Yet there still remains, I believe, a way of distinguishing between paramattha dhamma as an actual and direct element of experience and what is "concept only." What would be the criteria for identifying an apparent phenomenon as an actual one? I think that a critical criterion for a phenomenon being a paramattha dhamma is that it be experienced through a *single* sense door. The ringing of a bell seems to satisfy this. A melody, however, does not, because a melody is not just heard - to be a "melody" it must also be cognized through the mind door. To hear sound requires just the ear door, but to "hear" a melody requires the mind door as well. Hardness, warmth, and bodily movement seem to satisfy this, all being experienced through the body door. But "a tree" can seemingly be touched, be seen, sometimes be smelled (an evergreen or a gingko), and always be cognized, and so it is *not* experientially basic/elementary/actual/paramatthic. Is this criterion of single-door experiencing necessary and sufficient? I welcome comments. 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) 32221 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abidhamma Dear Andrea, welcome to this group. Do not hesitate to ask questions. What do you think of Abhidhamma, how do you see it? When the mods are back from Thailand they will give you some tips for newcomers, links, also a link to a glossary of terms. It is appreciated if you tell us something about your background and interests. Looking forward to your input, Nina. op 14-04-2004 21:21 schreef eireen30 op elfe30@h...: > Hello, > > I am new in this group, my name is Andrea. I have a question. Where > can I find good informations about Abidhamma. 32222 From: Christopher Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:59pm Subject: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hello, This (rather strange) question is actually about Mahayana Buddhism. Please forgive me for asking it here, I have often received lots of friendly help in here, and I'm not sure where else I might find an answer. So any help is appreciated.. When meditating as a Mahayanist, one aims to avoid entering the stream so as to stay in the round of rebirths in order to help other beings. I am wondering if there is a certain way that a meditator does this, and if so, how? Would there come a point in meditation where it is obvious that entering the stream is possible, and a person can simply choose not to advance? Or is it possible to 'accidentally' enter the stream, only realizing afterwards what has happened? If so, what does a Mahayanist do about this? Thanks, Chris. 32223 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:26pm Subject: Existence or not is not the right question! A friend asked: >so the whole purpose of "our " "existence" is not to exist ? No; That is taking it too far... !!! Nibbana = eternal Peace, Bliss & Ease is the purpose of the Noble life. There is the Buddha's 4 classic negations: Do an awakened being exist after Death ? No it is not like that! Do an awakened being not exist after Death ? No it is not like that! Do an awakened being both exist & not exist after Death ? No it is not like that! Do an awakened being neither exist nor not exist after Death ? No it is not like that! Check MN 63 for the indeterminable issues, which cannot be answered often because the question is wrongly formulated: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn063.html In brevity: There Never have Been, is Not Now & Never Will Be an unchanging entity whether internal or external, whether self or other, whether far or near, whether subtle or gross, whether fine or foul, that IS CONSTANTLY EXISTING... One extreme is this Eternalism: "Things exist constantly as the same thing" The opposite extreme is the Annihilationism: "Nothing exists (after death), all is relative or empty" Personalism, substantialism & essentialism is on the Eternalist side. Nihilism, relativism, great-empti-ism is on the Annihilationism side. Buddha (& good Buddhists) avoids both extremes by sticking to Middle of the dynamic & conditioned facts: From Ignorance emerges Constructions. From Constructions emerges Consciousness. From Consciousness emerges Name(ing)&form(ing). From Name&form emerges the 6 Senses. From the 6 Senses emerges Contact. From Contact emerges Feeling. From Feeling emerges Craving. From Craving emerges Clinging. From Clinging emerges Becoming. From Becoming emerges Birth. From Birth emerges Ageing, Sickness & Death. From Ageing, Sickness & Death emerges this whole Mass of Suffering ... Deep, Deep, Deep is this... It is because of not being able to grasp this, we still buzz around here, like a bee in a closed jarr ... : - ] 32224 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:58pm Subject: Reg: Concepts; main but mere ideas Friends: Primary Concepts (pannatti): There is the conception of Cluster (khandha) There is the conception of Source (ayatana) There is the conception of Element (dhatu) There is the conception of Ability (indriya) There is the conception of Person (puggala) These are the constructed & fermented frames of reference, upon which to hang any empirical experience. However, when first once stretched and nailed to these frames, experience will never again regain it's reality ... !!! Elimination of the Fermentations (asava-kkhaya) may be likened to a complete de(con)struction of this empty matrix of idealistic conceptual framework. Freed of frames is freed of names. Freed of naming is freed of forming. Freed of names & forms is freed of consciousness. Thus is the fuel of birth & being dried out. 32225 From: Philip Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 3:15am Subject: Re: Abidhamma Hi Andrea Welcome to the group. I'm new too. I would just like to add a recommendation for K Sujin's book on Metta, which was translated by Nina. The introduction by Nina introduces a lot of the pali terminology and basic concepts that are featured in the abdhidhamma in a very concise way and you might find it helpful before you start into Abhidhamma in Daily Life. Here's a link. http://www.dhammastudyandsupport.com/book/Metta- Loving_Kindness_In_Buddhism/Metta-Loving_Kindness_In_Buddhism.htm Also, if you go to Files, you'll find the Useful Posts, and there's a section there on Abdhidhamma for beginners. Great stuff. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "eireen30" wrote: > Hello, > > I am new in this group, my name is Andrea. I have a question. Where > can I find good informations about Abidhamma. It seems to be > difficult, to find a good book, or online articles about this > subject. It would be great, if someone could give me some hints, > where I can find good literature ... > > Best regards, > Andrea 32226 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 5:04am Subject: Dhamma is there, there is Dhamma Dear Dhamma Friends, Dhamma is just in front of you. Dhamma is just close to you. Dhamma is just near you. Dhamma is just inside of you. Dhamma helps those who stay with Dhamma. Dhamma shows vision who see it. Dhamma is always in balance. Dhamma comes without delay if practise it. Dhamma is good from the beginning to the end. Dhamma is calling us should we know. Dhamma has tasted by saint after saint. Dhamma is always there in our mind. May you all directly see dhamma as they really are. Happy New Year! Htoo Naing 32227 From: Philip Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:11am Subject: Re: Misuzu Kaneko Hello Nina, and all. I am still reflecting on your kind response to my thread on mudita, Nina, but I think I will respond to this one first. Nina: > Thank you for the lovely poem. I find it a good idea you included the > Japanese. Very artistically and professionally done. You made my day. Ph: Very glad you enjoyed it and that I could repay a small portion of the debt of gratitude I feel to you, and others in this group, for having opened my eyes to Abdhidhamma. > It > inspires me to some remarks on Dhamma. Buddhism is so entrenched in the > Japanese mind, it is extraordinary. And you see how language is such a means > to come into contact with other religions, cultures. It fills me with > respect when I learn about them. Ph: I used to take it for granted that because so few Japanese people are familiar with the Buddha's teaching - believe me, it's true- Japanese people couldn't be considered Buddhists. And on the whole they don't consider themselves to be Buddhists in a real way. And yet, there is something in the patient, peaceful nature of the people here that speaks to me of true dhamma that has, as you say, become entrenched in the Japanese mind. For me, it is a reminder that there is more to dhamma than sutta and meditation. Dhamma arises and falls with every moment, in every sentient being. Liberation entails study and practice, but dhamma is all around. That's what the poem says to me, what I feel so deeply about it. It's kind of ecstatic, really, at least it feels that way to me these days, even on the drab, dreary days. All is rising, and falling, and rising and falling. I really feel it, and have on many days since I saw my wife as paramattha dhammas that night! :) I know I have only understand paramattha dhammas in a superficial way through the intellect, but I do sense that all is rising, and falling, and rising and falling. N:> It sounds so severe when we hear: this is colour, only colour that is > seen, colour and seeing are paramattha dhammas, and thinking of a flower is > thinking of a concept. There seems to be so much insistence on paramattha > dhammas, and why? Because it is deep, difficult to understand. It is the > truth and developing understanding of what is true can lead to a lessening > of defilements. Defilements cause sorrow. Since paramattha dhammas is a new > subject to many, so much time is spent to explain about them, and about the > benefit of knowing them: no self behind it all. Ph: I think you do a wonderful job in your books at taking newcomers like myself on our first steps toward understanding of paramattha dhammas. However, while you can lead us to water, we have to drink ourselves. You know, I've had a bit of a chip on my shoulder about Zen, perhaps because there seems to be a lot of folks I've come across who use it to pose as wise men, and because there is so much cruddy commericialization of it, but ironically since coming across ythe Abhidhamma, I've developed more of an appreciation for Zen. Of course, the poem I shared has a Zen feeling to it. And it says as much about the Buddha's teaching to me as just about any sutta I've ever read. Well, I have a fascination for the poet in question. (I am hoping to memorize several hundred of her poems in the hopes that her kind of consciousness of the world will soak in!) N: > We should not reject > concepts and then, we can be reminded of the Dhamma when looking at the > lotus: softly open, softly shut. Certainly, we *think* of impermanence, we > do not realize it from moment to moment, but this can bring us back to > reality: be it thinking, or the concept of flower we think of, or seeing, or > colour. But it must come naturally, not by force. Otherwise our life is so > strained, artificial. Ph: Again, I find there is something that is natural and ecstatic about Abhidhamma, something that goes beyond words. I guess it's the old pot-smoking hippy in me. (Not any more, but there are accumulations, don't you know ;) ) But while some people I know in another group tried to read Abhidhamma in Daily Life and gave up almost immediately, and called it clinical and unwelcoming, it made me feel kind of ecstatic. All that rising and falling, rising and falling. Back to the poem, I like the way the poem moves from a very familiar, almost cliched, image of the lotus flower to the less familar but still somewhat sentimental image of the children in a ring in the temple yard, and then to a kind of shift of consciousness to feel - without forcing oneself to try to understand - the houses and town opening and shutting. I felt in this the paradigm shift we need to make to be able to understand that even rupa are rising and falling. Again, this brings me a kind of ecstatic feeling. > This is the balance we have to > find: understand realities, but develop it naturally, in the midst of your > life full of concepts. When you are with A. Sujin or the other Thai friends > you will know what the Middle Way means. > And you will see, that if you do not *try* to know just paramattha dhammas, > pushing away your thinking of concepts, or, all the things you like to do > and do naturally, or your own tradition, the development of understanding > can become very natural. After all, understanding of our own life, > accumulations, inclinations must be developed naturally. Otherwise, the goal > cannot be reached. Ph: I love the above passage. I think I am being quite patient these days, not being tough with myself about rushing deeply into Abhidhamma. For example, I stalled after chapter 9 of Abdhidhamma in Daily Life, and went back to the beginning again, and then back again, and haven't picked it up for a couple of weeks. And there is no need to be stressed about that. On the other hand, Christine signs off with "The problem is that you think you have time" or words to that effect! That brings me to the next thing I want to mention - samvega, that sense of urgency. I've talked about how the poem gives me a peaceful sense of being liberated from stress - all that shutting and closing (rising and falling, in other words) and a sense of things happening in a conditioned way, with no need to fret. But this morning, I read this, from Ayya Khema on samvega: "When our insights give rise to seeing the whole world on fire from craving and ourselves burning with it, then urgency will become a natural part of our our make-up." This made me wonder if my mind has been up to its own tricks, and this sensing of a kind of ecstasy in rising and falling of paramattha dhammas is just a new attempt by self to make the world in a cozy place to exist in, the way it used to subvert the brahma-viharas. Or is the peaceful feeling I've had the state of mind that is often paired with samvega? Pasada. Serenity that arises to temper samvega. Well, I think I could do with a little bit more urgency, maybe. Maybe the sense of rising and falling of dhammas around me, in my daily life as in the poem, is a strategy to hide from knowledge that I am in a burning house. Wrong understanding leading me to have pretty notions even while being consumed by the blaze. Or is it pasada, serenity that protects us from despair, as Thanissaro Bhikku called it, and which is presumedly not an unwholesome state of mind. I will continue to think about this. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Philip, > Thank you for the lovely poem. I find it a good idea you included the > Japanese. Very artistically and professionally done. You made my day. It > inspires me to some remarks on Dhamma. Buddhism is so entrenched in the > Japanese mind, it is extraordinary. And you see how language is such a means > to come into contact with other religions, cultures. It fills me with > respect when I learn about them. > op 14-04-2004 05:22 schreef Philip op plnao@j...: > > >> Lotus Renge > > > > softly open hirai-i-ta > > softly shut tsu-u-bonda > > the lotus in the pond o-tera no ike de > > of the temple renge no hana ga> > > For me, this poem very nicely expresses the feeling I've had > > since coming across the Abdhidhamma, and beginning to understand > > paramattha dhamma. All is rising, and falling, and rising, and > > falling, in all people, and living creatures, and even inanimate > > objects. This leads to a sense of peace, I think, and a maintainable > > preview of ultimate liberation. > N: It sounds so severe when we hear: this is colour, only colour that is > seen, colour and seeing are paramattha dhammas, and thinking of a flower is > thinking of a concept. There seems to be so much insistence on paramattha > dhammas, and why? Because it is deep, difficult to understand. It is the > truth and developing understanding of what is true can lead to a lessening > of defilements. Defilements cause sorrow. Since paramattha dhammas is a new > subject to many, so much time is spent to explain about them, and about the > benefit of knowing them: no self behind it all. > But now about the Middle Way! It is beneficial to understand what dhamma is, > what reality is. To know what is dhamma and what is a concept. To realize > when we are clinging to dhammas, and also clinging to concepts. But, > understanding must be developed very naturally, not in a rigid way. No > separation of my meditation life and my daily life. We should not reject > concepts and then, we can be reminded of the Dhamma when looking at the > lotus: softly open, softly shut. Certainly, we *think* of impermanence, we > do not realize it from moment to moment, but this can bring us back to > reality: be it thinking, or the concept of flower we think of, or seeing, or > colour. But it must come naturally, not by force. Otherwise our life is so > strained, artificial. > I think of Rob Ep's letter: so natural, so simple, when writing: < We went > to a Seder for Passover and also had a bit of fun with Easter eggs on Easter > morning. > For those who do not know: Seder is the Judaic tradition, > commemorating the exodus of the Jews from exile in Egypt to their promised > country. The youngest child has to ask: from all other nights?> I find it a very moving tradition. (Appreciated if > Howard adds more). So we see, it is helpful to incorporate just the whole of > our daily life, our traditions into Dhamma. I hope others will do this too, > not being afraid that this is off-topic. This is the balance we have to > find: understand realities, but develop it naturally, in the midst of your > life full of concepts. When you are with A. Sujin or the other Thai friends > you will know what the Middle Way means. > And you will see, that if you do not *try* to know just paramattha dhammas, > pushing away your thinking of concepts, or, all the things you like to do > and do naturally, or your own tradition, the development of understanding > can become very natural. After all, understanding of our own life, > accumulations, inclinations must be developed naturally. Otherwise, the goal > cannot be reached. > And that is Abhidhamma. I like to help people see that Abhidhamma is life. > All these classifications can jump out of the book, be part of our life, > they are about life. > But there is another thing, the language. When one can read Pali, the texts, > also of the suttas, come to life. Take the Brahmajalasutta (D.N, no 1), I > used to find it rather tough. When I read it in Pali it was quite a > different sutta and much more lively. The same with all the suttas, the same > with the Vis. and Tiika now. These are texts well worth reflecting on. We > cannot avoid that much gets lost in the translations and not everybody is > inclined to learn Pali. I have to make extra efforts to make the texts come > to life! > Philip, your post made me understand more about the necessary balance as > found in the Middle Way. Unknowingly there may be a certain stress to know > nama and rupa, although one has realized in theory that this will only > counteract the development. How true. A. Sujin also said: when you do not > try, I will guarantee that panna will develop. We all have to find out with > ups and downs! The Abhidhamma can help us not to be stressed: effort, sati, > understanding, concentration, they are all cetasikas performing their > functions. The more understanding of cetasikas and all dhammas develops the > more there will be balance in our life. Attachment, sadness, these shake us > up, but they can be known as only conditioned dhammas. > Thank you, with much appreciation and a bow to you, > Nina. 32228 From: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Not entering the Stream in Mahayana In a message dated 4/16/04 12:01:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time, charnett@y... writes: When meditating as a Mahayanist, one aims to avoid entering the stream so as to stay in the round of rebirths in order to help other beings. I am wondering if there is a certain way that a meditator does this, and if so, how? Would there come a point in meditation where it is obvious that entering the stream is possible, and a person can simply choose not to advance? Or is it possible to 'accidentally' enter the stream, only realizing afterwards what has happened? If so, what does a Mahayanist do about this? Chris, I think most Mahayanists think of themselves as dedicating their practice and lives toward helping others not the formulation that you state above. They do this by mentally dedicating each meditation to helping others. jack 32229 From: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 3:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi again, all - I've been mulling over my own questions that I gave in the post copied below. I find I end up agreeing withmy self on one point and disagreeing on another! (This, of course, is proof that thinking about Abhidhammic topics will drive one insane! ;-)) What I agree with is the following that I wrote: "I think that a critical criterion for a phenomenon being a paramattha dhamma is that it be experienced through a *single* sense door." That seems clear to me, and correct. But what I disagree with is the following: "This has led me to thinking that the Abhidhammic notion of a paramattha dhamma (or an 'ultimate reality') not being a complex, but being unitary and 'discrete' or 'momentary' may not be 'quite right'. It occurs to me that, for example, there might not actually be a single sound-event that does not consist of parts. Instead, the sound of a bell might well be a phenomenon that occurs across time as a fluctuating, varying, experiential event, so that impermanence may include not only cessation, but change! If this is so, then the distinction between paramattha dhamma and pa~n~natti (concepts/mind constructs) as it seems to be drawn by Abhidhamma would lose its force." The reason that I believe I was incorrect in this, and that the mindstate/citta scenario of Abhidhamma better describes the facts is the following: While we are "hearing a bell," we *seem* to be hearing other sounds throughout, and, not only that, we seem to be simultaneously seeing, and smelling, and touching, and even thinking. But we know, even from modern biological science and psychology (I believe), that we do not in fact do these things simultaneously. So, the "single bell sound" experience is not a single continuous experience at all, but consists of (probably tens of thousands of) mind moments interspersed with mind moments in which occur sights, and tactile experiences, and olfactory experiences,and yet other sound experiences. So, I think that on the matter of my post copied below, my grade is only 50%, which despite grade inflation, can't be construed as passing! ;-)) With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/15/04 11:56:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Hi, all - > > I propose the following for your consideration. > In Abhidhamma, a so called paramattha dhamma is an actual experiential > phenomenon/condition/event as opposed to so called pa~n~natti, which are > purely mental constructs and not direct and actual elements of experience. > Typically, a paramattha dhamma is viewed as never being a complex, but as an > > elementary, irreducible experiential phenomenon occuring during a discrete > and > delimited time interval. > Jack raised the issue of a bell sound being no more real than > concepts. This was in response to my pointing out that a concept isn't a > single > phenomenon, but a complex sequence of events, mentally grouped together and > dealt > with as a unit. Jack pointed out that "the arising and falling away of the > sound of a bell ringing is no different than the arising and falling away > of a > thought of a tree." He stated quite correctly that "a sound of a bell is no > less > or no more real than a thought of a tree." > This has led me to thinking that the Abhidhammic notion of a > paramattha dhamma (or an "ultimate reality") not being a complex, but being > unitary and > "discrete" or "momentary" may not be "quite right". It occurs to me that, > for > example, there might not actually be a single sound-event that does not > consist of parts. Instead, the sound of a bell might well be a phenomenon > that > occurs across time as a fluctuating, varying, experiential event, so that > impermanence may include not only cessation, but change! If this is so, then > the > distinction between paramattha dhamma and pa~n~natti (concepts/mind > constructs) as > it seems to be drawn by Abhidhamma would lose its force. > Yet there still remains, I believe, a way of distinguishing between > paramattha dhamma as an actual and direct element of experience and what is > "concept only." What would be the criteria for identifying an apparent > phenomenon > as an actual one? I think that a critical criterion for a phenomenon being a > > paramattha dhamma is that it be experienced through a *single* sense door. > The ringing of a bell seems to satisfy this. A melody, however, does > not, because a melody is not just heard - to be a "melody" it must also be > cognized through the mind door. To hear sound requires just the ear door, > but to > "hear" a melody requires the mind door as well. > Hardness, warmth, and bodily movement seem to satisfy this, all being > experienced through the body door. But "a tree" can seemingly be touched, be > > seen, sometimes be smelled (an evergreen or a gingko), and always be > cognized, > and so it is *not* experientially basic/elementary/actual/paramatthic. > Is this criterion of single-door experiencing necessary and > sufficient? I welcome comments. > > /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) 32230 From: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 3:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi, Chris - In a message dated 4/16/04 3:02:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, charnett@y... writes: > Hello, > > This (rather strange) question is actually about Mahayana Buddhism. > Please forgive me for asking it here, I have often received lots of friendly > > help in here, and I'm not sure where else I might find an answer. So > any help is appreciated.. > > When meditating as a Mahayanist, one aims to avoid entering the > stream so as to stay in the round of rebirths in order to help other > beings. I am wondering if there is a certain way that a meditator does > this, and if so, how? Would there come a point in meditation where it is > obvious that entering the stream is possible, and a person can simply > choose not to advance? Or is it possible to 'accidentally' enter the > stream, only realizing afterwards what has happened? If so, what does > a Mahayanist do about this? > > Thanks, > > Chris. > =============================== I don't think that one should take the "seven lifetimes" idea too literally. I tend to think of it as merely a potential upper bound. In the Theravadin tradition as well as the Mahayanist, the Buddha-to-be (and as a bodhisatta/bodhisattva, he was surely at least a stream enterer) developed perfections over many aeons, and not just over a few lifetimes, before (simultaneously) becoming arahant and Buddha. Oh, BTW, one does not have to be a Mahayanist to aspire to Buddhahood. That is a "career" recognized within Theravada as well. However, Theravada follows what is given in the original Pali scriptures, and thus considers a bodhisatta to be *less* than a buddha, because a bodhisatta is one who is *on the way* towards Buddhahood. With metta/maitri, 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) 32231 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 8:49am Subject: Dhamma Dear Dhamma Friends, Happy New Year! Old year will have gone while new year is arising. There will not be any overlapping. So does nama dhamma. One citta will have gone while another citta is arising and there will not be any overlapping. Olg life will have to release at a time when a completely new life is arising and there will not be any overlapping. May all members stay with Dhamma in New Year. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 32232 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 11:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi Howard, Andrea and all, Howard, I appreciate your sincere study to get at the heart of the matter, paramattha and concept. I shall try to add something, and explain at the same time that the Abhidhamma is life, not theory. I am thinking too of Andrea. op 16-04-2004 05:54 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...:> > Typically, a paramattha dhamma is viewed as never being a complex, but as an > elementary, irreducible experiential phenomenon occuring during a discrete and > delimited time interval. N: Right, it is just an element, devoid of self. Occurring only for a moment. Let's keep in mind the momentary aspect. .... > This has led me to thinking that the Abhidhammic notion of a > paramattha dhamma (or an "ultimate reality") not being a complex, but being > unitary and > "discrete" or "momentary" may not be "quite right". N: ;-)) ;-)). I come back to that one later on. (laughing mainly about myself). You have become so careful now with: *not quite right * Appreciated!!! H:Instead, the sound of a bell might well be a phenomenon that > occurs across time as a fluctuating, varying, experiential event, so that > impermanence may include not only cessation, but change! If this is so, then > the distinction between paramattha dhamma and pa~n~natti (concepts/mind > constructs) as it seems to be drawn by Abhidhamma would lose its force. N: ;-)) I do my best to put in more force. H: .... I think that a critical criterion for a phenomenon being a > paramattha dhamma is that it be experienced through a *single* sense door. N: True, the whole day paramattha dhammas are experienced one at a time, through the sense-doors but no panna to realize them as paramattha dhammas. H: .... Is this criterion of single-door experiencing necessary and > sufficient? N: There is more to it. When just talking about everyday life: all that is not citta, cetasika or rupa is a concept. This is not an empty formula, it is so valuable to understand more details of citta, cetasika and rupa. Citta, cetasika and rupa are the paramattha dhammas of our life, they are so real. For Andrea: citta is consciousness, cetasika are mental factors that accompany citta. Only one citta arises at a time and it is accompanied by several cetasikas. Kusala (wholesome) dhammas are: kusala citta and sobhana (beautiful) cetasikas arising in different combinations. What is kusala is always kusala, that is its characteristic, it cannot be changed into akusala. This is a way to know what paramattha dhamma is: it has its own characteristic that cannot be changed into something else. We can give kusala another name, in another language, such as skillfulness, wholesomeness, but its characteristic does not change. There are many shades and varieties of kusala, depending on the accompanying cetasikas, but all the same: kusala is kusala. Each kusala citta is accompanied by non-attachment and non-aversion, and it may be accompanied by panna, understanding. The Abhidhamma helps us to realize that there cannot be selfish motives at the moment of kusala citta. There are different kinds of kusala: generosity consisting in giving useful things to others. But also: appreciation of the kusala citta of others: at such a moment there is non-attachment, non-aversion, no jealousy, there is peace. The kusala citta in others that we can appreciate has nothing to do with thoughts about this or that person, this or that religion. We can go straight to reality, to dhamma and consider sincerely the kusala citta of someone else, and then we can feel deep respect for his kusala citta. Kusala is real, it is a paramattha dhamma, by no means a concept. We can show respect for others' kusala by body and speech, that is kusala sila (sila is translated as moral conduct). When on pilgrimage in India with my Thai friends we do this on the last day: we kneel (this is very natural, since we are sitting on the ground anyway), palms together and a big bow, saying anumodana, which means appreciation or thankfulness. We do that to all friends who are around. We appreciate all their kusala during that journey. We can also do that here, it is kusala! Now lobha (attachment) would not be lobha if it would not come in in between the kusala cittas. Here the Abhidhamma helps us, showing us that there are many different processes of cittas, some with kusala cittas and some with akusala cittas, succeeding one another so fast that we cannot follow them all. This is the momentary aspect of conditioned dhammas. At this or that moment, citta is kusala citta, or akusala citta. But we can learn that akusala dhamma has a characteristic different from kusala dhamma. We are attached to the beautiful moments of appreciation of kusala, then there is akusala again, coming in so fast. We can also learn that this is very, very natural. But understanding (another beautiful cetasika) can be accumulated, so that at least different characteristics of paramattha dhammas can be known. This will lead to the understanding of them as arisen because of different conditions, and to the realization of the fact that there is no person who owns them. It will lead to detachment. It is so human that we find some persons in our surroundings more difficult to get on with. But we can notice their kusala citta and then, we can appreciate their kusala, without thinking of a person. No aversion, no antipathy with the kusala citta, and we can verify this. Citta, cetasika and rupa, arising and falling away all the time. This is life, this is Abhidhamma. The development of more understanding of them is the development of vipassana. This is not a matter of focussing and thinking: is this concept, is this paramattha dhamma. It can come naturally. We do not have to force ourselves to pay attention only to paramattha dhammas, life is full of concepts of persons and events. But how valuable to have more understanding of paramattha dhmmas in the midst of life, so that defilements that are in the way can be lessened. Vipassana in daily life is a challenge. We always have to find the balance between awareness of paramattha dhammas and leading our life naturally, with thinking and paying attention to concepts. Howard, when Rob M told you about his kusala, and all his good deeds after the loss of your mother in law, what was the citta like? You appreciated with kusala citta his kusala. Rob gave you this opportunity for kusala, and that was his kusala; not hiding kusala but giving another person the opportunity to appreciate. There is not Howard's or Rob's citta, cittas change, are momentary, how can there be any possessor? True, each person has different tendencies accumulated in the citta, but still, citta is momentary. This is my answer to the question whether the Abhidhamma is right or not quite right. We have to verify ourselves whether the Abhidhamma is right, only that is convincing. The suttas also deal with kusala and akusala, with the ways how to develop kusala, and to eliminate akusala. The Abhidhamma does not teach any differently from the suttas but it explains in depth the true motives for all our actions, speech and thoughts, and this is liberating. It is a revelation to see that the Abhidhamma is so powerful in assisting us to understand this very moment. To understand what are citta, cetasika and rupa in real life, rolling on by conditions at this moment now. Nina. p.s. Howard, I appreciated our exchanges (it just happened by conditions, didn't it) about Talmudian hairsplitting and the Talmud. They proved helpful in more than one respect, beyond expectation. I understand better now what you mean when expressing yourself. I have to tell Larry that we are off trekking three days on Monday. 32233 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 11:23am Subject: Tiika Vis. 75 Tiika Vis. 75 (the all English of the Tiika is always below, after the Pali) "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV, 75 Intro: This is again a different classification of all rupas. It reminds us that past kamma that has fallen away keeps on producing the sense-bases of eye, etc. which are faculties (leaders in their own field), and the other faculties. Nobody can make them arise, they depend on kamma. We are reminded of the other causes that produce rupas of the body, and only the four characteristics inherent in all rupas are not produced by any of the four causes. We read: what was born, what is born and what will be born, also all that is called kamma-born. Kamma produced rupas of the body in the past, and will do so in the future and it does at this very moment. What U Narada wrote in his Introduction to the translation of Dhåtu-Kathå, an Abhidhamma text (PTS:Discourse on Elements) can be applied to rupas, these are only elements. We read: “The elements are not permanently present. They arise to exhibit their own characteristic natures and perform their own characteristic functions when the proper conditions are satisfied, and they cease after their span of duration. Thus no being has any control over the arising and ceasing of the elements and they are not at his mercy or will however mighty and powerful he may be. In other words, the elements have no regard for anyone, show no favour to anyone and do not accede to the wishes of anyone. They are entirely dependent on conditions.² Vis:75. According to the kamma-born triad, etc., however, that born from kamma is 'kamma-born'; that born from a condition other than that is 'not-kamma-born'; that not born from anything is 'neither-kamma-born-nor-not-kamma-born' That born from consciousness is 'consciousness-born'; that born from a condition other than consciousness is 'not-consciousness-born'; that not born from anything is 'neither-consciousness- born-nor-not-consciousness-born'. That born from nutriment is 'nutriment-born'; that born from a condition other than that is 'not-nutriment-born'; that not born from anything is 'neither-nutriment-born-nor-not- nutriment-born'. That born from temperature is 'temperature-born'; that born from a condition other than that is 'not-temperature-born'; that not born from anything is 'neither-temperature-born- nor-not-temperature-born'. Pali Vis 75: 75. kammajaadittikavasena pana kammato jaata.m kammaja.m, tada~n~napaccayajaata.m akammaja.m, nakutocijaata.m neva kammaja.m naakammaja.m. cittato jaata.m cittaja.m, tada~n~napaccayajaata.m acittaja.m, nakutocijaata.m neva cittaja.m naacittaja.m, aahaarato jaata.m aahaaraja.m, tada~n~napaccayajaata.m anaahaaraja.m, nakutocijaata.m neva aahaaraja.m naanaahaaraja.m. ututo jaata.m utuja.m, tada~n~napaccayajaata.m anutuja.m, nakutocijaata.m neva utuja.m naanutujanti eva.m kammajaadittikavasena tividha.m. Tiika, Vis 75: Kammato jaatanti ettha ya.m ekantakammasamu.t.thaana.m a.t.thindriyaani *, As to kamma-born these are here the eight faculties which are solely originated by kamma, hadaya~ncaati navavidha.m ruupa.m, and with the heart(base) they are thus nine kinds of materiality, ya~nca navavidhe catusamu.t.thaane kammasamu.t.thaana.m navavidhameva ruupanti eva.m a.t.thaarasavidhampi kammato uppajjanato kammaja.m. and besides, among the nine kinds of materiality originated by the four causes, there are nine kinds originated by kamma **, and what is kamma-born materiality is thus also eighteen kinds, since they have arisen because of kamma. Ya~nhi jaata~nca ya~nca jaayati ya~nca jaayissati, What was born, what is born and what will be born, ta.m sabbampi ³kammajan²ti vuccati yathaa duddhanti. also all that is called kamma-born... Tada~n~napaccayajaatanti kammato a~n~napaccayato jaata.m utucittaahaaraja.m. As to the expression, born from a condition other than that, this means, born from a condition other than kamma, namely, temperature, consciousness and nutrition. Nakutocijaatanti lakkha.naruupamaaha. As to the expression, not born from anything, he said that these are the material phenomena as characteristics ***. Vi~n~nattidvaya.m, saddo, aakaasadhaatu, lahutaadittaya.m cittasamu.t.thaanaani avinibbhogaruupaaniiti eta.m pa~ncadasavidha.m ruupa.m cittaja.m. The pair of intimation, sound, the element of space **** , the triad of lightness, are originated by citta, and with the inseparable rupas there are thus fifteen kinds born of consciousness. Aakaasadhaatu, lahutaadittaya.m, aahaarasamu.t.thaanaani avinibbhogaruupaaniiti eta.m dvaadasavidha.m ruupa.m aahaaraja.m. The element of space and the triad of lightness etc. are originated by nutrition, and together with the inseparable rupas there are thus twelve kinds originated by nutrition. Ettha sadda.m pakkhipitvaa terasavidha.m ruupa.m ututo samu.t.thita.m utuja.m. Here sound is included and thus thirteen kinds of materiality originated by nutrition are materiality born of nutrition. Sesa.m kammajatike vuttanayaanusaareneva veditabba.m. The remaining part should be understood in accordance with what is said with regard to the triad of kamma *****. ***** English: As to kamma-born these are here the eight faculties which are solely originated by kamma, and with the heart(base) they are thus nine kinds of materiality, and besides, among the nine kinds of materiality originated by the four causes, there are nine kinds originated by kamma **, and what is kamma-born materiality is thus also eighteen kinds, since they have arisen because of kamma. What was born, what is born and what will be born, also all that is called kamma-born... As to the expression, born from a condition other than that, this means, born from a condition other than kamma, namely, temperature, consciousness and nutrition. As to the expression, not born from anything, he said that these are the material phenomena as characteristics ***. The pair of intimation, sound, the element of space **** , the triad of lightness, are originated by citta, and with the inseparable rupas there are thus fifteen kinds born of consciousness. The element of space and the triad of lightness etc. are originated by nutrition, and together with the inseparable rupas there are thus twelve kinds originated by nutrition. Here sound is included and thus thirteen kinds of materiality originated by nutrition are materiality born of nutrition. The remaining part should be understood in accordance with what is said with regard to the triad of kamma *****. _________ * the eight faculties of eyesense, earsense, smelling-sense, tasting-sense, bodysense, life-faculty, femininity, masculinity. ** The four causes of kamma, citta, temperature (utu) and nutrition. The rupas dealt with here are sometimes originated by kamma, sometimes by one of the three other causes. These rupas are: the eight inseparable rupas and space. When originated by kamma the inseparable rupas arise in a group of at least nine rupas, including life-faculty that is solely originated by kamma. As to space: this delimits the groups of rupas originated by the four causes, arising and falling away together with them. Thus, space is reckoned as originated by the four causes. *** The characteristics of origination, continuity, decay and impermanence. This is explained in Vis. XIV, 80. **** åkåsa dhåtu, the word dhåtu is used to show that it is a paramattha dhamma, not a concept. ***** The triad of consciousness-born, not-consciousness born, neither consciousness-born-nor-not-consciousness-born. As to the second one, born from a condition other than consciousness, namely, kamma, temperature, and nutrition. As to the last one of this triad, this is again the four characteristics of all materiality. The same with the triads of temperature and of food. **** Nina 32234 From: old_dead_wood Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 10:31am Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi All: Can someone tell me HOW you KNOW that there are "rebirths" and "lifetimes"? Is this actually dogma that must be accepted without evidence in order to be considered a member of the sangha? Thank You ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > When meditating as a Mahayanist, one aims to avoid entering the > > stream so as to stay in the round of rebirths in order to help other > > beings. > over many aeons, and not just over a few lifetimes 32235 From: Andrew Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 4:36pm Subject: Re: Buddhist fundamentalism? Hello everyone Back again! A big thank you to all who sent kind messages re the passing of Sandra's father. We did appreciate your thoughts a great deal. I have missed alot of posts on DSG and will try to catch up ASAP. Hope I don't misconstrue things in the meantime! I have a few (obscure) comments to make on the subject of reading and extrapolating from the Pali Canon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Philip" wrote: Strictly > speaking, how can we truly know what correctly reflects the Buddha's > teaching? Strictly speaking, isn't the whole Pali canon an > extrapolation, in a sense, albeit it one that varies from the > original teaching in a thankfully small way? I mean, we know that the > teachings were passed down orally over several centuries before being > transcribed in Sri Lanka. (snip) I can see the value > of debating, and, of course, referring to sutta is the most reliable > and proper way to do so, but I question one's ability to announce > victory in an argument based on sutta. Not that announcing victory > is anyone's point in this group. A: Philip, I think that this is all part of our samsara experience. We don't live in the time of a teaching Buddha. We don't have Buddha's life on video tape that we can fast forward and rewind to check what he actually said. The Pali Canon is not a transcript such as is taken in court proceedings (but even the correct interpretation of court transcripts is often hotly debated!). Whilst it is essential to read the suttas, refusing to consider matters unless a sutta reference is provided is, in my view, a mistake. Let me give an example. I sometimes joke with my Swedish friends that the 3 great themes of Swedish literature are pine forests, cows and loneliness. The first 2 are, of course, tongue-in-cheek but the 3rd isn't. Loneliness is a huge theme running throughout Swedish literature. But if you actually read that literature and counted up how many times the word "loneliness" is used, you may be surprised to find that it is not used very much at all. Can you conclude from this "fact" that loneliness is just a minor issue in Swedish literature? Surely not! That would be a terrible mistake! It would, in fact, make you miss the point of the literature entirely because the authors may not be writing "loneliness" when they write ABOUT loneliness. Getting to the point, I note that Rob M recently assessed the use of the word "pannatti" (concept) in the suttanta and found that it isn't used very much at all. He concluded that it is a "minor term" in the suttanta. I can't take issue with that, of course, UNLESS one tries to extrapolate from the fact and conclude that distinguishing concept from non-concept was not a core part of the Dhamma. That would be akin to arguing that loneliness is not of much interest in Swedish literature because the word "loneliness" isn't used much. Possibly a terrible mistake. Possibly missing something of crucial significance. I think the point I am making is that a term may be minor quantitatively but major qualitatively. I suspect all Rob M was saying was that pannatti is a minor term quantitatively in the suttanta. To me, however, that still doesn't solve the crucial question about its qualitative position in the Dhamma. In conclusion, Dhamma study was never meant to be easy! Take care Andrew 32236 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 4:51pm Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi old_dead_wood, Regarding your question: How do you know that there are rebirths and lifetimes? Let me ask you this: How do you know that the earth is round, not flat? Have you ever seen for yourself that earth is indeed round, not flat? I think that understanding how you know something that you accept as true will help you understand one might know that there are rebirths and lifetimes even though he or she might not seen his or her own previous life. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "old_dead_wood" wrote: > > Hi All: > > Can someone tell me HOW you KNOW that there are "rebirths" and > "lifetimes"? Is this actually dogma that must be accepted without > evidence in order to be considered a member of the sangha? > > Thank You 32237 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 5:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Nina and Lodewijk Sorry that I wasn't able to reply earlier. I was very busy before leaving Hong Kong, and have hardly had a spare moment since arriving. Plus the heat has made it quite exhausintg here. We have had some useful discussions, as might be expected, and I'll be mentioning some points in later emails. I'd like first to reply to Lodewijk's question in the light of the discussions so far (no direct quotes I'm afraid -- others may have notes but I had my hands full with recording the discussion). --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Jon and Howard, > > Lodewijk wrote something by hand I type out. ... > Abhidhamma], Nina and I got into a discussion on Satipatthana. I said that > after so many years of listening, I still did not quite understand what > exactly satipatthana means. Lodewijk, you say that that after so many years of listening, you still do not quite understand what exactly satipatthana means. This sounds exactly like my own experience. When I left Thailand after having lived here for the best part of 8 years I had been attending discussions every week and listening to talks on the radio regularly and had joined several trips to India. But still this satipatthana was not clear to me. It has taken a lot of further study, listening and discussing since then to get a clearer picture so that at least I feel I understand what it's supposed to be. Actual moments of satipatthana are something else again, of course! Nina said:"It is the same as > vipassana", "the > same as the eightfold Path", "the same as panna.", but this led me further > astray. Does it mean:"the six doors" or "Seeing now"? Maybe, yes and no. I > said:"That is just bits and pieces, but I still do not get a > coherent, > logical answer to my question:"What is exactly is satipatthana?" But having got your coherent, logical explanation, what then? The next step would be just this you mentin here -- consideration of the seeing now, the six doors, etc. It may sound like 'bits and pieces', but that's because there has to be a start somewhere. Only by making a start can the full relevance be appreciated. > The answer > cannot be:"You will know the answer as soon as you canbe aware of realities > as they are." Maybe yes, but that is not the way to convince people like > Howard [and me] !> end quote. Well, 'being aware of realities as they are' seems a pretty good answer to your question. I can't immediately think of a more coherent, logical explanation of satipatthana! In any event, as Howard likes to say, discussing the menu is no substitute for sampling the food ;-)) > I can add: Lodewijk said that this whole matter upsets him. We were talking > about western ways of reasoning and eastern ways. I find myself > very > confortable with the last way, but, Lodewijk said that does not > help > westerners. He thinks there are many like him. He finds it very > difficult > when A. Sujin answers with the example of seeing now or dhamma now. The difficulty lies in the nature of the problem and not anything else. One has to accept the frustration and keep listening, considering and asking questions until it becomes clearer, which it will! The dosa is a normal reaction iin such situations. Think about why this occurs. > ... I still feel myself, that it must take years and years of > getting bits and pieces, and lots of patience before we understand. That's how I see it too! Jon PS I did try to compose an explanation, but as you'll see from what follows it doesn't really say anything useful. Satipatthana is what enables life or the world in general to be seen as it truly is rather than as we presently perceive it to be. It is the direct awareness of any one of the many experiences of which this present 'moment of experience' is in fact comprised. As this infers, our present perception of things is flawed, due to deeply entrenched misconceptions. Direct awareness allows there to be a level of understanding of the different elements of experience that in themselves are completely impersonal but which coalesce so as to give the appearance of individual people and things. It is of the nature of the misconceptions from which we all suffer that any self-conceived attempt to see things as they truly are will do no more than lead to further misconceptions. It is only with the guidance of the teaching on satipatthana that the circle of delusion can be broken. 32238 From: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 1:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana In a message dated 4/16/04 4:27:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, old_dead_wood@y... writes: Can someone tell me HOW you KNOW that there are "rebirths" and "lifetimes"? Is this actually dogma that must be accepted without evidence in order to be considered a member of the sangha? No this is not dogma that must be accepted. Jack 32239 From: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 5:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi Howard, Concept is the object of a single sense door, the mind door. Does that make it an ultimate reality? I agree that experience seems to be linear but I can't think of a good reason for that. Certainly the senses are always "on". Otherwise one sense experience wouldn't interrupt another. Plus it seems to me that abhidhamma makes a distinction between experience and reality and says that reality isn't linear. I understand this from the concept of indivisible groups of rupa and the groups of cetasikas that arise in consciousness process. Plus it just makes sense that reality isn't linear. I think this idea of multiple events basically has to do with the concept of sankhara (formation), which I haven't seen a good explanation of so far. Larry 32240 From: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 5:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi old_dead_wood, I agree with Victor that rebirth is a matter of belief like the roundness of the earth. It is said that on enlightenment one usually reviews one's past lives. That there is an end of suffering is also a matter of belief until we find it. Jack said it isn't necessary to believe in past and future lives in order to follow the path, but I disagree. I think this is an integral part of the Buddha's teaching, particularly as it relates to consequences of kamma. On the other hand, past and future lives isn't an object of satipatthana as far as I know. What's a belief? Attachment to a concept. Next to nothing. Larry 32241 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 5:59pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, I did not say that rebirth is a matter of belief. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi old_dead_wood, > > I agree with Victor that rebirth is a matter of belief like the > roundness of the earth. It is said that on enlightenment one usually > reviews one's past lives. That there is an end of suffering is also a > matter of belief until we find it. [snip] > > What's a belief? Attachment to a concept. Next to nothing. > > Larry 32242 From: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/16/04 8:13:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Concept is the object of a single sense door, the mind door. Does that > make it an ultimate reality? --------------------------------------------- Howard: I understand that you are thinking of 'concept' in the same way as I always have, namely as a thought. But I now question whether a concept really is a single phenomenon, thought or otherwise. I think that when we say, for example, that the concept/thought of "a tree" has arisen in the mind, that is just a way of speaking. what I think has actually arisen is a whole sequence of differing mental events including mind-pictures, memories of a whole variety of sense objects and sa~n~nic markings and recognitions, sequences of internalized words, and topped off by a higher-level act of sa~n~na marking the entire conglomerate as a unit, possibly with an associated name. That whole business is at best called a "process", but certainly is not a paramattha dhamma. But if your point is that being apprehended through a single sense door is not an adequate basis for considering something a paramattha dhamma, I do agree. I already indicated that in my follow-up post. Being apprehended through a single sense door is a necessary condition, but not sufficient. I am, however, not clear on what additional necessary conditions one must add in order for the bunch of them to constitute a proper and complete testing procedure. -------------------------------------------------- > > I agree that experience seems to be linear but I can't think of a good > reason for that. Certainly the senses are always "on". Otherwise one > sense experience wouldn't interrupt another. Plus it seems to me that > abhidhamma makes a distinction between experience and reality and says > that reality isn't linear. I understand this from the concept of > indivisible groups of rupa and the groups of cetasikas that arise in > consciousness process. Plus it just makes sense that reality isn't > linear. > > I think this idea of multiple events basically has to do with the > concept of sankhara (formation), which I haven't seen a good explanation > of so far. > > 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) 32243 From: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 7:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Victor: "I did not say that rebirth is a matter of belief." Hi Victor, My apologies for misinterpreting. I thought the following amounted to belief. How do you see it? V: "I think that understanding how you know something that you accept as true will help you understand one might know that there are rebirths and lifetimes even though he or she might not seen his or her own previous life." Larry 32244 From: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 7:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi Howard, One odd thing about this enterprise is the assumption that reality is superior to concept. What we are supposed to be doing is devalueing reality. Larry 32245 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 8:20pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, Please note that I also did not say that the earth being round, not flat, is a matter of belief. Avoid further confusion, I would write: "I think that understanding how you know something that you accept as true will help you understand one might know that there are rebirths and lifetimes even though he or she might not seen his or her own previous life." as "I think that understanding how you know something will help you understand how one might know that there are rebirths and lifetimes even though he or she might not see his or her own previous life." Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Victor: "I did not say that rebirth is a matter of belief." > > Hi Victor, > > My apologies for misinterpreting. I thought the following amounted to > belief. How do you see it? > > V: "I think that understanding how you know something that you accept as > true will help you understand one might know that there are rebirths and > lifetimes even though he or she might not seen his or her own previous > life." > > Larry 32246 From: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 9:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Victor, Do you know there is rebirth? If so, how do you know? Larry 32247 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 9:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Howard, I just reproduce part of Dhamma Issues I translated from Thai op 16-04-2004 16:42 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > I don't think that one should take the "seven lifetimes" idea too > literally. Issue of Analysis: Will the streamwinner, sotåpanna, not be reborn more than seven times, or more than that? Conclusion regarding the analysis of this issue: The Sotåpanna will not be reborn more than seven times. The sources which support this conclusion: 1. The ³Saddhammappakåsiní², Commentary to the ³Path of Discrimination², Paìisambhidåmagga, Commentary to Treatise II, on Views, 706. 2. The ³Dispeller of Delusion², Commentary to the ³Book of Analysis², Ch 16, Classification of Knowledge, Decads, 2162. 3. The ³Pañcappakaraùatthakathå², Commentary to the fourth Book of the Abhidhamma, the ³Puggalapaññatti², ³Human Types², Ch I, by One, 39, ³single-seeded², ekabíjin. 4.The ³Sumaògalavilåsiní², Commentary to the ³Dialogues of the Buddha², Commentary to the ³Questions of Sakka² (II, no 21). The explanation of the reason for this conclusion: Several texts of the Commentaries explain about the kinds of rebirth of the sotåpanna. 1. We read in the ³Saddhammappakåsiní², Commentary to the ³Path of Discrimination² about three types of sotåpanna: 1. The sotåpanna who is reborn seven times at most, sattakkhattuparama. 2. The sotåpanna who goes from clan to clan, kolankola. 3. The sotåpanna with a single seed, ekabíjin. We read: ³As to the words, of the person who is reborn seven times at most (sattakkhattuparamassa), this means that seven times is the most, and that he will not assume an eighth rebirth after he became this person. Thus he is a sotåpanna who is reborn seven times at most, sattakkhattuparama. As to the words, of the goer from clan to clan (kolankolassa), this means that he is not born in a lower clan, but only in a wealthy family so that he can realize the fruition of the sotåpanna. This is the sotåpanna who goes from clan to clan, kolaòkola. As to the words, with a single seed, ekabíjin, it is said that seed means the seed of the khandhas. This sotåpanna germinates the khandhas only once more 2. He has to assume only one more existence and thus he is called ³single seeded². The Buddha created these different names for these sotåpannas. The person who is called ³seven times at most², sattakkhattuparama, has reached just this status. The person who is called ³who goes from clan to clan², kolaòkola, has reached just this status. The person who is called ³with a single seed², ekabíjin, has reached just this status. These are the names the Buddha gave to those persons. Truly, the Buddha knew what status such and such people would reach and thus he created the appropriate names for them. It is true that the sotåpanna whose understanding is weak will be reborn seven times, and he is called, ³who will be reborn seven times at most². The sotapanna whose understanding is of medium degree will not be reborn after the sixth existence, and he is called ³who goes from clan to clan². The sotåpanna who has strong understanding will only be reborn once, and he is called ³single seeded². The fact that sotåpannas have different degrees of understanding, weak, medium and strong, is determined by conditions stemming from the past. These three kinds of sotåpanna have been referred to as having rebirth in the sensuous planes. However, many of them were reborn also in the planes of rúpa brahmas and arúpa brahmas.² It can be concluded that the sotåpanna does not have an eighth rebirth. He will not be reborn more than seven times, no matter whether he is reborn in the sense planes, in the planes of the rúpa brahmas or arúpa brahmas. 2. The ³Dispeller of Delusion², Ch 16, Classification of Knowledge, Decads, 2162, explains about the remaining rebirths of each class of sotåpannas, and in particular about the sotåpanna who is attached to life in the process of existence (vaììa, the cycle of birth and death).... H:In the > Theravadin tradition as well as the Mahayanist, the Buddha-to-be (and as a > bodhisatta/bodhisattva, he was surely at least a stream enterer) developed > perfections > over many aeons, N: The Bodhisatta did not attain any stage of enlightenment before becoming the Sammasambuddha. See, when he was doing severe ascetical practices in his last life, he was not on the right Path, not on the Middle Way and then he realized that this parctice was wrong. A sotapanna can never be off the Middle Way, he is on the right Path, sure to reach final liberation. He has eradicated all wrong parctice. When the Buddha sat under the Bodhitree he passed through all four stages of enlightenment and became the fully Enlightened One. H:Oh, BTW, one does not have to be a Mahayanist to > aspire to Buddhahood. That is a "career" recognized within Theravada as well. > However, Theravada follows what is given in the original Pali scriptures, and > thus considers a bodhisatta to be *less* than a buddha, because a bodhisatta > is> one who is *on the way* towards Buddhahood. N: Perhaps it is the use of the word bodhisatta for all who will attain enlightenmt. But the bodhisatta who became the Omniscient Fully Enlightened One had to develop the perfections many aeons more than disciples. He cannot be compared to others, he is incomparable. I reflect more on Chris' question. Nina. 32248 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 9:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma, 2 Hi Howard, This is well described, but your first post is no problem. In fact, it made me think about experiencing paramattha dhammas through the sense-doors all day long but not realizing them as such. And that is the goal, since that leads to understanding anatta. If we keep on being ignorant of them, no way to reach the goal. Here the sense of urgency Philip was talking about can come in. Nina. op 16-04-2004 16:20 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > While we are "hearing a bell," we *seem* to be hearing other sounds > throughout, and, not only that, we seem to be simultaneously seeing, and > smelling, and touching, and even thinking. But we know, even from modern > biological > science and psychology (I believe), that we do not in fact do these things > simultaneously. So, the "single bell sound" experience is not a single > continuous > experience at all, but consists of (probably tens of thousands of) mind > moments interspersed with mind moments in which occur sights, and tactile > experiences, and olfactory experiences,and yet other sound experiences. > So, I think that on the matter of my post copied below, my grade is > only 50%, which despite grade inflation, can't be construed as passing! ;-)) 32249 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 9:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: samvega Dear Philip, op 16-04-2004 15:11 schreef Philip op plnao@j...: >. But this morning, I read > this, from Ayya Khema on samvega: > > "When our insights give rise to seeing the whole world on fire > from craving and ourselves burning with it, then urgency will become > a natural part of our our make-up." > N: Here is an extract from what I am writing now and that may help with samvega: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 9:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, I used to have doubt about whether there is round of rebirth. How do I come to know that there is indeed rebirth? By learning what the Buddha taught as recorded in the discourses and putting his teaching into practice. Overtime, doubt and uncertainty about the Dhamma diminished, and the result is full confidence in the Buddha and the Teaching. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Do you know there is rebirth? If so, how do you know? > > Larry 32251 From: Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 7:26pm Subject: The Question Still Remains Hi, Nina and all - I'm still curious as to sufficient (and necessary) criteria for an apparent element of experience, whether mental or physical, to be actual (i.e., a paramattha dhamma). So far I'm aware of two apparently necessary criteria: 1) It is experienced via single sense door, and 2) It is continuous in time (i.e., not occurring off and on, with other phenomena interspersed). Both of these conditions seem to hold for all the standard rupas and cetasikas, but one or the other fails for trees, cars, people, melodies, and even bell sounds (by which I mean full ringings of a bell ranging from a loud beginning and dwindling to nothing, and also waxing and waning throughout in the throbbing manner that is typical). The question I have is whether more is yet required. Is it the case that every standard paramattha dhamma satisfies both of these two criteria, and every pa~n~natti fails to satisfy at least one of them? I feel confident that all paramattha dhammas are covered (i.e., no paramattha dhamma violates either condition), but I wonder whether some mind-constructed dhamma (a pa~n~natti) might *also* satisfy both. If there is such a mental construct, then the two conditions need to be augmented by further criteria. 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) 32252 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 0:37am Subject: in Transit ... Friends: There are these 4 modes of human rebirth: One enters the womb, stays there & leaves the womb unaware of it. Another enters the womb aware of it, yet stays there & leaves it unaware. Another enters the womb & stays there aware of it, yet leaves it unaware. The Bodhisatta enters, stays there & leaves the womb fully aware of it... There are these 4 kinds of generation: There is egg-born generation by breaking out of the shell of an egg. There is womb-born generation by breaking out from the caul. There is moisture-born generation in a rotten fish, corpse, cesspit or sewer. There is spontaneous generation as certain gods, hell, lower & human beings. There are these 6 Destinations: Divine being, Human being, Animal being, hungry Ghost, Demon & Victim in Hell. --oo0oo-- ref: The Lion's Roar http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel390.html : - ] 32253 From: hasituppada Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 0:49am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Dear Friends, I think it is here that one could differentiate between intellectual undertanding by reading and listening, and realising through experience the truth of what had been learnt by reading and listening. When we know that what we call a being is afterall a continuous rising and falling away of thoughts, we will also understand that this is a thought process , and the last of the thoughts should project itself to continue else where which is (probably) the rebirth. with metta, Hasituppada ___________________________________________________________________ > Hi Larry, > > Please note that I also did not say that the earth being round, not > flat, is a matter of belief. > > Avoid further confusion, I would write: > > "I think that understanding how you know something that you accept as > true will help you understand one might know that there are rebirths > and lifetimes even though he or she might not seen his or her own > previous life." > > as > > "I think that understanding how you know something will help you > understand how one might know that there are rebirths and lifetimes > even though he or she might not see his or her own previous life." > > Metta, > Victor 32254 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 2:52am Subject: Rebirth (was: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana) Friend Jack, In a message dated 4/16/04 4:27:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, old_dead_wood@y... writes: Can someone tell me HOW you KNOW that there are "rebirths" and "lifetimes"? Is this actually dogma that must be accepted without evidence in order to be considered a member of the sangha? Jack: No this is not dogma that must be accepted. James: Well, of course no one in Buddhism must accept anything, even if they are a member of the Sangha. However, the Buddha did teach that acceptance of rebirth as crucial to his teaching and the holy life: MN 76 "To Sandaka": [Ven. Ananda]: 7. "Here, Sandaka, some teacher holds such a doctrine and view as this: `There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed, not fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no beings who are reborn spontaneously, no good and virtuous recluses and brahamins in the world who have themselves realized by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world. A person consists of the four great elements. When he dies, earth returns and goes back to the body of earth, water returns and goes back to the body of water, fire returns and goes back to the body of fire, air returns and goes back to the body of air; the faculties are transferred to space. [Four] men with the bier as fifth carry away the corpse. The funeral orations last as far as the charnel ground; the bones whiten; burnt offerings end with ashes. Giving is a doctrine of fools. When anyone asserts the doctrine that there is [giving and the like], it is empty, false prattle. Fools and the wise alike cut off and annihaled with the dissolution of the body; after death they do not exist.' 8. "About this a wise man considers thus: `This good teacher holds this doctrine and view: "There is nothing given…after death they do not exist." If this good teacher's words are true, then both of us are exactly equal here, we stand on the same level: I who have not practiced [this teaching] here and he who has practiced it; I who have not lived [the holy life] here and he who has lived it. Yet I do not say that both of us are cut off and annihilated with the dissolution of the body, that after death we shall not exist. But it is superfluous for this good teacher to go about naked, to be shaven, to exert himself in the squatting posture, and to pull out his hair and beard, since I, who live in a house crowded with children, who use Benares sandalwood, who wear garlands, scents, and unguents, and accept gold and silver, shall reap exactly the same destination, the same future course, as this good teacher. What do I know and see that I should lead the holy life under this teacher?' So when he finds that this way negates the living of the holy life, he turns away from it and leaves it. 9. "This is the first way that negates the living of the holy life that has been declared by the Blessed One who knows and sees, accomplished and fully enlightened, wherein a wise man certainly would not live the holy life, or if he should live it, would not attain the true way, the Dhamma that is wholesome." James: Jack, if there was no rebirth there would be no point for Buddhism at all. The other world's religions teach morality and ethical living in this lifetime, it is Buddhism that turns ones attention toward the larger picture: toward the cosmic consequences of karma, dependent origination, anatta, samsara, and nibbana. None of these teachings would make any sense and would be without merit without the fact of rebirth. Metta, James 32255 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 6:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > Jon: > But 'direct looking' is not part of the teachings found in the suttas > (unless it is your own term for something else mentioned there). So > whatever a person experienced or realized as a result of such a > practice would not be the understanding of which the Buddha spoke, > regardless of how great the similarities may appear to the person. > > Jon ========================== Howard: I honestly don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. What is vipassana/satipatthana, then, if not "direct looking" - that is, seeing what actually arises, and not substituted for with concepts? I'm talking about ongoing mindfulness and clear comprehnsion of what actually arises and ceases at any time. Are you saying this is not Dhamma?!! Jon: Well, I have no major argument with 'seeing what actually arises, ... mindfulness and clear comprehension of what actually arises and ceases', although I'm surprised you would use 'direct looking' to describe this, as 'looking' carries quite a different connotation to 'seeing' in this context. But what you said in your previous post was, "when direct looking is practiced along with clear comprehension of what one actually experiences", and there you clearly assign to 'direct looking' quite a different role and function. Have you had a change of heart? ;-)). Jon 32256 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 6:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kiriyacittas James --- buddhatrue wrote: > Friend Jon, ... > doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Beings have to be reborn > somewhere and they will each have various levels of panna (wisdom) > and virtue (sila). They cannot necessarily pick and choose where > they will be reborn because the choices are limited. The way you > describe it, there would almost have to exist a cosmic `waiting > room' for those beings with enough panna who wish to be reborn in > the time of a Buddha. ;-)) I look at this matter a bit differently. > > I think it is predominately an impersonal, cosmic phenomenon but > there can be limited influence on the part of individual karma > streams (if you notice, rarely is anything entirely one-sided ;-). As I understand it, a period of ascendancy of a Buddha's teachings tends to be a time of relatively large numbers of people with high levels of panna. The reasons are all 'impersonal' ones, and yes, there is no picking or choosing involved. > ...In summary, I don't think that we should focus on how far we are > from the Buddha's time, but how we have all been born in a time and > on a planet that is very advantageous in many ways. Panna (wisdom) > is not an inherent quality in beings and it can be lost in a > gradual > manner just as it is gained in a gradual manner. It is all up to us > to be diligent and work for the increase of panna rather than its decrease. Right, whether near to or far from the Buddha's time, the task is the same. And in either case we need to realise our limitations (this I think is the relevance in acknowledging that we need more details than did those at the time of the Buddha). > Jon: The deterioration of the teachings is an exacerbating factor > but not the primary one, as I see it. > > James: Okay, I would agree with this statement. However, I wonder > what you do consider the exacerbating factor? From your first > statements it seems that you are implying that each being's > inherent > panna is the main factor. If so, I couldn't disagree more! Panna > is not inherent in beings. As I said, the main factor in our need for details being generally greater than it was for those living at the time of the Buddha is a relative lack of panna. > ... The Buddha taught the proper role of the > teachings: > > MN 70 "At Kitagiri" > 22. "Bhikkhus, I do not say that final knowledge is achieved ... > From this passage, it can be seen that the Buddha intended the > Dhamma to be of a nature so that a person could memorize it. Is it > possible to memorize the Abhidhamma? I don't think so! One would > have to be a literal genius to do such a thing! Any teachings > beyond the ability to memorize them is overkill and unproductive to > the Buddha's path, in my opinion and according to what he taught. Traditionally the memorization of the teachings has included the Abhidhamma and this tradition continues in Buddhist countries to this day. Believe it or not, some people find the Abhidhamma the most fascinating part of the Tipitaka. Our friend Icaro comes to mind. It's a mistake to judge any part of the teachings by one's subjective reaction to it ;-)). Jon 32257 From: Larry Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 7:05am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Victor, If you have no doubt about rebirth it must be because of either direct experiential knowledge or belief. Do you disagree? Larry 32258 From: Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 3:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 4/17/04 9:41:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Jon - > > > >Jon: > >But 'direct looking' is not part of the teachings found in the > suttas > >(unless it is your own term for something else mentioned there). > So > >whatever a person experienced or realized as a result of such a > >practice would not be the understanding of which the Buddha spoke, > >regardless of how great the similarities may appear to the person. > > > >Jon > ========================== > Howard: > I honestly don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. > What is vipassana/satipatthana, then, if not "direct looking" - that > is, seeing what actually arises, and not substituted for with > concepts? I'm talking about ongoing mindfulness and clear > comprehnsion of what actually arises and ceases at any time. Are you > saying this is not Dhamma?!! > > Jon: > Well, I have no major argument with 'seeing what actually arises, ... > mindfulness and clear comprehension of what actually arises and > ceases', although I'm surprised you would use 'direct looking' to > describe this, as 'looking' carries quite a different connotation to > 'seeing' in this context. > > But what you said in your previous post was, > "when direct looking is practiced along with clear comprehension of > what one actually experiences", > and there you clearly assign to 'direct looking' quite a different > role and function. Have you had a change of heart? ;-)). > > Jon > ======================== I have no problem with replacing "looking" by "seeing". To look (in the sense of "to attend"), of course, implies intention, and I'm aware that makes you uneasy! ;-) 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) 32259 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:06am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, Although I have no doubt that there is round of rebirth, there is this world and next world, there are spontaneously reborn beings, it is not that I have direct experiential knowledge in the sense that I can see my own or other's past lives. And on the other hand, it is not my belief that there is round of rebirth as you would like to say it is. I think you are approach the issue on rebirth from a framework of either-this-or-that: either direct experiential knowledge or belief. What I am suggesting is to examine how one may understand a truth as it is without resorting to that framework. I think that to examine one's own experience in learning scientific subjects such as physics or chemistry would give you a broader perspective on learning, understanding, and knowledge acquisition. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > If you have no doubt about rebirth it must be because of either > direct experiential knowledge or belief. Do you disagree? > > Larry 32260 From: Larry Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:57am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Victor, Are you suggesting that a good reason is different from a belief? Many people who don't believe in rebirth think they have good reasons for that belief. What determines what is a good reason? Larry 32261 From: Larry Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:07am Subject: Re: The Question Still Remains Hi Howard, You might want to peruse note 68, Vism. VIII in anticipation of Nina's reply. That's the one on own nature (sabhava). I see two characteristics of own nature: becoming and a unique characteristic. There are problems with both. Governments become and "unique" is relative. Not all hardnesses are the same. Larry 32262 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 11:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, No, I am suggesting to examine how you learn subjects such as geology, physics, chemitry, or biology etc. I am not talking about whether a good reason is different from a belief or not. You see, knowledge about rebirth, just like knowledge about a country such as India, is acquired, and there are different ways to acquire knowledge. You can learn about India by visiting the country and live there for sometime or you can learn about it through reading or talking to different people who are knowledgeable about India. I have never been to India before and have no direct experience about the country, yet I would not say that there is no such country and what I know about India is not just a belief. Knowledge about rebirth can also be acquired. One might not see his/her own or other's past lives. However, through learning the Buddha's teaching and putting it into practice, one comes to understand rebirth and kamma. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Are you suggesting that a good reason is different from a belief? > Many people who don't believe in rebirth think they have good reasons > for that belief. What determines what is a good reason? > > Larry 32263 From: Larry Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 1:58pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Victor, It seems to me that knowledge acquired through reading is a belief. You believe what you read. What you believe is a belief. Larry 32264 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 2:09pm Subject: Re: kiriyacittas Friend Jon, Jon: As I understand it, a period of ascendancy of a Buddha's teachings tends to be a time of relatively large numbers of people with high levels of panna. James: `As you understand it' based on what? Jon, I will tend to believe you if you give me something more than simply your opinion. The very first question I asked in this post, which you have not answered, is "Where did you get this information?" I really, really, really want to know where you got this information. I am an information hound, what can I say?? ;-)) Jon: As I said, the main factor in our need for details being generally greater than it was for those living at the time of the Buddha is a relative lack of panna. James: Okay, this is getting very tiresome. It is like I am conversing with a brick wall ;-)). Restating what you stated previously isn't proof or support for anything. You want to know what I think is the deciding factor as to why we have less arahants today? It is your fault!! Hehehe…just kidding. I think it is because we have fewer concentrations of admirable friends. The official Sangha in practically all countries has become a crying shame. No matter how much panna a person has, if he/she isn't surrounded by admirable friends, forget it! (That is why Internet groups like this can be so helpful for those with the proper panna who thirst for admirable friends. BTW, everyone who even bothers to be in this group and to read the posts and to try to understand has the proper amount of panna to 'enter the stream'.). Jon: It's a mistake to judge any part of the teachings by one's subjective reaction to it ;-)). James: Well, if you would give me something other than your subjective reaction to what you determine to be my subjective reaction, we can talk business. ;-)) Otherwise, I will continue to be a thorn in your side. ;-)) Metta, James 32265 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 2:59pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, You might want to clarify you you mean by "belief" and "believe." http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=belief http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=believe Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > It seems to me that knowledge acquired through reading is a belief. > You believe what you read. What you believe is a belief. > > Larry 32266 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 3:10pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, Belief is different from knowledge, and to know is different from to believe. In addition, the original question that started this conversation is: Can someone tell me HOW you KNOW that there are "rebirths" and "lifetimes"? not Can someone tell me HOW you BELIEVE that there are "rebirths" and "lifetimes"? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > It seems to me that knowledge acquired through reading is a belief. > You believe what you read. What you believe is a belief. > > Larry 32267 From: Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Victor, You might want to review the abhidhamma definition of "belief" below. The short and sweet is "attachment to concept". Larry from Nyanatiloka's "Buddhist Dictionary" http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm ditthi (lit. 'sight'; Ö dis, to see): view, belief, speculative opinion, insight. If not qualified by sammá, 'right', it mostly refers to wrong and evil view or opinion, and only in a few instances to right view, understanding or insight (e.g. ditthi-ppatta, q.v.; ditthi-visuddhi, purification of insight; ditthi-sampanna, possessed of insight). Wrong or evil views (ditthi or micchá-ditthi) are declared as utterly rejectable for being a source of wrong and evil aspirations and conduct, and liable at times to lead man to the deepest abysses of depravity, as it is said in A. I, 22: "No other thing than evil views do I know, o monks, whereby to such an extent the unwholesome things not yet arisen arise, and the unwholesome things already arisen are brought to growth and fullness. No other thing than evil views do I know, whereby to such an extent the wholesome things not yet arisen are hindered in their arising, and the wholesome things already arisen disappear. No other thing than evil views do I know, whereby to such an extent human beings at the dissolution of the body, at death, are passing to a way of suffering, into a world of woe, into hell." Further in A. I, 23: "Whatever a man filled with evil views performs or undertakes, or whatever he possesses of will, aspiration, longing and tendencies, all these things lead him to an undesirable, unpleasant and disagreeable state, to woe and suffering." From the Abhidhamma (Dhs) it may be inferred that evil views, whenever they arise, are associated with greed (s. Tab. I. 22, 23, 26, 27). Numerous speculative opinions and theories, which at all times have influenced and still are influencing mankind, are quoted in the sutta-texts. Amongst them, however, the wrong view which everywhere, and at all times, has most misled and deluded mankind is the personality-belief, the ego-illusion. This personality-belief (sakkáya-ditthi), or ego-illusion (atta-ditthi), is of 2 kinds: eternity-belief and annihilation-belief. Eternity-belief (sassata-ditthi) is the belief in the existence of a persisting ego-entity, soul or personality, existing independently of those physical and mental processes that constitute life and continuing even after death. Annihilation-belief (uccheda-ditthi), on the other hand, is the belief in the existence of an ego-entity or personality as being more or less identical with those physical and mental processes, and which therefore, at the dissolution at death, will come to be annihilated. - For the 20 kinds of personality-belief, see sakkáya-ditthi. Now, the Buddha neither teaches a personality which will continue after death, nor does he teach a personality which will be annihilated at death, but he shows us that 'personality', 'ego', 'individual', 'man', etc., are nothing but mere conventional designations (vohára-vacana) and that in the ultimate sense (s. paramattha-sacca) there is only this self-consuming process of physical and mental phenomena which continually arise and again disappear immediately. - For further details, s. anattá, khandha, paticcasamuppáda. "The Perfect One is free from any theory (ditthigata), for the Perfect One has seen what corporeality is, and how it arises and passes away. He has seen what feeling ... perception ... mental formations ... consciousness are, and how they arise and pass away. Therefore I say that the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection and casting out of all imaginings and conjectures, of all inclination to the 'vain-glory of 'I' and 'mine." (M. 72). The rejection of speculative views and theories is a prominent feature in a chapter of the Sutta-Nipáta, the Atthaka-Vagga. The so-called 'evil views with fixed destiny' (niyata-miccháditthi) constituting the last of the 10 unwholesome courses of action (kammapatha, q.v.), are the following three: (1) the fatalistic 'view of the uncausedness' of existence (ahetukaditthi), (2) the view of the inefficacy of action' (akiriyaditthi), (3) nihilism (natthikaditthi). (1) was taught by Makkhali-Gosála, a contemporary of the Buddha who denied every cause for the corruptness and purity of beings, and asserted that everything is minutely predestined by fate. (2) was taught by Púrana-Kassapa, another contemporary of the Buddha who denied every karmical effect of good and bad actions: "To him who kills, steals, robs, etc., nothing bad will happen. For generosity, self-restraint and truthfulness, etc. no reward is to be expected." (3) was taught by Ajita-Kesakambali, a third contemporary of the Buddha who asserted that any belief in good action and its reward is a mere delusion, that after death no further life would follow, that man at death would become dissolved into the elements, etc. For further details about these 3 views, s. D. 2, M. 60; commentarial exposition in WHEEL 98/99, P. 23. Frequently mentioned are also the 10 antinomies (antagáhiká micchá-ditthi): 'Finite is the world' or 'infinite is the world' ... 'body and soul are identical' or 'body and soul are different' (e.g. M. 63). In the Brahmájala Sutta .(D.1), 62 false views are classified and described, comprising all conceivable wrong views and speculations about man and world. See The All-Embracing Net of Views (Brahmájala Sutta), tr. with Com. by Bhikkhu Bodhi (BPS). Further s. D. 15, 23, 24, 28; M. 11, 12, 25, 60, 63, 72, 76, 101, 102, 110; A. II, 16; X, 93; S. XXI, XXIV; Pts.M. Ditthikathá,. etc. Wrong views (ditthi) are one of the proclivities (s. anusaya), cankers (s. ásava), clingings (s. upádána), one of the three modes of perversions (s. vipallása). Unwholesome consciousness (akusala citta), rooted in greed, may be either with or without wrong views (ditthigata-sampayutta or vippayutta); s. Dhs.; Tab I. On right view (sammá-ditthi), s. magga and M. 9 (Trans. with Com. in 'R. Und.'). 32268 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 5:41pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, The definition you provided below is a definition for the pali term "ditthi", not a definition for the word "belief." Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Victor, > > You might want to review the abhidhamma definition of "belief" below. > The short and sweet is "attachment to concept". > > Larry > > from Nyanatiloka's "Buddhist Dictionary" > http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm > > ditthi (lit. 'sight'; Ö dis, to see): view, belief, speculative > opinion, insight. If not qualified by sammá, 'right', it mostly refers > to wrong and evil view or opinion, and only in a few instances to right > view, understanding or insight (e.g. ditthi-ppatta, q.v.; > ditthi-visuddhi, purification of insight; ditthi-sampanna, possessed of > insight). [snip] 32269 From: Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 6:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Victor, "Belief" is a translation of the Pali word "ditthi". Larry 32270 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 6:33pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, And your point is? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Victor, > > "Belief" is a translation of the Pali word "ditthi". > > Larry 32271 From: Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Victor, Try this on for size. Some things we read are beyond question or doubt, like a dictionary or school textbook. Because these ideas are the voice of authority we simply accept them. This is different from belief. We don't "believe" the definition of a word, for example. Scripture is like this. It is beyond doubt, beyond belief. In Indian philosophy we would say scripture is a valid means of knowledge (pramana). Is this your view? If so, I disagree and I think the Buddha would disagree. I think he said something like verify for yourself the truth of my teaching. No one would say verify for yourself the truth of a dictionary. Unfortunately, the truth of rebirth can't be verified. Also it is obviously not beyond doubt. Otherwise no one would even ask about it. So what is one to do with this concept of rebirth? Larry 32272 From: m. nease Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: MN131 Bhaddekaratta Sutta "A Single Excellent Night" Hi Suan, Thanks as always--the thought occurred to me that realities are always present, concepts never are. I think this is consistent with the pariyatti. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "abhidhammika" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 7:58 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: MN131 Bhaddekaratta Sutta "A Single Excellent Night" My regular dealing with psychiatric patients convinces me of the fact that they are either stuck in the past or worry about the future with the gloomy outlook or with paranoid imaginings (I observed that a few days ago). ... "The wise one who wisely observes the present phenomenon at each point of arising should increase the unimpeded and unfaltering Vipassanaa practice again and again." With regards, Suan 32273 From: Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/17/04 9:10:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > One odd thing about this enterprise is the assumption that reality is > superior to concept. What we are supposed to be doing is devalueing > reality. ---------------------------------------- Howard: I don't agree with that. We are to come to see reality as it is - to become unconfused as to its nature. As far as devaluing it, what could be superior to reality? Illusion? --------------------------------------- > > 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) 32274 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:07pm Subject: Buddha on bikini ! Hi all, Images of Buddha and Bodhisattva on bikini ! Is this a sacrilege ? http://www2.victoriassecret.com/commerce/application/proðisplay/? namespace=productDisplay&origin=QuickOrderLink.jsp&event=QuickOrderLi nk&cgname=OSCQONAVZZZ&prnbr=IR-173444 KKT 32275 From: Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Howard: "As far as devaluing it, what could be superior to reality?" Hi Howard, I meant devalueing cyclic existence of course. You don't see that in the suttas? Nibbana is said to be better. Larry 32276 From: old_dead_wood Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:50pm Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi. Thanks to all for responding to my question regarding re-birth. I didn't really want to end up discussing the meaning of words, though. I was looking for maybe any of your personal meditative experiences (absorptions or realizations) that validate (or counter) the scriptures. The reason I asked this question (and this will be rather "rambling" because I don't want too much detail) : I am a weak practitioner, but have had strong Theravada leanings. The more I read about the latest studies in brain science, the more I question the validity of a "spiritual" aspect to reality. If consciousness depends on our body and brain, there seems to be nothing left when the physical support for consciousness is gone. Some studies have shown that meditation shuts down certain brain functions, such as the one that gives us our sense of location in space and time, and might give rise to a sense of "oceanic cosmic consciousness", etc. Stuff like this tells me that bare alteration of brain activity (and nothing else) might alter our perceptions and make it seem like something "spiritual" is going on. Along with scientific reading, I have read the books, "The God Part Of The Brain" and "Denial of Death" (Pulitzer(?) prize winner), both of which suggest that the evolutionary development of awareness of death in humankind has forced us to develop different explanations (religions) for our future (beyond-death) survival. Both books suggest it is our SANITY that is at risk, if we can't accept the fact of our demise, and devices (religions) had to be developed so people would have hope, even if it was false (because negative cynicism and depression due to the pondering of life's end was NOT conducive to the species' survival). Another reason is that I have always been clinically depressed and I KNOW that the brain can produce some hellish states. The last thing that bugs me is whenever on the TV it shows a picture of the space shuttle a MERE few hundred miles above the earth, I look at the earth, knowing all the crap that is going on within everyones' existence, and we seem SO insignificant and the Universe just doesn't care...we are fungus on a rock. Sorry to say these things, but these are the things that bug me, that prevent me from accepting most ANYTHING anymore that appears in a scripture. The only thing I can accept is the FIRST NOBLE TRUTH. Everything else is unknown to me. Somebody puts the following statement at the end of their posts: "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) THIS seems to be ALL of it, whether it gives up comfort or not. 32277 From: old_dead_wood Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:56pm Subject: Anapanasati: Full-Body or Nose-Door ??? My practice is weak. Most of the time I'm too "heebee-jeebeed" to sit. But when I do.... Do you suggest placing attention at the nostrils, the whole "breath- body", the navel ?? Different teachers have given varying opinions. I have read Buddhadasa, Gunaratana, Dhammadharo, Kornfield, Achaan Cha, Ayya Khemma, Jotiko, Thanissaro, etc. What has been your EXPERIENCE? What has worked for you? Thanks 32278 From: old_dead_wood Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:10pm Subject: Re: Buddha on bikini ! I couldn't see the images, but let me guess: sexy bikinis or underwear with the Buddha image on them? Buddhism has been "hip" for awhile, and they need new marketing concepts. I don't like to look at yoga magazine anymore because of the foxy women in them (in different poses). I'm older now and have worked HARD at become sexually dead (depression and poor circulation) and I ENJOY the peace of mind. They are trying to torture me and draw me back in to the world of sex, but it's too late! Sex is Nature's trick to get the sexes together for the survival of the species. How else would we do the things we do for sex and during sex, if it weren't for the powerful bio-chemicals that make us temporarily INSANE? We're just animals....ANIMALS !!! > Images of Buddha and > Bodhisattva on bikini ! > > Is this a sacrilege ? 32279 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:16pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, You came up with some view and asked if it is my view. My reply to you is: No, I don't hold the view you came up with. Let me go back to the question that got this conversation started: Can someone tell me HOW you KNOW that there are "rebirths" and "lifetimes"? Regarding this question, I would say that: I know that there are rebirths and lifetimes by learning and practicing the Buddha's teaching. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Try this on for size. Some things we read are beyond question or doubt, > like a dictionary or school textbook. Because these ideas are the voice > of authority we simply accept them. This is different from belief. We > don't "believe" the definition of a word, for example. Scripture is like > this. It is beyond doubt, beyond belief. In Indian philosophy we would > say scripture is a valid means of knowledge (pramana). Is this your > view? > > If so, I disagree and I think the Buddha would disagree. I think he said > something like verify for yourself the truth of my teaching. No one > would say verify for yourself the truth of a dictionary. Unfortunately, > the truth of rebirth can't be verified. Also it is obviously not beyond > doubt. Otherwise no one would even ask about it. So what is one to do > with this concept of rebirth? > > Larry 32280 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:36pm Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi, Reply in context. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "old_dead_wood" wrote: > Hi. Thanks to all for responding to my question regarding re- birth. No problem! [snip] The more I read about the > latest studies in brain science, the more I question the validity of > a "spiritual" aspect to reality. Please explain what you mean by "spiritual" aspect to reality. If consciousness depends on our > body and brain, there seems to be nothing left when the physical > support for consciousness is gone. > > Some studies have shown that meditation shuts down certain brain > functions, such as the one that gives us our sense of location in > space and time, and might give rise to a sense of "oceanic cosmic > consciousness", etc. Stuff like this tells me that bare alteration > of brain activity (and nothing else) might alter our perceptions and > make it seem like something "spiritual" is going on. Again, what do you mean by "spiritual"? [snip] > Another reason is that I have always been clinically depressed and I > KNOW that the brain can produce some hellish states. > > The last thing that bugs me is whenever on the TV it shows a picture > of the space shuttle a MERE few hundred miles above the earth, I > look at the earth, knowing all the crap that is going on within > everyones' existence, and we seem SO insignificant and the Universe > just doesn't care...we are fungus on a rock. Does the thought "we seem SO insignificant and the Universe just doesn't care...we are fungus on a rock" lead to depression? Is the thought depressing as you keep reflecting on it? > > Sorry to say these things, but these are the things that bug me, > that prevent me from accepting most ANYTHING anymore that appears in > a scripture. The only thing I can accept is the FIRST NOBLE TRUTH. > Everything else is unknown to me. What is the First Noble Truth as you know it? Metta, Victor 32281 From: Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Victor: "I know that there are rebirths and lifetimes by learning and practicing the Buddha's teaching." Hi Victor, This is a self view. I suggest you look at this "I know". Larry 32282 From: Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi old_dead_wood, The spiritual in Theravada is mostly a matter of various levels of tranquility. I think making oneself "dead" sexually or any other way is an extreme practice, not the middle way. What you want instead is insight. As for depression, I've had a little taste of that myself and I agree it's difficult. I think it is a matter of body chemistry and mental habits. Larry 32283 From: old_dead_wood Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:39pm Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Maybe I'll revise the question: What in your personal experience has validated the view that there are lifetimes? Have you had realizations outside the scriptures (while still validating them)? Did something happen during meditation? > I know that there are rebirths and lifetimes by learning and > practicing the Buddha's teaching. > 32284 From: old_dead_wood Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:55pm Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana > Please explain what you mean by "spiritual" aspect to reality. I guess it would be anything beyond our individual personal experience of this life: Gods, heavens, hells, "mechanisms" of re- birth, etc. may be products solely of the human brain. When the brain dies, there may be nothing. > Does the thought "we seem SO insignificant and the Universe just > doesn't care...we are fungus on a rock" lead to depression? Is the > thought depressing as you keep reflecting on it? Sometimes it's "depressing", other times when life gets bad, I'm happy that there might be only this life. CLINICAL depression is something else that may or may not be concomitant with depressing thoughts. "Depression" is not a good word to describe the weirdness and debilitation of the illness. I DO acknowledge thinking patterns can probably aggravate and pre-dispose the condition. > > What is the First Noble Truth as you know it? I guess it would be the realization of the "dis-satisfactoriness" of our personal lives: nothing is stable, everything's constantly changing regardless of our desires. 32285 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 11:47pm Subject: Bangkok visit wrap-up Dear All Another discussion session yesterday, afternoon only this time, and our last discussion before we head back to Hong Kong tomorrow morning. We have enjoyed the varied views and comments from everyone. Never a dull moment, and hardly a lull in the discussion over 5 half-day sessions. Many topics and details from dsg threads raised, with plenty on satipatthana and other basics in between. At the discussions were 'locals' Sukin, Betty, Ivan, Elle, Peter (who last attended a discussion with A. Sujin some 20 years ago -- he's just the same; still no loopholes), and visitors Chris (from Brisbane via Sydney), Azita (Cairns via Dubai), Shakti & Thomas (from Montana), Tom & Beverly (lurking members & old friends, especially for this occasion from New Hampshire via Detroit & Narita). The connection with old friends continued this morning when we unexpectedly bumped into Vince and Nancy at breakfast, whom we had last seen in exactly the same spot on our visit in January this year, when they were on their way to Burma for a retreat. This time they were on their way back to Sydney, and decided to revisit the same breakfast spot. When Vince heard Azita was also in town he said how much he'd like to see her, so we gave a quick call to her hotel and she dropped everything to dash across the river and join us (and give assistance in the NAG corner). Much lively discussion ensued, with Vince extolling the need for the use of consciousness effort in dealing with kilesa -- some of you would no doubt have approved! Unfortunately Vince and Nancy had a flight to catch, and all too soon they had to leave. But we much appreciated the occasion and the robust exchange of views with good friends. Jon (and Sarah) 32286 From: dsgmods Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 0:10am Subject: Reminder (was, Not entering the Stream in Mahayana) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "old_dead_wood" < old_dead_wood@y...> wrote: > > > Please explain what you mean by "spiritual" aspect to reality. Dear Friend We are pleased to have you as a member of DSG. We ask all members posting to the list to indicate who their post is directed to (even if it's to All), and to sign off with a name (preferably a real one) at the end. This helps keep a friendly tone to things, and is mentioned in the Guidelines. Thanks for your cooperation. Regards, and we hope you enjoy your time with us Jon and Sarah PS We tried sending this off-list, but have been unable to get through to you at the email address given in your messages. 32287 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 1:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Question Still Remains Hi Larry, op 17-04-2004 19:07 schreef Larry op LBIDD@w...: > Hi Howard, > > You might want to peruse note 68, Vism. VIII in anticipation of > Nina's reply. That's the one on own nature (sabhava). I see two > characteristics of own nature: becoming and a unique characteristic. > There are problems with both. Governments become and "unique" is > relative. Not all hardnesses are the same. N: We talked before about the word sabhava: we have to think rather of nature, own individual nature. Not of becoming. The word essence, as we have seen, creates confusion (see posts of Michael). Hardness has many shades, but we can say that it is hard all the same. Just as lobha: many shades, but it clings or is attached, it likes the object. Or dosa, idem. It dislikes the object. They are all just dhammas and they are conditioned, sankhaara dhammas. They are conditioned and condition others. When hearing the word sankhaara we do not have to think of a complicated, abstract notion, sankhara dhammas are appearing now. The Visuddhimagga and Tiika stress this in giving all these different classifications of nama and rupa, according to numbers and according to different aspects. But it all amounts to the same, to remind us that they are just dhammas appearing now because of their appropriate conditions. Let us not waste opportunities to profit from all these reminders. Nina Nina. 32288 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 1:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi Howard, op 17-04-2004 08:26 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: I'm still curious as to sufficient (and necessary) criteria for an > apparent element of experience, whether mental or physical, to be actual > (i.e., a > paramattha dhamma). So far I'm aware of two apparently necessary criteria: 1) > It is experienced via single sense door, and 2) It is continuous in time > (i.e., not occurring off and on, with other phenomena interspersed). N: no 2 , continuous in time? I do not get here what you mean. A citta is momentary and succeeded by the next one. No conditioned dhamma can be continuous. Perhaps you mean something else? My approach is from the opposite direction: I am really concerned that people get stuck in definitions, in the theory, just occupied with words. Not only in the matter of concepts, but also as regards other points. I like to make it concrete and try to explain what citta, cetasika and rupa are, at this moment. Although, I feel rather poorly since I have not directly realized their true nature myself. At least, I have no doubt about the direction to take, I feel sure about this. Once it is clear what a paramattha dhamma is, people will know what is not paramattha dhamma, but a concept. When citta has as object a paramattha dhamma it does not have a concept as object, and vice versa. I am afraid I did not answer your question in a satisfying way. Once I know about your criteria 2, I can think it over again. But no. 1 is good. How could any object be experienced through more than one door at a time. But experiencing is one thing, and panna that directly understands it is another thing. Understanding understands it *as nama* or *as rupa* not as a thing or a person or even a bell sound. These are the things I am concerned about. I try to add what I am *beginning* to understand. When we are dreaming or thinking, the object is a concept. Seeing is different from thinking, seeing is a paramattha dhamma. This sounds too plain, but it has to be known over and over again by sati and panna, by sati-sampaja~n~na, and, at the moment they occur. That is different from just saying this. Any notion of image, details, shape and form is not seeing visible object, it is thinking of concepts. Any self involvement in focussing or trying to know paramattha dhammas is doomed to failure, then there is again thinking, not seeing visible object. Also thinking is a paramattha dhamma that can be known as such. The same with hearing that hears just sound, no bell, no focussing on a special sound. The part on focussing maybe hard to swallow for some Dhamma students. We can learn the difference: when we are self-involved or when we are doing something for someone else, are such moments different? But even in the last case moments of lobha come in because the cittas change so fast. All these things one has to find out oneself, that is the only way. For myself I find it best not to even think about mindfulness, about how many moments of it, and the time of arising, or how to condition it. Self-involvement is there without our knowing it, and that is the worst. We better pay attention to this: is there any *understanding* of what dhamma is? That is the foundation for satipatthana. And only through satipatthana we shall know without fail what dhamma is, what a concept is. You will say, what about a sense of urgency (fire on our head), and the necessary effort and intention? I know what you mean, a conditioned effort and intention, not a self who tries. No problem. The fire on our heads, the sense of urgency occurs in our daily life. Effort is a cetasika and it arises naturally together with sati and panna. Daily life is full of pungent reminders of dhamma that brings us back to reality: dhamma now. Some dhammas are pleasant and we cling, some are unwelcome, like sickness, death, the daily news we read, and on account of them we have sadness, dislike. But we should not despise any of them. If we do, we are really negligent. We often hear, "let it come by conditions, do not force, that is counteractive". And also: "everything is dhamma". That includes the many moments of ignorance and unawareness. No problem, we understand that that also is conditioned. We heard so many, many times: everything is dhamma, but gradually this becomes more meaningful. We can see the power of the Buddha's teachings. Listening, considering, listening again, that is what we read in the Suttas. People kept on listening. And we can consider Dhamma in the midst of our activities. I wrote to Robert Epstein about his work with actors, that this is dhamma. They have many different accumulations coming out in their cittas. With his fine intuition and understanding he knows what is difficult for intellectual people. I quote: To me he got at the heart of the matter. Dhamma is the best medicine. Nina. 32289 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 1:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Dear Jonothan, Thank you very much. Lodewijk appreciates your kusala citta very much, and all the trouble you took. But, he still does not understand! It has to sink in, and who knows, the next days when trekking may be favorable for another dialogue. Or, if Howard "says something". ;-)) Some comment, see below. What you say means a great deal to me. op 17-04-2004 02:02 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonoabb@y...: It has taken a lot of further study, listening > and discussing since then to get a clearer picture so that at least I > feel I understand what it's supposed to be. Actual moments of > satipatthana are something else again, of course! N: My feelings too. Some Dhamma students may not realize that we should never tire of listening again and again, and not conclude hastily that we have understood in depth what we heard. J: But having got your coherent, logical explanation, what then? The > next step would be just this you mention here -- consideration of the > seeing now, the six doors, etc. It may sound like 'bits and pieces', > but that's because there has to be a start somewhere. Only by making > a start can the full relevance be appreciated. N: I also heard that it is unavoidable to start with the idea of self. Agreed, it is an underlying tendency and conditions wrong view and wrong practice all the time. It is important that understanding detects it. Understanding the right conditions for satipatthana, listening, considering, counteracts wrong practice. We can verify this for ourselves, for sure. A. Sujin also warns not to have an idea of starting. Actually, before we know there is a moment of a degree of awareness of a dhamma. We cannot pinpoint anything at all. After a while we come to realize: yes, all I heard makes much more sense now. >Lodewijk: The answer >> cannot be:"You will know the answer as soon as you canbe aware of > realities >> as they are." Maybe yes, but that is not the way to convince people > like >> Howard [and me] !> end quote. > >J: Well, 'being aware of realities as they are' seems a pretty good > answer to your question. I can't immediately think of a more > coherent, logical explanation of satipatthana! In any event, as > Howard likes to say, discussing the menu is no substitute for > sampling the food ;-)) > N: He finds it very difficult when A. Sujin answers with the example of seeing now or dhamma now. J: The difficulty lies in the nature of the problem and not anything > else. One has to accept the frustration and keep listening, > considering and asking questions until it becomes clearer, which it > will! The dosa is a normal reaction in such situations. Think > about why this occurs. N: This is a fine analysis of the whole problem. Yes, everything is dhamma, it does become clearer, and, it reminds us of dhamma now. Daily life does not distract from the goal! And the frustration, the dosa. Wy? Clinging, the second noble Truth. We do not despise dosa or clinging, they are real. J: ......(snipped) > Direct awareness allows there to be a level of understanding of the > different elements of experience that in themselves are completely > impersonal but which coalesce so as to give the appearance of > individual people and things. N: We learn the difference between concept and what is really there in the ultimate sense. This should not be a conflict as some Dhamma students believe. Thinking of concepts is not forbidden, but it can occur without wrong view of things being permanent, not dukkha and self. J: It is of the nature of the misconceptions from which we all suffer. Any self-conceived attempt to see things as they truly are will > do no more than lead to further misconceptions. N: self-conceived attempt is the key word here, not right effort of the eightfold Path that is always accompanied by right understanding. But the Dhamma student needs to know the difference, and that by being aware of his different cittas. J: It is only with the guidance of the teaching on satipatthana that the > circle of delusion can be broken. N: We need guidance of the suttas but also of the Abhidhamma. Otherwise we do not learn about the fine distinctions between different moments such as kusala dhammas and akusala dhammas. And if we do not know anything about processes of cittas (I do not mean all details) we have no idea how and when there can be awareness of even akusala dhammas. How the characteristic of akusala can still appear to the sati and panna when it has just fallen away. Kusala cannot arise at the same time as akusala but, cittas succeed one another so fast, and this makes it understandable that there can be awareness of akusala. Through the Abhidhamma we learn more about conditions (I do not mean we have to study all details), and this is of immense benefit for the understanding of anatta, no possessor, no self who can manipulate anything. Thank you, with much appreciation, and warmest regards also from Lodewijk, Nina. 32290 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 1:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhist fundamentalism? Dear Andrew, welcome back :-)) I was so glad to read your good post and will come back to it, after our trekking. So many good posts on past lives (James' quote of a beautiful sutta), on not entering the stream (hardwood, Hasituppada), I like to come back to afterwards. Nina op 17-04-2004 01:36 schreef Andrew op athel60@t...: > Hello everyone > Back again! A big thank you to all who sent kind messages re the > passing of Sandra's father. 32291 From: axtran Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 1:59am Subject: Victoria's Secret Swim Suit with the Buddha image Dear friends, Perhaps you already heard about a swim suit product named Asian Floral tankini produced by Victoria's Secret with images of the Lord Buddha on the left breast, and Quan Yin at the navel level. The image of the tankini can be viewed in the swim suit section at: http://www2.victoriassecret.com/commerce With Metta, AT 32292 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 2:37am Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Friend Old Dead Wood, ODW: Hi. Thanks to all for responding to my question regarding re- birth. I didn't really want to end up discussing the meaning of words, though. I was looking for maybe any of your personal meditative experiences (absorptions or realizations) that validate (or counter) the scriptures. James: Through my practice of meditation I have developed the ability to know the past lives of other people (to a limited extent and not my own past lives). I meet periodically with a teacher friend to give her advice and insight based on this ability. She will simply ask me about someone and I will tell her what I sense about his/her past lives and how it has an influence on their current life. According to her, I am amazingly accurate in what I know that she doesn't tell me. She has told me, "Talking to you is like talking to God." (This started because I sensed that she was involved with a person who had a very negative karma stream. I wanted to warn her.) She can maybe verify this if you would like (I haven't asked her). Contact me off-list and I will give you her e- mail. But, would this really `prove' anything to you? Maybe we are both nuts?? ;-)) You need to know for yourself these types of things, and then trust your experience. ODW: The reason I asked this question (and this will be rather "rambling" because I don't want too much detail) : I am a weak practitioner, but have had strong Theravada leanings. The more I read about the latest studies in brain science, the more I question the validity of a "spiritual" aspect to reality. If consciousness depends on our body and brain, there seems to be nothing left when the physical support for consciousness is gone. James: This is nothing new. Even before the advent of science people had these types of beliefs. The brain is not the mind. The brain is simply a physical manifestation to deal with and process a physical world. The 'brain' would be different in a deva realm or non-existent in a non-physical realm (arupa). Anyway, I would suggest you read this article to get a better perspective on this `human secularism" that is creeping into your Buddhist practice: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/response.html Metta, James 32293 From: eireen30 Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 3:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abidhamma Dear Nina, You asked me about my background, interests ... I am interested in buddhism for many years, first, I tried to find an entrance into buddhism over the tibetain buddhism, but I noticed after a short time, that that's not the right way for me. After that, I changed to the Theravada buddhism. I've had a hard last year, a lot of problems, and the buddhism was the only thing, which really helped me to deal with the conditions/problems, the most where psychical problems ... Some day ago, I visited a retreat for a week, and the teacher have had some discussions about buddhism and psychology, and so I came to the Abhidhamma as basis for these field. Andrea 32294 From: old_dead_wood Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 11:36pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana > The spiritual in Theravada is mostly a matter of various levels of > tranquility. GOOD! That's what I need! My all-time favorite activity is SLEEP. I think making oneself "dead" sexually or any other way is > an extreme practice, not the middle way. I didn't really make myself that way. It sort of came as I aged. I'd always HATED the sexual desire and tension, so the drop in desire was welcomed. Why not be peaceful rather than agitated? I also remember one remedy for sexual desire was portrayed in some dhamma books as roughly "reflection on the impurity of the body". That works wonders now for knocking out any residual desire. What you want instead is > insight. As for depression, I've had a little taste of that myself and I > agree it's difficult. I think it is a matter of body chemistry and > mental habits. Difficult is not the word. After my first episode, I KNEW why mentally ill people walk the streets muttering to themselves, or commit suicide. The most PROFOUND experience of MY life has been the EXPERIENCE of this thing called, innocently, "depression"...not "God", love, children, music or any other worldly OR unworldly thing. Who could have imagined BEFOREHAND that the brain could produce such states straight out of a science- fiction-horror movie made in hell? Another "chink" in my armor of certainty: an old friend of mine who was a corporate president started in Tibetan Buddhism in the mid- 70's. He had access to well-known gurus and practiced devotedly. He was a pilot, and he got to ferry the Dalai Lama around Northern California during one visit. I used to call him up occasionally to see how his practice progressed. The last time I called him, he told me he had been in the hospital for 6 months due to a nervous breakdown, anxiety, and depression. .......... In these later years, I've read and heard about TOO MANY of THESE stories to believe that ANY personal "practice" or set of views is going to make one immune to the workings of the (apparently) brain. 32295 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 6:23am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, No, that is not self-view. You misunderstood what self-view is. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Victor: "I know that there are rebirths and lifetimes by learning and > practicing the Buddha's teaching." > > Hi Victor, > > This is a self view. I suggest you look at this "I know". > > Larry 32296 From: Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 2:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/18/04 12:27:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Howard: "As far as devaluing it, what could be superior to reality?" > > Hi Howard, > > I meant devalueing cyclic existence of course. You don't see that in the > suttas? Nibbana is said to be better. > > Larry > ========================= I misunderstood what you were calling "reality". (I consider samsara to be more a matter of illusion than reality.) With regard to what part of our discussion were you raising this? 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) 32297 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 6:43am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, Regarding what self view is about, please check the discourse: Samyutta Nikaya XXII.47 Samanupassana Sutta Assumptions http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn22-047.html Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Victor: "I know that there are rebirths and lifetimes by learning and > practicing the Buddha's teaching." > > Hi Victor, > > This is a self view. I suggest you look at this "I know". > > Larry 32298 From: Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 3:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi, Nina - Thank you for the useful reply. I will respond now just to the question you pose near the outset. In a message dated 4/18/04 4:17:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > Hi Howard, > > op 17-04-2004 08:26 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > I'm still curious as to sufficient (and necessary) criteria for an > >apparent element of experience, whether mental or physical, to be actual > >(i.e., a > >paramattha dhamma). So far I'm aware of two apparently necessary criteria: > 1) > >It is experienced via single sense door, and 2) It is continuous in time > >(i.e., not occurring off and on, with other phenomena interspersed). > N: no 2 , continuous in time? I do not get here what you mean. A citta is > momentary and succeeded by the next one. No conditioned dhamma can be > continuous. Perhaps you mean something else? > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: By "continuous in time" I don't mean necessarily extended in time, but I do mean uninterrupted. Let me explain by discussing the ringing-bell-sound example. The full tolling of a bell might take, let us say, a minute. If one pays attention, it becomes clear that during that time there occur multiple experiences via several different sense doors interspersed among moments of hearing. But we typically think of the entire bell sound as a phenomenal "reality". What I am saying is that the fact that the interspersing of other sense-door experiences, or for that matter the interspersing of changes in mental concomitants (e.g., changes in attentiveness, changes in concentration, variations in feeling, etc), implies that it is an error to view the entire bell sound as a paramattha dhamma. The "full bell sound", being interrupted, cannot be other than pa~n~natti. With regard to the momentariness of a mindstate, does that imply that a mindstate has zero duration? I thought that later commentaries described a citta as having three phases: growth, maintenance, and decline. (That, BTW, makes sense to me, as I usually picture a mindstate as being describable in part by an "intensity graph" which displays the state as building in intensity from level 0 up to a maximum level that is briefly maintained and then declining back to level 0, with a hill shape like a cosine function, where level 0 is nonexistence.) ========================== 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) 32299 From: Larry Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:27am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Victor, I suggest you read the Visuddhimagga. Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Larry, > > No, that is not self-view. You misunderstood what self-view is. > > Metta, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Victor: "I know that there are rebirths and lifetimes by learning > and > > practicing the Buddha's teaching." > > > > Hi Victor, > > > > This is a self view. I suggest you look at this "I know". > > > > Larry 32300 From: Larry Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi Howard, Sorry Howard, I'm still not being very clear. By "cyclic existence" I mean the 5 khandhas. I don't think you will find the Buddha praising the breaking through of concept and having a "clean" 5-door experience. In the vast majority of suttas he has only negative things to say about the khandhas. So when we try to define ultimate reality, portraying it as desirable over concept, that seems a little odd to me. I'm not saying it is wrong; I just haven't found the words to shape a view. Baring an interpolated nonduality, it seems to me nibbana is portrayed as other than the 5 khandhas. Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Larry - > > In a message dated 4/18/04 12:27:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... > writes: > > > Howard: "As far as devaluing it, what could be superior to reality?" > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > I meant devalueing cyclic existence of course. You don't see that in the > > suttas? Nibbana is said to be better. > > > > Larry > > > ========================= > I misunderstood what you were calling "reality". (I consider samsara > to be more a matter of illusion than reality.) > With regard to what part of our discussion were you raising this? > > 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) > 32301 From: Larry Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 9:05am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi old_dead_wood, My only comment is that some problems are best left to a doctor. I can't really speak to your medical condition [actually, it may even have something to do with kundalini energy]. In my case I'm pretty sure the body chemistry associated with depression is consciousness produced rupa. I say this because gradual changes in understanding seem to be making a lasting change in "feeling". It looks to me that you are new to the spiritual "scene" and I urge you to not get carried away by exotic ideas. Objectivity and being honest with oneself is the best approach. Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "old_dead_wood" wrote: > > The spiritual in Theravada is mostly a matter of various levels of > > tranquility. > > GOOD! That's what I need! My all-time favorite activity is SLEEP. > > > I think making oneself "dead" sexually or any other way is > > an extreme practice, not the middle way. > > I didn't really make myself that way. It sort of came as I aged. > I'd always HATED the sexual desire and tension, so the drop in > desire was welcomed. Why not be peaceful rather than agitated? I > also remember one remedy for sexual desire was portrayed in some > dhamma books as roughly "reflection on the impurity of the body". > That works wonders now for knocking out any residual desire. > > > What you want instead is > > insight. As for depression, I've had a little taste of that myself > and I > > agree it's difficult. I think it is a matter of body chemistry and > > mental habits. > > Difficult is not the word. After my first episode, I KNEW why > mentally ill people walk the streets muttering to themselves, or > commit suicide. The most PROFOUND experience of MY life has been the > EXPERIENCE of this thing called, > innocently, "depression"...not "God", love, children, music or any > other worldly OR unworldly thing. Who could have imagined BEFOREHAND > that the brain could produce such states straight out of a science- > fiction-horror movie made in hell? > > Another "chink" in my armor of certainty: an old friend of mine who > was a corporate president started in Tibetan Buddhism in the mid- > 70's. He had access to well-known gurus and practiced devotedly. He > was a pilot, and he got to ferry the Dalai Lama around Northern > California during one visit. I used to call him up occasionally to > see how his practice progressed. The last time I called him, he told > me he had been in the hospital for 6 months due to a nervous > breakdown, anxiety, and depression. .......... > > In these later years, I've read and heard about TOO MANY of THESE > stories to believe that ANY personal "practice" or set of views is > going to make one immune to the workings of the (apparently) brain. 32302 From: Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 6:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/18/04 11:50:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Sorry Howard, I'm still not being very clear. By "cyclic existence" I > mean the 5 khandhas. I don't think you will find the Buddha praising > the breaking through of concept and having a "clean" 5-door > experience. In the vast majority of suttas he has only negative > things to say about the khandhas. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: My perspective is that this is a misreading of the Buddha. He speaks unfavorably about the five khandhas *affected by clinging*. It is craving, aversion, and attachment (and confusion) that constitute the problem, not five-sensory experience. -------------------------------------------- So when we try to define ultimate > > reality, portraying it as desirable over concept, that seems a little > odd to me. I'm not saying it is wrong; I just haven't found the words > to shape a view. Baring an interpolated nonduality, it seems to me > nibbana is portrayed as other than the 5 khandhas. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Sure nibbana is different from the five khandhas. It is an absence - specifically the absence of avijja, tanha, and upadana (and the absence of dukkha). I do not believe that the Buddha, as arahant, "needed" to escape from experience - he simply had no craving for it or attachment to it, and, thus, if the Theravada understanding is correct, such experience simply ceased beyond the death of the Buddha, there being no motive force for its continuation. --------------------------------------------- > > 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) 32303 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 0:14pm Subject: Re: Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Friend Howard (and Larry), Howard: My perspective is that this is a misreading of the Buddha. He speaks unfavorably about the five khandhas *affected by clinging*. It is craving, aversion, and attachment (and confusion) that constitute the problem, not five-sensory experience. James: I believe that Larry is completely correct in his reading of the Buddha. The five khandhas, affected by clinging or not, are inherently suffering and unsatisfactory (dukkha). The Buddha taught this in many, many different suttas. Material form and clinging consciousness support and lean on each other for samsaric existence. They are both dukkha. The arahant has removed the clinging consciousness but not the material form because the residual kamma will keep it in existence. If the arahant becomes a bhikkhu or is already a bhikkhu, he/she will allow this material form to continue in order to teach other beings the means to escape. If a householder becomes an arahant and cannot become a bhikkhu (because conditions wouldn't allow it), that arahant will immediately die and release the final burden of the material form (parinibbana). For example, the Buddha's father became an arahant but because he was a king and it wasn't feasible for him to become a monk, he immediately died. Larry is also correct that there is far too much emphasis in this group that simply `knowing' namas and rupas, without removing the clinging to them, will lead to enlightenment. I am quite happy that he has pointed out this false view. *Snaps for Larry!* ;-)) Metta, James 32304 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 4:29pm Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi old_dead_wood, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "old_dead_wood" wrote: > Maybe I'll revise the question: > > What in your personal experience has validated the view that there > are lifetimes? I used to have doubt about rebirth. You could say that it was a paradigm shift from doubting whether there is rebirth to knowing that there is. An analogy would be the paradigm shift from Newtonian classical mechanics to Einstein's theory of relativity. Theory of relativity is a result of deeper understanding of the space-time relation than that of the classical mechanics. The theory provided new insights into physical phenomena in space and time. Einstein came up with the theory of relativity without ever testing the theory himself experimentally: the theory was validated by other experimental physicists. [1] I have not seen my past lives and the past lives of others. Nevertheless, there are accounts on such experiences of others. > > Have you had realizations outside the scriptures (while still > validating them)? Could you explain your question? > > Did something happen during meditation? Nothing happened during meditation regarding seeing my past lives. However, I do believe that meditation practice over time contributed to removing doubt about rebirth. Metta, Victor PS. I just came across an article on NASA testing Einstein's relativity theory. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news? tmpl=story&cid=570&ncid=570&e=1&u=/nm/20040418/sc_nm/science_gravity_ dc_1 32305 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 4:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, Why? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > I suggest you read the Visuddhimagga. > > Larry > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > Hi Larry, > > > > No, that is not self-view. You misunderstood what self-view is. > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > > Victor: "I know that there are rebirths and lifetimes by > learning > > and > > > practicing the Buddha's teaching." > > > > > > Hi Victor, > > > > > > This is a self view. I suggest you look at this "I know". > > > > > > Larry 32306 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi Howard, Please check the following passage: Rupa.m bhikkhave, dukkha.m, vedana dukkha, sa~n~na dukkha, sankhara dukkha, vi~n~na.na.m dukkha.m http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta- Nikaya/Samyutta3/21%20Khandha%20Samyutta/01-02-Aniccavaggo-p.htm Could you find the corresponding passage in Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation? I don't have the text with me at the moment. Thank you. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Larry - [snip] > Howard: > My perspective is that this is a misreading of the Buddha. He speaks > unfavorably about the five khandhas *affected by clinging*. It is craving, > aversion, and attachment (and confusion) that constitute the problem, not > five-sensory experience. [snip] > With metta, > Howard 32307 From: Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 2:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati: Full-Body or Nose-Door ??? In a message dated 4/17/04 10:12:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, old_dead_wood@y... writes: Do you suggest placing attention at the nostrils, the whole "breath- body", the navel ?? Different teachers have given varying opinions. I have read Buddhadasa, Gunaratana, Dhammadharo, Kornfield, Achaan Cha, Ayya Khemma, Jotiko, Thanissaro, etc. What has been your EXPERIENCE? What has worked for you? I use a point maybe 3 inches back from the tip of my nose. At times, I have used my abdomen. I think as you advance in your practice you need to have a point in your nostrils as object because you need to be mindful of a small point where the breath meets the body. The breath's affect on your abdomen over too great an area. jack 32308 From: Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Victor, Re: "why" It would help you to understand self view. When you say "I know..." you are mistaken. There is no "I". When you look at the list of all the realities you can see there is no "I" there. It is just a concept, a word, nothing else. It would teach you that understanding is a matter of seeing things directly, not reasoning. When you say "I know" what is there? Craving and clinging, not understanding impermanence, regarding 'self' and 'knowing' as solid, abiding realities. This craving, clinging, and not understanding is also just a flicker, and it's gone. You can see this directly for yourself. I recommend you start with page 1 and read the whole thing. Larry ---------------------- V: Hi Larry, Why? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: Hi Victor, I suggest you read the Visuddhimagga. Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi Larry, No, that is not self-view. You misunderstood what self-view is. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: Victor: "I know that there are rebirths and lifetimes by learning and practicing the Buddha's teaching." Hi Victor, This is a self view. I suggest you look at this "I know". Larry 32309 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:35pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Larry, Reply in context. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Re: "why" > Larry: It would help you to understand self view. Victor: Really? How? What is self view as you understand it? Larry: When you say "I know..." you are mistaken. Victor: Where did you get that idea? In the following passage, the Buddha also said "..I know...", you wouldn't say that the Buddha was mistaken, having self-view, would you? "Sariputta, when I know and see thus, should anyone say of me: 'The recluse Gotama does not have any superhuman states, any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. The recluse Gotama teaches a Dhamma (merely) hammered out by reasoning, following his own line of inquiry as it occurs to him' -- unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell.[13] Just as a bhikkhu possessed of virtue, concentration and wisdom would here and now enjoy final knowledge, so it will happen in this case, I say, that unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell." Larry: There is no "I". Victor: Why do you assume that idea "I" in the first place? Larry: When you look at the list of all the realities you can see there is no "I" there. It is just a concept, a word, nothing else. It would teach you that understanding is a matter of seeing things directly, not reasoning. Victor: What list of all the realities? Larry: When you say "I know" what is there? Craving and clinging, not understanding impermanence, regarding 'self' and 'knowing' as solid, abiding realities. Victor: Where did you get that idea? Larry: This craving, clinging, and not understanding is also just a flicker, and it's gone. Victor: Oh?? Where did it go? Larry: You can see this directly for yourself. Victor: Thanks, but no thanks. Larry: I recommend you start with page 1 and read the whole thing. Victor: Is there anything written in Visuddhimagga about self-view that is not found in the discourses? Metta, Victor > Larry 32310 From: Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 9:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Larry: You can see this directly for yourself. Victor: Thanks, but no thanks. --------------- Hi Victor, Suit yourself. Larry 32311 From: Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/18/04 8:14:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Please check the following passage: > > Rupa.m bhikkhave, dukkha.m, vedana dukkha, sa~n~na dukkha, sankhara > dukkha, vi~n~na.na.m dukkha.m > > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta- > Nikaya/Samyutta3/21%20Khandha%20Samyutta/01-02-Aniccavaggo-p.htm > > Could you find the corresponding passage in Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi's > translation? I don't have the text with me at the moment. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't have it handy either. But the Pali is straightforward: It says "Material form, monks, is unsatisfactory, feelings are unsatisfactory, recognition is unsatisfactory, fabrications are unsatisfactory, consciousness is unsatisfactory." There is nothing in this that I find surprising. It is true, as I see it, that, for several reasons, including their impermanence, their being impersonal, their being ungraspable, and their being uncontrollable, none of the khandhas are sources of satisfaction, and clinging to them and seeking satisfaction in them produces only suffering. The "all" is not horrid, nor nauseating, nor worthy of aversion. It is simply not a source of satisfaction. Satisfaction is to be found in only in relinquishment. ------------------------------------------------------ > > Thank you. > > Metta, > 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) 32312 From: Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi again, Victor - In a message dated 4/19/04 12:45:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Upasaka writes: > Satisfaction is to be found in only in relinquishment. > =================== Please drop one occurrence of "in" - you may choose either! ;-) 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) 32313 From: Eznir Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 10:08pm Subject: Re: Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi Howard, H: In Abhidhamma, a so called paramattha dhamma is an actual experiential phenomenon/condition/event as opposed to so called pa~n~natti, E: To put it differently, the element of extension is paramattha dhamma and the material form derived from the element of extension, ie., earth, is a real concept. Or ear-consciousness(sound) is paramatha dhamma and "bell-sound" is a concept........ H: ....which are purely mental constructs and not direct and actual elements of experience. E: Bell-sound is a mental construct, the identification of the sound (real) as that of a bell(concept). H: Typically, a paramattha dhamma is viewed as never being a complex, but as an elementary, irreducible experiential phenomenon occuring during a discrete and delimited time interval. E: Ideally yes. H: Jack raised the issue of a bell sound being no more real than concepts. This was in response to my pointing out that a concept isn't a single phenomenon, but a complex sequence of events, mentally grouped together and dealt with as a unit. E: "A complex sequence of events", yes. [(1)There is the sound. (2)There is the bell. (3)There is what is not the bell. (4)There is the bell- sound. (5) There is what is not the bell-sound. (1) is in the present (this moment) and the rest (2),(3),(4)and (5)are past events that one has learnt over time. This is just a simplification of the things being considered when hearing the sound.] Like the identification of the sound as that of a bell, and not of any other thing, car, aircraft or whatever. And also the differentiation of each of these separately. H: Jack pointed out that "the arising and falling away of the sound of a bell ringing is no different than the arising and falling away of a thought of a tree." E: Strictly speaking "the sound" is ear-consciousness(understood as the sound when first heard), "of a bell ringing" thinking is involved to identify it as a bell, so concepts, dhammanupassana "the arising and falling away" in sympathy with ear-consciousness, is again dhammanupassana. H: He stated quite correctly that "a sound of a bell is no less or no more real than a thought of a tree." E: "a sound" is real. "a sound of a bell" is a concept. "a thought of a tree" is a concept. H: This has led me to thinking that the Abhidhammic notion of a paramattha dhamma (or an "ultimate reality") not being a complex, but being unitary and "discrete" or "momentary" may not be "quite right". It occurs to me that, for example, there might not actually be a single sound-event that does not consist of parts. Instead, the sound of a bell might well be a phenomenon that occurs across time as a fluctuating, varying, experiential event, so that impermanence may include not only cessation, but change! E: Didn't quite understand you. I think there is confusion here. Impermanence implies change. There is arising. There is disappearance. There is change while standing. Refer Sankhata Sutta Anguttara Nikaya III.47 H: If this is so, then the distinction between paramattha dhamma and pa~n~natti (concepts/mind constructs) as it seems to be drawn by Abhidhamma would lose its force. E: This may have to be re-thought. H: Yet there still remains, I believe, a way of distinguishing between paramattha dhamma as an actual and direct element of experience and what is "concept only." What would be the criteria for identifying an apparent phenomenon as an actual one? I think that a critical criterion for a phenomenon being a paramattha dhamma is that it be experienced through a *single* sense door. E: Yes. I think in formal meditation, specially in vipassana mode, this is what is being attempted. One calls it "momentary concentration" when one is able to identify the inputs from the respective sense doors *singly* one by one, in the same sense you mean here, even though in a backdrop of inputs from other senses. But without distorting it(say, the sound), or identifying it with, say "the sound of a bell" for instance. Even if you do see that thought "the sound of a bell" one identifies it *singly*, as before, as that from the mind-door(as thinking, thinking). H: The ringing of a bell seems to satisfy this. E: Not wholly I think. See above. H: A melody, however, does not, because a melody is not just heard - to be a "melody" it must also be cognized through the mind door. To hear sound requires just the ear door, but to "hear" a melody requires the mind door as well. E: If one is not familiar with the melody, not ever heard it before (hence not cognized), like cacophonic noises which may sound melodious to people of a different culture or interest, then it satisfies. But in this case one might just start wondering what the noises are(mind-door on the sly!). H: Hardness, warmth, and bodily movement seem to satisfy this, all being experienced through the body door. E: Exactly. Here too one would identify different parts of the body, concepts slowly creeping in! With practice one trains the mind to see the four great elements, extension, cohesion, motion, heat and not "moving the leg", "adjusting postures" "back-pain" etc. H: Is this criterion of single-door experiencing necessary and sufficient? I welcome comments. E: The function of Concentration, the focus of attention, is to achieve this sense of Single-door experiencing. The degree to which this can be done determines the clarity of vision. Metta eznir 32314 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 10:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abidhamma Dear Andrea, Thank you for telling us about your background and interests. The Abhidhamma can help us to see conditions, and when we study it, it is good to see that it is not theory, right from the beginning. That is why it is useful to have discussions here in this forum. If one only reads it by oneself one may get mistaken about the real message of the Abhidhamma. Nina. op 18-04-2004 12:11 schreef eireen30 op eireen30@y...: > > Some day ago, I visited a retreat for a week, and the teacher have > had some discussions about buddhism and psychology, and so I came to > the Abhidhamma as basis for these field. 32315 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 0:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abidhamma Dear Nina, Andrea & All, Just back - Jon’s dashed off to his office as usual and I’m surrounded by an ‘ocean’ of chores to do (K.Sujin was referring to the ‘ocean of concepts’ we live in). Nina, you mentioned you’re off on a trek today, so I'm sending this in haste to wish you good weather and a pleasant time. Andrea, welcome to the list from me too - I’m very interested to read about your discussions relating to Abhidhamma during your retreat. Sounds unusual! Do you live in Europe? I hope this year is an easier one for you, mentally and physically. Links which I think Nina asked me to give you: Useful posts - just a small sample of the many helpful posts written here and put aside by the moderators - look under subject headings: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Back-up and search function for the list: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ Pali terminology assistance: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossary_of_pali_terms http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html Websites with Nina’s materials and lots of Abhidhamma: http://www.zolag.co.uk/ http://www.abhidhamma.org/ Andrea, as Nina has said, pls feel very free to ask any questions or add any comments, however basic they might seem. Good to see all the other contributions...I’ll be back when I have a little more time (and not so spaced out). I also hope others (locals or visitors) will add their impressions from the weekend of discussions. Metta, Sarah --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Andrea, > Thank you for telling us about your background and interests. The > Abhidhamma > can help us to see conditions, and when we study it, it is good to see > that > it is not theory, right from the beginning. That is why it is useful to > have > discussions here in this forum. If one only reads it by oneself one may > get > mistaken about the real message of the Abhidhamma. > Nina. 32316 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:38am Subject: Re: Video Games? Hi James, > James: There is no problem with being a teacher. I wouldn't mind > if, at times, you were my teacher. Many people in this group are at > times my teachers, either directly or indirectly. Perhaps, > sometimes, I am their teacher. However, in order for you to be my > teacher in this regard I need to have confidence in what you are > trying to teach me. Sukin: Yes, we can and do learn from many sources, not limiting ourselves to any `persons'. However, it seems to me that no one can be persuaded by logical reasoning or even by any evidence, since we usually agree with someone only if the view expressed happens to be one that at one level or the other, we already believe to be the case. So learning seems to be more like re-learning and reinforcing something we have learnt from don't know when. It so happens however, that in our case, wrong view has been accumulated to a much larger extent than right view. So unless we have had the good kamma of coming upon a group like DSG ;-), there is so much higher probability of the wrong views being reinforced hearing the `appropriate' ones that will lead us astray. This reminds me also, of how lobha also always tries to use any `knowledge' right or wrong, almost in the same way as it does any sense object. This is why intellectual right view is never enough; the firm understanding that all is in fact `unsatisfactory' must be achieved. You said in another post, that you believe that anyone who is involved in DSG is capable of achieving Stream Entry, I don't know. Some members seems to me to be not exactly getting it right, however the conditions being so complex that one does not know when what anyone says, can condition in another a turn toward the right direction. In this regard I therefore appreciate the moderators' and Nina's patience in trying to help others. James: > If you want to teach me that meditation is > wrong practice you would need to explain the reason why (I already > know about video games being a diversion and not Buddhist practice. > I have explained that. Don't jump on one thing and try to make a > federal case over it! ;-). So far your reasoning is like a sieve- > it doesn't hold anything. It may look solid from far away but up > close I can see that it is full of holes. ;-)) Sukin: Well, I have to acknowledge and admit my great ignorance and as yet very weak understanding. But like I said above, who knows what anyone says, may be the right condition to change another's mind, so I keep trying. ;-) The holes will definitely be there always, it may however be the case that your own panna might do the extra job of filling in those holes. ;-) I think this is generally the case anyway, the `good friend' being in the ultimate sense, one's own accumulated panna. > Sukin: But I am curious, when you say "Why would I listen to you as > my teacher if you cannot acknowledge reality?" > How have you come to this conclusion about my not acknowledging > reality? > > James: Because you state that formal meditation is wrong practice. > This is not acknowledging reality because the Buddha taught that it > is right practice on numerous occasions and in numerous ways. Sukin: Even if he did teach formal meditation, wouldn't that still be just `concept'? Denying formal practice may reflect a lack of true understanding of the Teachings on my part, however ultimately in principle, isn't the practice supposed to lead to insighting namas and rupas arising now? And even if I have never had insight into nama or rupa, I do at least acknowledge them, no? ;-) James: > Granted, not all forms of meditation are right practice and > sometimes people practice the wrong thing, but that isn't reason to > declare all meditation practice wrong. As the saying goes, "There > is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater" ;-)). Not > all meditation practice is wrong, or dirty. There is a pretty > simple rule to follow: Meditation should only be done to gain wisdom > and release. Meditation is gain supernormal powers is wrong. > Meditation is gain ecstatic states is wrong. Meditation to contact > deva, ghost, or hell realms is wrong. Meditation to align or > strengthen your chakras is wrong. Meditation to become physically > beautiful is wrong. Meditation to cure physical disease is wrong. > Etc. I do not do wrong meditation so I do not believe that you are > dealing in reality. I clearly know the difference between right and > wrong meditation; you do not. That is why I say you do not > acknowledge reality. Sukin: I have no problems with any of those `other' meditation practice. In fact when they claim to lead to supernatural powers, or ecstatic states, kundalini, curing physical disease and so on, I have no reason not to believe them. My concern is with getting at `Right View', with conditioning `Satipatthana'. Here, with my present understanding of conditionality and anatta, I become increasingly convinced that `deliberate doing' this or that practice, even in the present moment of *trying* to feel hardness, hearing sound, being aware of rising and falling of thoughts, etc. as being aspects of silabattaparamasa. > Sukin: Do you acknowledge reality? If so, what are those realities > according to you? > > James: Yes, I acknowledge reality-as much as I am able to (Those > around me tell me that I am more based in reality than just about > anyone they know! ;-)). Sukin: Those around you!!?? Some of the innumerable worldlings? ;-) James: > Reality and `realities' are two different > things. To use a simile, if all you can see are the puzzle pieces > but not the puzzle they form when together, you do not acknowledge reality. Sukin: Yes, Nina's response to Philip and a couple of other posts are reminders about the error of being too carried away by the concept of `ultimate realities' at the expense of everyday conventional ones. One might be too critical of the conventional world and miss seeing lessons in Dhamma in everyday concepts. I agree, and I do feel less and less aversive reaction to concepts. However, Nina's understanding is way above mine, her being comfortable with conventional reality is precisely because the level of wisdom she has gained from understanding ultimate realties, causes her to be less and less misled. I on the other hand do get swayed quite easily, so I don't think being more cautious will hurt that much. ;-) Metta, Sukin. 32317 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 4:24am Subject: Re: Video Games? Friend Sukin, Thank you for the post. I am not quite sure how to respond because you don't seem to be addressing me directly. It is more like you are `thinking out loud' in my general direction ;-)). I am going to take a few observations you have stated, which I consider important, and respond to them. I am not sure where this conversation is supposed to be heading but I might as well give it a try: Sukin: However, it seems to me that no one can be persuaded by logical reasoning or even by any evidence, since we usually agree with someone only if the view expressed happens to be one that at one level or the other, we already believe to be the case. James: I don't agree that everyone is this way. The Buddha taught that there are people who are like `empty vessels' which can then be filled with new ideas. Granted, not the majority of people are this way, but some people are this way. Sukin: You said in another post, that you believe that anyone who is involved in DSG is capable of achieving Stream Entry, I don't know. Some members seems to me to be not exactly getting it right James: One doesn't have to get it `exactly right' to achieve Stream Entry. Stream Entry is a very low level and there is a lot more to achieve after that. Be more specific as to why you think members aren't `getting it right', and I will be more specific as to why I think they are. Sukin: Even if he [the Buddha] did teach formal meditation, wouldn't that still be just `concept'? Denying formal practice may reflect a lack of true understanding of the Teachings on my part, however ultimately in principle, isn't the practice supposed to lead to insighting namas and rupas arising now? And even if I have never had insight into nama or rupa, I do at least acknowledge them, no? ;-) James: Sukin, I don't understand what you mean. What do you mean that meditation is just `concept'? What does that mean? `Namas' and `Rupas' are just concepts also. As soon as you write `nama' and `rupa', as soon as you think `nama' and `rupa' you have entered the world of concepts. [I'm reminded of the old Dr. Pepper jingle, changed a little ;-)): "I'm a concept, you're a concept, he's a concept, she's a concept. Wouldn't you like to be a concept too??" LOL!]. Sukin: Here, with my present understanding of conditionality and anatta, I become increasingly convinced that `deliberate doing' this or that practice, even in the present moment of *trying* to feel hardness, hearing sound, being aware of rising and falling of thoughts, etc. as being aspects of silabattaparamasa. James: Aspects of WHAT? Speak English, please. Sukin: I on the other hand do get swayed quite easily, so I don't think being more cautious will hurt that much. ;-) James: What are you afraid of? You're afraid of concepts?? I don't understand how you could possibly be afraid of such a thing. Conceptaphobia?? ;-)) Metta, James 32318 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 4:32am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Victor (and Larry), > Larry: This craving, clinging, and not understanding is also just a > flicker, and it's gone. > > > Victor: Oh?? Where did it go? Victor, I think what Larry means is that the craving, clinging, and not understanding, when they arise do so only to fall away immediately, followed by other states, perhaps wholesome ones. Do you agree with this? > Larry: You can see this directly for yourself. > > > Victor: Thanks, but no thanks. Are you saying Victor, that they cannot be seen, even if not so clearly in the beginning? > Larry: I recommend you start with page 1 and read the whole thing. > > > Victor: Is there anything written in Visuddhimagga about self-view > that is not found in the discourses? Do you think it is so plain, simple and easy to understand, what is written in the Suttas? Do you think the Theras' tradition of writing commentaries was wrong and could have been done without? > Metta, > Victor Metta, Sukin. 32319 From: Ken O Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati: Full-Body or Nose-Door ??? Hi old_dead_wood and Chris I not a practitionar of meditation, I only said that pay attention to all the six senses when they arise. As long as you are awake, you cannot escape from it. If you can pay attention to them when they arise and when they cease and knowing then as not me, I or myself, that what I called meditation. So I dont recommended paying any attention to nostril or stream, I only recommended the attention of right here and now of the six senses. In fact if you practise the living moment, every sense door is the door to practise, the door to enlightement. Furthermore, no one can choose whether they wish not to enter certain mind stream, why, because all are anatta, so we do not the power to say, let my thoughts be thus or not thus. Ken O 32320 From: Ken O Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi old_dead_wood to know whether there are rebirths or not, one simply look at one surronding. The changing of seasons, in spring, the sprout of flowers, the buzzing of bees etc, then in winter, the wither of the flower, the sound of the winter wind etc, have shown, all impermanent objects renew themselves for endless cycles, they die and they rebirth again in that sense. These are experiences one can truly see and experience. If there is no rebirth, then this world will be a chaotic world since there is no punishment for bad deeds so why bother to do good then. This is the logic one can think whether there is rebirth Ken O 32321 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi Howard, Thank you for your reply. So the Buddha did teach that Rupa.m dukkha.m, vedana dukkha, sa~n~na dukkha, sankhara dukkha, vi~n~na.na.m dukkha.m, If the Buddha spoke unfavorably about the five khandhas *affected by clinging*, did he also speak unfavorably about the five khandhas? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 4/18/04 8:14:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > > > Please check the following passage: > > > > Rupa.m bhikkhave, dukkha.m, vedana dukkha, sa~n~na dukkha, sankhara > > dukkha, vi~n~na.na.m dukkha.m > > > > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta- > > Nikaya/Samyutta3/21%20Khandha%20Samyutta/01-02-Aniccavaggo-p.htm > > > > Could you find the corresponding passage in Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi's > > translation? I don't have the text with me at the moment. > > > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't have it handy either. But the Pali is straightforward: It says > "Material form, monks, is unsatisfactory, feelings are unsatisfactory, > recognition is unsatisfactory, fabrications are unsatisfactory, consciousness is > unsatisfactory." > There is nothing in this that I find surprising. It is true, as I see > it, that, for several reasons, including their impermanence, their being > impersonal, their being ungraspable, and their being uncontrollable, none of the > khandhas are sources of satisfaction, and clinging to them and seeking > satisfaction in them produces only suffering. > The "all" is not horrid, nor nauseating, nor worthy of aversion. It is > simply not a source of satisfaction. Satisfaction is to be found in only in > relinquishment. > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > Thank you. > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > > =========================== > With metta, > Howard 32322 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abidhamma Hi, Sarah (and Andrea) - In a message dated 4/19/04 3:10:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Andrea, welcome to the list from me too - I’m very interested to read > about your discussions relating to Abhidhamma during your retreat. Sounds > unusual! ======================== A welcome from me also, a fellow list member, Andrea. Yes, Sarah, it is unusual to have Abhidhamma discussions at a retreat (a meditation retreat, I presume). Coincidentally, though, next Sunday I'll be spending my birthday from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at a (one-day) "meditation retreat" in Manhattan conducted by a Theravadin meditation teacher, Andrew Olendzki, who is very much Abhidhamma-oriented, and who teaches long retreats relating Abhidhamma to meditation. You might find the description of the "retreat" interesting, so I copy it here from the NY Insight web site: ___________________________ Satipatthana: 108 Mental Objects Andrew Olendzki A comprehensive review of the fourth foundation of mindfulness as described in the Foundations of Mindfulness Discourse (Satipatthana Sutta). This workshop goes systematically through each of the 108 objects of meditation found in this classical textbook on insight meditation, in both analytic (reading, talking, discussing) and experiential (meditation) modes. The subjects covered include the hindrances, aggregates, sense spheres, factors of awakening, and the noble truths. This may not be the way most people are used to practicing insight meditation, but it is the way the Buddha described how to do it in the classical textual tradition. Meditation experience is recommended. ========================== 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) 32323 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains In a message dated 4/16/04 11:27:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: I'm still curious as to sufficient (and necessary) criteria for an apparent element of experience, whether mental or physical, to be actual (i.e., a paramattha dhamma). So far I'm aware of two apparently necessary criteria: 1) It is experienced via single sense door, and 2) It is continuous in time (i.e., not occurring off and on, with other phenomena interspersed). Howard and all, How is a thought/concept as object of attention different than a thought/concept arising from an object of attention that comes from one of the 5 physical senses? I think I know this but I got confused over the weekend about the basic workings of the Abhidhamma. jack 32324 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abidhamma In a message dated 4/19/04 6:24:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: Coincidentally, though, next Sunday I'll be spending my birthday from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at a (one-day) "meditation retreat" in Manhattan conducted by a Theravadin meditation teacher, Andrew Olendzki, who is very much Abhidhamma-oriented, and who teaches long retreats relating Abhidhamma to meditation. Howard, I hope to hear more about this after you have attended this retreat. Jack 32325 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/19/04 9:13:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Thank you for your reply. So the Buddha did teach that > > Rupa.m dukkha.m, vedana dukkha, sa~n~na dukkha, sankhara > dukkha, vi~n~na.na.m dukkha.m, > > If the Buddha spoke unfavorably about the five khandhas *affected by > clinging*, did he also speak unfavorably about the five khandhas? > > Metta, > Victor > ========================== I think that my reply was reasonably clear, and there really isn't a need for it to be restated into a formulation that is particularly suitable for drawing a desired conclusion. I said that the five khandhas are not sources of satisfaction for sentient beings, that only relinquishment is. I abide by 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) 32326 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Criteria for What Constitutes a Paramattha Dhamma In a message dated 4/19/04 6:44:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: I said that the five khandhas are not sources of satisfaction for sentient beings, that only relinquishment is. I abide by that. Howard and all, My view is that the 5 khandhas are also the source (vehicle) for peace and happiness. That is, the human realm, says the Buddha, is the best place for enlightenment as opposed to the heavenly realm. I interpret the human realm as one's having the 5 khandhas while in the heavenly realm one does not. This is not contrary to your statement above. 32327 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 3:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi, Jack - In a message dated 4/19/04 9:28:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jackhat1@a... writes: > How is a thought/concept as object of attention different than a > thought/concept arising from an object of attention that comes from one of > the 5 physical > senses? I think I know this but I got confused over the weekend about the > basic workings of the Abhidhamma. > > jack > ======================= As I see it, the difference is the following: An object of attention arising through any sense door - a *paramatthic* object, that is, such as hardness or pleasantness or a surge of fear - is a single phenomenon, whereas this is not the case for what we usually call an idea or thought or concept. While we seem to think that such a concept is a single mind-door phenomenon, I don't think it really is, but is instead a complex mind-door process composed of a multitude of phenomena. To be explicit - when we seem to have the thought of "a tree", an apparently single mental object, what has really happened is that a series of tree-images, recognitions, associated memories, internalized sounds that form"namings" etc have arisen, topped off by an act of mental grouping-as-a-unit and the possible application of the labeling of "tree". 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) 32328 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains In a message dated 4/19/04 7:10:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: To be explicit - when we seem to have the thought of "a tree", an apparently single mental object, what has really happened is that a series of tree-images, recognitions, associated memories, internalized sounds that form"namings" etc have arisen, topped off by an act of mental grouping-as-a-unit and the possible application of the labeling of "tree". Howard, Yes but when I meditate, at times, "tree" becomes just a thought arising and passing away. There is more "thought-ness" than "tree-ness" if that makes any sense. This seems different than my looking out the window and deciding that there is a tree there. "Tree" as object of meditation does not seem to have to have images, memories, etc. This seems analogous to a bell, at times, just being a sound. Seeing in the seeing being the same as thinking in the thinking. Of course, what I think could be the case might not be. I think part of my problem is that I have somewhat learned to deconstruct my physical situation into ultimates through practice at many material 4-element meditations. I can, though very imperfectly and clumsily, see some cetasikas arise along with physical objects of meditation. But, a thought as object arising and falling away seems different. I can't deconstruct it. jack 32329 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains In a message dated 4/19/2004 7:09:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > As I see it, the difference is the following: An object of attention > arising through any sense door - a *paramatthic* object, that is, such as > hardness or pleasantness or a surge of fear - is a single phenomenon, > whereas this > is not the case for what we usually call an idea or thought or concept. > While > we seem to think that such a concept is a single mind-door phenomenon, I > don't > think it really is, but is instead a complex mind-door process composed of a > > multitude of phenomena. To be explicit - when we seem to have the thought of > > "a tree", an apparently single mental object, what has really happened is > that > a series of tree-images, recognitions, associated memories, internalized > sounds that form"namings" etc have arisen, topped off by an act of mental > grouping-as-a-unit and the possible application of the labeling of "tree". > > With metta, > Howard > Hi Howard My feeling is that this whole topic on Paramattha dhamma's is more or less a "non-issue." There really is no stress whatsoever in the suttas where the Buddha makes an issue out of it. If one wants to try to make an issue out of it by reading things into the suttas, as some abhidhammists have, that's the only way it becomes an issue. I feel its an intellectual "sidetrack" at best... and a distraction to the real issues of breaking free from attachment. Just thought I'd run that by you and see what you thought. TG 32330 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 9:41am Subject: Re: Video Games? Hi James, > Sukin: However, it seems to me that no one can be persuaded by > logical reasoning or even by any evidence, since we usually agree > with someone only if the view expressed happens to be one that at > one level or the other, we already believe to be the case. > > James: I don't agree that everyone is this way. The Buddha taught > that there are people who are like `empty vessels' which can then be > filled with new ideas. Granted, not the majority of people are this > way, but some people are this way. Sukin: I am not sure which part of the Teachings you are referring to about the `empty vessels', but isn't it true that we all have traveled through samsara over countless lifetimes, hence the accumulated 'views'? A new born baby and a seasoned old man have little difference in terms of accumulated views, isn't it? Only difference is in the ability to communicate based on conventional realities and the corresponding verbal designations? > Sukin: You said in another post, that you believe that anyone who is > involved in DSG is capable of achieving Stream Entry, I don't know. > Some members seems to me to be not exactly getting it right > > James: One doesn't have to get it `exactly right' to achieve Stream > Entry. Stream Entry is a very low level and there is a lot more to > achieve after that. Be more specific as to why you think members > aren't `getting it right', and I will be more specific as to why I > think they are. Sukin: I think, Stream Entry is what requires the more than quantum leap, after that one flows along, no? Regarding 'not getting it right', I think there are so many aspects of it that it would be difficult for me to recall and to list them. I think you have seen through reading the various posts here, where the NAG differ from the FPG(Formal Practice Group). One basic outcome of that difference is in what NAG and FPG imply. If you wish we can discuss what it means to practice?! > Sukin: Even if he [the Buddha] did teach formal meditation, wouldn't > that still be just `concept'? Denying formal practice may reflect a > lack of true understanding of the Teachings on my part, however > ultimately in principle, isn't the practice supposed to lead to > insighting namas and rupas arising now? And even if I have never had > insight into nama or rupa, I do at least acknowledge them, no? ;-) > > James: Sukin, I don't understand what you mean. What do you mean > that meditation is just `concept'? What does that mean? `Namas' > and `Rupas' are just concepts also. As soon as you write `nama' > and `rupa', as soon as you think `nama' and `rupa' you have entered > the world of concepts. Sukin: This is another area where I think the NAG has stressed again and again, i.e. the need to differentiate between concept and reality. And note, I said `formal' meditation and not just `meditation'. In my own case, by the time there is even any awareness of an experience, be it through the sense or mind door, it is always already concept, long before any recognizing or naming. When and if there is direct experience, it would be satipatthana of a much developed level, I think. However, in speaking about this distinction between concept and reality and identifying the latter, verbal designation such as citta, cetasikas and rupa are used. These are `concepts' at this level, however they point to `realities' which *do* exist in the ultimate sense. These contrasts with designation such as `man' or `I', these are unreal and never exist anywhere. And this is the distinction that I try to make. So in the concept of `formal practice', the concept implies a conventional activity bounded by time and space and an illusory self, all of which are mind projected and can never be found in actual experience, though ignorance may label such activities as actual and real. `Meditation' itself may refer to the actual moment when sati arises to experience a reality. However, this cannot be the outcome of deliberate looking, as this looking is with tanha (desire) and if this is consequence of a deliberate `planned' activity, such as `formal meditation', then there is an added layer of `self-view'. It is less a problem if one slips every now and then and from greed try to have mindfulness; in fact it must be so since we have accumulated so much greed, but then we also have good friends to remind us every now and then about the correct practice. It is harder when one *believes* in it, i.e. `formal deliberate looking'. And this may be a result of comparing the moments of what is experienced and understood during formal practice with non-practice times. There must be such a difference! However, this may not be what the Buddha had in mind when he taught us about Dhamma. Allow me to illustrate. In normal everyday life if we are aware, we would know when there is any awareness, that the rest of the time is all ignorance. Sometimes upon hindsight one can know that the ignorance is accompanied with lobha, sometimes with ditthi, with dosa, or with mana, in other words, 99.99% of the times it is akusala of one kind or the other. But then within a very short time when one starts to practice formally, there is a sense of `knowing' or `being aware' of experiences one following the other, in long stretches. Is it reasonable to think this to be `sati'?! Does it so easily come about, especially in light of the fact that not too long ago it was *all* ignorance!!? I think some of us NAG members; have experienced some sati uncalled for. This has indicated to us that sati lasts only for an instant followed by much thinking *and* many, many moments of ignorance and other akusala. The difference qualitatively between moments of sati and no sati is to some extent known. It is also not just through inference that `deliberate doing' is seen to be different from these moments of sati. And `self' via tanha, mana and ditthi is recognized, though only vaguely, when there is any `trying' to be mindful. The attraction to formal practice seems to lie in the apparent difference from the moments of non-practice. But in my estimation, this is an exercise in avijja and is the ideal feeding ground for Mara. Also mana and ditthi grows here. Hope you don't mind the directness. ;-) > Sukin: Here, with my present understanding of conditionality and > anatta, I become increasingly convinced that `deliberate doing' this > or that practice, even in the present moment of *trying* to feel > hardness, hearing sound, being aware of rising and falling of > thoughts, etc. as being aspects of silabattaparamasa. > > James: Aspects of WHAT? Speak English, please. Sukin: Sorry, I thought you would know this by now. This term refers broadly to `adherence to rites and rituals' and I include `formal practice' in this. > Sukin: I on the other hand do get swayed quite easily, so I don't > think being more cautious will hurt that much. ;-) > > James: What are you afraid of? You're afraid of concepts?? I don't > understand how you could possibly be afraid of such a thing. > Conceptaphobia?? ;-)) Sukin: :-) You are right, it is a silly statement. There is no `I' to be afraid of any `concept'. There is either ignorance and wrong view or there is not. What I however wanted to stress is that, with the still weak discriminative ability, "explanations" of all sorts, be they scientific or philosophical will often easily put me off track. For example, my understanding of rupa is still extremely vague and weak. On the other hand, I have been brought up to view materiality the scientific way, which is quite different from the Buddha's understanding. So if I were to read some science book, I may start to be drawn further away from any `real' understanding of rupa. Besides, on a more fundamental level, ignorance happens well before any recognition of `thing' and `events'. The signs and details are good objects for ignorance. And so if our views are not made straight, at least intellectually, ignorance will easily condition wrong view of self and the Buddha's teachings would then be taken as a `thing to do'. Sorry for the abrupt ending James, time I went up to sleep. :-( Metta, Sukin 32331 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 6:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains In a message dated 4/19/04 9:35:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, TGrand458@a... writes: My feeling is that this whole topic on Paramattha dhamma's is more or less a "non-issue." There really is no stress whatsoever in the suttas where the Buddha makes an issue out of it. If one wants to try to make an issue out of it by reading things into the suttas, as some abhidhammists have, that's the only way it becomes an issue. I feel its an intellectual "sidetrack" at best... and a distraction to the real issues of breaking free from attachment. Just thought I'd run that by you and see what you thought. TG, In my practice some of it is very important and I think supported by the suttas. An example, is my 4-element meditation which attempts to break my physical experience into paramattha dhammas. A sutta explains it as analogous to a butcher cutting a cow into meat. As he spreads the cow parts around, they cease being part of a cow and become parts of meat. Just so, my sense of an "I" sitting on a cushion mediating (somewhat) ceases to become an "I" and becomes impersonal hardness, coolness,etc. At times during other meditations, thoughts and emotions also become impersonal, without an "I". jack 32332 From: connie Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 0:45pm Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Ken O and old_dead_wood, I wonder if we can really say to look at seasons or plants to confirm rebirth since those wouldn't have either life faculty or kamma. For myself, it makes sense that there is the momentary life cycle of each thought moment and that life is really only that long; or to think that the conventional rebirth is like waking from a dream as we do each new day. Why would the rules change at the physical end of life-span death (given that I can't say I know there is no more rebirth for me)? peace, connie 32333 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:59pm Subject: Re: Video Games? Friend Sukin, Sukin: I am not sure which part of the Teachings you are referring to about the `empty vessels', but isn't it true that we all have traveled through samsara over countless lifetimes, hence the accumulated 'views'? James: No. Sukin: A new born baby and a seasoned old man have little difference in terms of accumulated views, isn't it? James: No. Sukin: Only difference is in the ability to communicate based on conventional realities and the corresponding verbal designations? James: No. Sukin: I think, Stream Entry is what requires the more than quantum leap, after that one flows along, no? James: No. Sukin: If you wish we can discuss what it means to practice?! James: No. Nothing to discuss: follow the Eightfold Path. Sukin: But then within a very short time when one starts to practice formally, there is a sense of `knowing' or `being aware' of experiences one following the other, in long stretches. Is it reasonable to think this to be `sati'?! James: Yes. Sukin: Does it so easily come about, especially in light of the fact that not too long ago it was *all* ignorance!!? James: Yes. Sukin: The attraction to formal practice seems to lie in the apparent difference from the moments of non-practice. But in my estimation, this is an exercise in avijja and is the ideal feeding ground for Mara. Also mana and ditthi grows here. Hope you don't mind the directness. ;-) James: That is directness? I think I need to give you some lessons in `directness'! LOL! ;-)) Sukin: Sorry, I thought you would know this by now. James: Other than the basic Pali vocabulary, I refuse to learn more advanced Pali vocabulary. I find its use in this type of forum pretentious. Sukin: This term refers broadly to `adherence to rites and rituals' and I include `formal practice' in this. James: Why do you include `formal meditation practice' in this category? That doesn't make any sense. Adherence to rites and rituals is the superstitious belief that doing certain actions will purify oneself, regardless of the reasons of apparent consequences of those actions. For example, during the Buddha's time there were several ascetics who would wash themselves in the river Ganges three times a day to purify themselves; some ascetics would keep various fires burning to purify themselves. This is supersititious behavior that has no basis in reality. Meditation does not fall into this category!! It has a reason and a measurable outcome which matches the reason! It is logical and makes sense. The Buddha taught for the practitioner to sit crosslegged, with the back straight, and to bring mindfulness to the fore. Then the practitioner was to develop vipassana, jhana, or brahama-viharas. What exactly do you see that is superstitious in this behavior? Sukin: And so if our views are not made straight, at least intellectually, ignorance will easily condition wrong view of self and the Buddha's teachings would then be taken as a `thing to do'. James: The Buddha's teachings are `a thing to do'. They aren't pure philosophy to just think about and ponder. The Buddha asked his disciples to be diligent in their effort. If you don't think that the Buddha's teachings are a `thing to do' how do you explain the Vinaya Pitaka? It lists 227 different `things to do' for a monk. Metta, James 32334 From: Eddie Lou Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 3:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana - Rebirth with genetic Info. Hi, All, My reasoning is: 1. the case of people (like historic figures - Beethoven, Mozart, etc), who exhibited prodigial talents from birth. The prerequisite being - you must first believe firmly in 'Cause & Effect', something no one should dispute because it is all very clear-cut. Okay, with that squared away and firm, we can proceed to say, why ? some people like - Mozart or Beethoven got complex skills with no visible/discernible cause of being taught or tutored. Why ? some infant born with physical deformities, with no cause of it that make them ('most likely, though) suffer from such handicap. All these causes are hidden somewhere -->-> in previous live(s). Remember, we always believe there is a cause to any effect. Now, I have a nagging question. Some 30+ years ago, we have a house guest - a very tall, big framed caucasian back in my oriental home country. I call him a 'caucasian', which he denied, saying he is Chinese, but he does not look like at all. Not a bit. He is blonde or red head. I was later told by his uncle (who has no religion at the time), his mum (a wife of a rich man in a rural village) had a dream in which 2 British pilots (during World War II) appeared to ask for rebirth with her. She told her husband of the dream but was taken lightly. When she had a baby, her husband was extremely furious because the infant has total 'caucasian look'. The wife did a 'I told you so' but no one believed her. She said now the dream was true, she said - then the 2nd one will be like that also. Her husband put her under 'total' surveillance with a lot of maid/servants and confined her only inside the house - a House arrest. Because of small town (Everyone knows everyone) compounded with being an instant celebrity, all eyes were on her. Every of her movements was watched. Sure enough, the 2nd one also was a 'caucasian'. I only saw one of the two, though. Now my question is why the 'genetic information' got passed and came with the rebirth. I wonder if anyone can help me find an explanation. One of my friends suggested maybe she still was able to fool around for a second child. I do not think so because of such celebrity status and small town settings and lots of maids / servants environment in a rich family in oriental country. I do not think so. Anyone can understand what I mean, if you had lived or stayed in such environment. But I do not totally rule out that possibility. She could be lucky. How about the cases of - quite many stories of kids talking about their previous lives with verifiable names, spouses, home towns, even hidden treasures got dug out revealed by 1 or 2 years old kids! ? One such case was featured on Channel 2 or 4 or 7, forgot which one. About a kid talking about his previous life as a US pilot shot down by Japanese, some 60 years ago! Info verified as correct by his father! Thanks, All. Eddie --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Larry, > > I used to have doubt about whether there is round of > rebirth. How [snipped...] > and the Teaching. > > Metta, > Victor 32335 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 4:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi, TG - In a message dated 4/19/2004 12:31:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458 writes: > > In a message dated 4/19/2004 7:09:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, > upasaka@a... writes: > > > As I see it, the difference is the following: An object of attention > > arising through any sense door - a *paramatthic* object, that is, such as > > hardness or pleasantness or a surge of fear - is a single phenomenon, > > whereas this > > is not the case for what we usually call an idea or thought or concept. > > While > > we seem to think that such a concept is a single mind-door phenomenon, I > > don't > > think it really is, but is instead a complex mind-door process composed of a > > > > multitude of phenomena. To be explicit - when we seem to have the thought of > > > > "a tree", an apparently single mental object, what has really happened is > > that > > a series of tree-images, recognitions, associated memories, internalized > > sounds that form"namings" etc have arisen, topped off by an act of mental > > grouping-as-a-unit and the possible application of the labeling of "tree". > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > > > Hi Howard > > My feeling is that this whole topic on Paramattha dhamma's is more or less a > "non-issue." > There really is no stress whatsoever in the suttas where the Buddha makes an > issue out of it. If one wants to try to make an issue out of it by reading > things into the suttas, as some abhidhammists have, that's the only way it > becomes an issue. I feel its an intellectual "sidetrack" at best... and a > distraction to the real issues of breaking free from > attachment. > > Just thought I'd run that by you and see what you thought. > > TG ============================= I agree that the Buddha didn't explicitly make the paramattha dhamma vs pa~n~natti distinction in the suttas. However, he said that all there is (leaving aside nibbana) is eye and visual object, ear and audible object, nose and olfactory object, tongue and gustatory object, body and bodily object, and mind and mind object. Everything there is partakes of only one of these domains. Thus the Buddha countenanced only paramattha dhammas in the suttas. (A tree, being able to be seen, touched, heard (leaves rustling), smelled, etc, falls into none of these categories, and is, thus, according to the Buddha in the suttas, not a part of "the all". Pointing out that what the Buddha did countenance as existing does not at all consist of the usual inventory of worldly "objects" is, IMO, an extremely important zeroing in on a fundamental and central aspect of the Dhamma. With metta, Howard 32336 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 4:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi, Jack - In a message dated 4/19/2004 12:31:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Jackhat1 writes: > In a message dated 4/19/04 7:10:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... > writes: > To be explicit - when we seem to have the thought of > "a tree", an apparently single mental object, what has really happened is > that > a series of tree-images, recognitions, associated memories, internalized > sounds that form"namings" etc have arisen, topped off by an act of mental > grouping-as-a-unit and the possible application of the labeling of "tree". > Howard, > > Yes but when I meditate, at times, "tree" becomes just a thought arising and > passing away. There is more "thought-ness" than "tree-ness" if that makes any > sense. This seems different than my looking out the window and deciding that > there is a tree there. > "Tree" as object of meditation does not seem to have to have images, > memories, etc. This seems analogous to a bell, at times, just being a sound. Seeing in > the seeing being the same as thinking in the thinking. Of course, what I > think could be the case might not be. > > I think part of my problem is that I have somewhat learned to deconstruct my > physical situation into ultimates through practice at many material 4-element > meditations. I can, though very imperfectly and clumsily, see some cetasikas > arise along with physical objects of meditation. But, a thought as object > arising and falling away seems different. I can't > deconstruct it. > > jack ============================= I *do* understand what you mean. It isn't different fo me most of the time. but I do think that that a more "microscopic" look would allow for that deconstruction. Of course I could well be wrong in this. With metta, Howard 32337 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi Howard and TG, TG, well said! Sadhu! Howard, please check the idea "all there is (leaving aside nibbana) is eye and visual object, ear and audible object, nose and olfactory object, tongue and gustatory object, body and bodily object, and mind and mind object. Everything there is partakes of only one of these domains." against the following passage Staying at Savatthi. Then a brahman cosmologist [1] went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything [2] exist?" "'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman." "Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?" "'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahman." "Then is everything a Oneness?" "'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman." "Then is everything a Manyness?" "'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering. in Samyutta Nikaya XII.48 Lokayatika Sutta The Cosmologist http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-048.html Please also check note [2] 2. "Everything" may also be translated as "the All." Concerning this term, SN XXXV.23 says, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This is termed the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his assertion, would be unable to explain, and furthermore would be put to grief. Why is that? Because it lies beyond range." For more on this topic, see The Mind Like Fire Unbound, Chapter 1. Please note that Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, TG - > > In a message dated 4/19/2004 12:31:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458 writes: > [snip] > > Hi Howard > > > > My feeling is that this whole topic on Paramattha dhamma's is more or less a > > "non-issue." > > There really is no stress whatsoever in the suttas where the Buddha makes an > > issue out of it. If one wants to try to make an issue out of it by reading > > things into the suttas, as some abhidhammists have, that's the only way it > > becomes an issue. I feel its an intellectual "sidetrack" at best... and a > > distraction to the real issues of breaking free from > > attachment. > > > > Just thought I'd run that by you and see what you thought. > > > > TG > ============================= > I agree that the Buddha didn't explicitly make the paramattha dhamma vs pa~n~natti distinction in the suttas. However, he said that all there is (leaving aside nibbana) is eye and visual object, ear and audible object, nose and olfactory object, tongue and gustatory object, body and bodily object, and mind and mind object. Everything there is partakes of only one of these domains. Thus the Buddha countenanced only paramattha dhammas in the suttas. (A tree, being able to be seen, touched, heard (leaves rustling), smelled, etc, falls into none of these categories, and is, thus, according to the Buddha in the suttas, not a part of "the all". Pointing out that what the Buddha did countenance as existing does not at all consist of the usual inventory of worldly "objects" is, IMO, an extremely important zeroing in on a fundamental and central aspect of the Dhamma. > > With metta, > Howard 32338 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 3:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi, Victor - I'm sorry. I don't get your point in the following. I do understand dependent origination, the middle way, and emptiness, and I understand the Sabba Sutta, but I fail to understand the point you want to make. With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/19/04 8:56:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard and TG, > > TG, well said! Sadhu! > > Howard, please check the idea > > "all there is (leaving aside nibbana) is eye and visual object, ear > and audible object, nose and olfactory object, tongue and gustatory > object, body and bodily object, and mind and mind object. Everything > there is partakes of only one of these domains." > > against > > the following passage > > > Staying at Savatthi. Then a brahman cosmologist [1] went to the > Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. > After an exchange of friendly greetings &courtesies, he sat to one > side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Now, > then, Master Gotama, does everything [2] exist?" > "'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman." > > "Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?" > > "'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, > brahman." > > "Then is everything a Oneness?" > > "'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman." > > "Then is everything a Manyness?" > > "'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology, > brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the > Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come > fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes > consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes > name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six > sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes > contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From > feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a > requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From > clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From > becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a > requisite condition, then aging &death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, > distress, &despair come into play. Such is the origination of this > entire mass of stress &suffering. > > > in > > Samyutta Nikaya XII.48 > Lokayatika Sutta > The Cosmologist > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-048.html > > Please also check note [2] > > > 2. "Everything" may also be translated as "the All." Concerning this > term, SN XXXV.23 says, "What is the All? Simply the eye &forms, ear > &sounds, nose &aromas, tongue &flavors, body &tactile > sensations, intellect &ideas. This is termed the All. Anyone who > would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if > questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his assertion, > would be unable to explain, and furthermore would be put to grief. > Why is that? Because it lies beyond range." For more on this topic, > see The Mind Like Fire Unbound, Chapter 1. > > > Please note that > > > Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via > the middle > > > Metta, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, TG - > > > >In a message dated 4/19/2004 12:31:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > TGrand458 writes: > > > [snip] > >>Hi Howard > >> > >>My feeling is that this whole topic on Paramattha dhamma's is > more or less a > >>"non-issue." > >>There really is no stress whatsoever in the suttas where the > Buddha makes an > >>issue out of it. If one wants to try to make an issue out of it > by reading > >>things into the suttas, as some abhidhammists have, that's the > only way it > >>becomes an issue. I feel its an intellectual "sidetrack" at > best... and a > >>distraction to the real issues of breaking free from > >>attachment. > >> > >>Just thought I'd run that by you and see what you thought. > >> > >>TG > >============================= > > I agree that the Buddha didn't explicitly make the paramattha > dhamma vs pa~n~natti distinction in the suttas. However, he said > that all there is (leaving aside nibbana) is eye and visual object, > ear and audible object, nose and olfactory object, tongue and > gustatory object, body and bodily object, and mind and mind object. > Everything there is partakes of only one of these domains. Thus the > Buddha countenanced only paramattha dhammas in the suttas. (A tree, > being able to be seen, touched, heard (leaves rustling), smelled, > etc, falls into none of these categories, and is, thus, according to > the Buddha in the suttas, not a part of "the all". Pointing out that > what the Buddha did countenance as existing does not at all consist > of the usual inventory of worldly "objects" is, IMO, an extremely > important zeroing in on a fundamental and central aspect of the > Dhamma. > > > >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) 32339 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi Howard, It is OK. Now I would like to draw your attention to the connection between the following idea "all there is (leaving aside nibbana) is eye and visual object, ear and audible object, nose and olfactory object, tongue and gustatory object, body and bodily object, and mind and mind object. Everything there is partakes of only one of these domains." and the Buddha's reply to the brahman cosmologist's question in the following passage Staying at Savatthi. Then a brahman cosmologist [1] went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings &courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything [2] exist?" "'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-048.html Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > I'm sorry. I don't get your point in the following. I do understand > dependent origination, the middle way, and emptiness, and I understand the Sabba > Sutta, but I fail to understand the point you want to make. > > With metta, > Howard 32340 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/19/04 10:58:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > It is OK. > > Now I would like to draw your attention to the connection between > the following idea > > "all there is (leaving aside nibbana) is eye and visual object, ear > and audible object, nose and olfactory object, tongue and gustatory > object, body and bodily object, and mind and mind object. Everything > there is partakes of only one of these domains." > > and the Buddha's reply to the brahman cosmologist's question in the > following passage > > > Staying at Savatthi. Then a brahman cosmologist [1] went to the > Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. > After an exchange of friendly greetings &courtesies, he sat to one > side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Now, > then, Master Gotama, does everything [2] exist?" > > "'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman." > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-048.html > > > Metta, > Victor > ===================== As I said, Victor, I understand the middle way of dependent origination. I understand that there are no self-existent dhammas, and I do not take paramattha dhammas to be self-existent, mrely ctually experienced. They are dependent, ephemeral phenomena which have no existence whatsoever *in and of themselves*. You have seen me talk against the notion of sabhava often, you should know that the Kaccayangotta sutta is one of my favorites, and I should think you would understand my position on this matter by now. Also, I would appreciate it, Victor, if, when you wish to make a point, you would make it straight out rather than throwing a few quotations at me and leaving it for me to deduce the teaching you hope to impart. For that matter, I think it would be far preferable if matters were discussed rather "teachings being imparted". 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) 32341 From: Eznir Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:53pm Subject: Re: Video Games? Dear Sukin, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi James, > > > Sukin: > This is another area where I think the NAG has stressed again and > again, i.e. the need to differentiate between concept and reality. > And note, I said `formal' meditation and not just `meditation'. > In my own case, by the time there is even any awareness of an > experience, be it through the sense or mind door, it is always > already concept, long before any recognizing or naming. eznir: How can there be concepts, long before any recognizing or naming? I thought the Javana thought moments, where these concepts are fabricated, is the last to come just before the retentive thought moments, in the train of thoughts, am I right? Moreover, how can you say "recognizing and naming" when "naming" itself involves conceptualizing and still say there are concepts "long before recognizing or naming"? By the way, how does those in the NAG follow the Teachings of Lord Buddha as given in the Tripitaka in order to attain stream-entry let alone Nibbana? Please understand that I am only trying to comprehend the thought patterns that underlie this idea of non-action(ie, if NAG means Non-Action Group). Metta eznir 32342 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 0:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: the self. . . how ? #1. Dear Eznir, > I see that you have reviewed your post. I too did the same and wish > to say something about it. :-) > We seem to have discussed the dhamma from two different platforms, > Abhidhamma and The Suttas. Perhaps this may be the reason why our > views do not tally. It's like you are seated on top of a tall wall > with an admirable view and I, at the foot of this wall, peeping > through the crevices and discussing the same view. The Abhidhamma has been for me, a great help. But I am probably one of the least read in this group. At the top of the wall or at the foot of it, Abhidhamma or Sutta, the Dhamma is about everyday life. And here, there is no difference between your life and my own. Only the correct interpretation and application is required. As you say: > Our views should tally in an ultimate sense. It's just the > defilements that stands in the way. I hope we will one day overcome our defilements enough to come to agreement about the Dhamma. ;-) Metta, Sukin. 32343 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 0:01am Subject: Re: Video Games? Hi James, > James: Why do you include `formal meditation practice' in this > category? That doesn't make any sense. Adherence to rites and > rituals is the superstitious belief that doing certain actions will > purify oneself, regardless of the reasons of apparent consequences > of those actions. For example, during the Buddha's time there were > several ascetics who would wash themselves in the river Ganges three > times a day to purify themselves; some ascetics would keep various > fires burning to purify themselves. This is supersititious behavior > that has no basis in reality. Sukin: This is one aspect of it, but only the gross one. One may have for an instant had an experience, say jhana. And may have noticed that prior to that there was a nimita or something which was the object of citta. One then seeks to simulate the situation, perhaps experimenting or seeking guidance and then slowly developing the right conditions to achieve it. This is possible, because it requires the kind of panna which sees danger in sense objects and fixing the attention on a `conceptual' object. This object can be reproduced with practice. However when it comes to the perception and understanding of nama and rupa, it is altogether different. If indeed there has been a moment of satipatthana, one may like to have it again. The wanting may then seek to create a situation or believe in a practice which is supposed to get one there. So one has `clung' to some projected method, failing to appreciate the fact that `sati' is a conditioned reality and cannot be made to arise by following some conventional activity or even the lead of `volition'. In other words, if there is an idea of `doing something' to condition satipatthana, it is believe in a form of rules or ritual. James: > Meditation does not fall into this > category!! It has a reason and a measurable outcome which matches > the reason! It is logical and makes sense. The Buddha taught for > the practitioner to sit crosslegged, with the back straight, and to > bring mindfulness to the fore. Then the practitioner was to develop > vipassana, jhana, or brahama-viharas. What exactly do you see that > is superstitious in this behavior? Sukin: What does for example `sitting cross-legged' have anything to do with the arising of mindfulness? What is the causal connection? And `bringing mindfulness to the fore', is it so easily aroused? Or is volition so powerful in bringing about any desired state of mind? I understand that the experience during formal sitting appears different from the everyday activity of being caught in one sense or mind object or the other, like a monkey jumping here and there. But is it any less being `caught' when there is a sense of now being able to observe those activities more closely. Is there any awareness of the characteristic of ignorance, attachment, and aversion and such, i.e. independent of any `self' doing the noting? Is such kind of awareness in essence any different from generally being aware of one's experiences? Except for perhaps, attempting to relate them to the concept of Anatta and conditionality? Does the knowledge of the teachings validates the quality of experience or could it in fact be used to justify any wrong practice? Lobha can appear calm and peaceful like sati, is one mistaking one for the other? Panna is accompanied by detachment, why does one seek to continue sitting? For more sati and panna? Is one equally calm being interrupted during meditation or not having any chance to meditate at all? These are some questions that come to mind, what do you think? > James: The Buddha's teachings are `a thing to do'. They aren't pure > philosophy to just think about and ponder. The Buddha asked his > disciples to be diligent in their effort. If you don't think that > the Buddha's teachings are a `thing to do' how do you explain the > Vinaya Pitaka? It lists 227 different `things to do' for a monk. Sukin: The institution of the Bhikkhu is indeed an important outcome of the advent of the Buddha. The Buddha understood the full implications of such a life, and in the beginning, most if not all the bhikkhus lived perfectly without any rules. The rules were made as more and more `weaker' people joined the sangha who lived less perfect lives. However then, as it should be ideally now and forever, a person who joins the sangha, should have the panna enough not to follow these rules as `rules', but rather as `guide and reminder'. The monk should have enough panna to see the urgency of developing satipatthana all the time. These rules remind him about this fact and also about other forms of kusala. But since no one is perfect, the rules can and do help to wake the monk up. It is true that a monk, who by supporting conditions following the 227 rules perfectly, will outwardly appear no different from an arahat. And even though this would more likely be with a good level of panna, there is no guarantee that this will lead to enlightenment. The bhikkhu could have enough panna of the kind that sees danger in akusala of other kinds, but have little of the kind that sees danger in *ignorance* and seeks to eradicate it. Metta, Sukin. 32344 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 0:10am Subject: Re: The Question Still Remains Hi Jack, I am glad to see, as you told TG, that some of the Abhidhamma is very important to your practice. But there is no need for you to break your "physical experience into paramattha dhammas." The paramattha dhammas are already there. You explained: ---------------------- > As he spreads the cow parts around, they cease being part of a cow and become parts of meat. Just so, my sense of an "I" sitting on a cushion meditating (somewhat) ceases to become an "I" and becomes impersonal hardness, coolness, etc. At times during other meditations, thoughts and emotions also become impersonal, without an "I". ---------------------- It is not while they are being spread around that parts of meat become 'not cow,' they were 'not cow' to begin with. Similarly, it is not during meditations that thoughts and emotions become impersonal; they are impersonal (anatta) by their own inherent nature. Another characteristic of thoughts, emotions and all other conditioned dhammas is their fleetingness (anicca): they last less than a billionth of a second. No amount of quiet concentration can catch them. But again, they don't need to be caught. If understanding (panna) arises with them, then all the necessary mindfulness, effort and concentration is taken care of – long before the concept "this is a paramattha dhamma" can be conceived. What I am getting at is; before there can be satipatthana, you have to understand there is no self who can bring it about. Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jackhat1@a... wrote: > > In my practice some of it is very important and I think supported by the > suttas. An example, is my 4-element meditation which attempts to break my physical > experience into paramattha dhammas. A sutta explains it as analogous to a > butcher cutting a cow into meat. 32345 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 10:10pm Subject: The 6 Great Councils ! Friends: How were the actual Words of the Buddha preserved until today ? 'Ananda, the Dhamma & Vinaya explained & established, that itself shall be your teacher after my going beyond.' Councils where the Buddha's words were recited in large groups: ~year location: duration: comments: -483 Rajagaha 7 months I: 3 months after Buddhas death, 500 arahats assembled & recited the complete Dhamma & Vinaya as we know it today. Mahakassapa presided. Ananda & Upali answered. The earth trembled when finished. By that the Dhamma will last 5000 years. -383 Vesali 8 months II: ~ 100 years after Buddhas death 700 arahats assembled & unanimously rejected 10 schismatic Vinaya points: eg; whether monks can accept money. No disagreement about the Dhamma is recorded! The Elder Yasa presided. Since then, have no-one of the 227 rules guiding the life of bhikkhus, been called into question... -265 Patna 9 months III: ~218 years after Buddhas death Asoka became Emperor in India I8 years after his coronation he convened a council, where the Elder Tissa spoke the 7th AbhiDhamma book: Points of Controversy, thus refuting 218 controversial theories emerged among the 18 schools. -236 Sri Lanka Emperor Asoka send his Arahat son & daughter: The Elder Mahinda & the Bhikkhuni SanghaMitta to Sri Lanka. They convert the island to Buddhism & plant a sibling of the Bodhi Tree in Anuradhapura. -23 Sri Lanka, Aluvihare IV: Due to famine & war the monks decide to write down the Tipitaka on palm leaves in the Aluvihara cave temple still existing & working. This Tipitaka ~ 60 volumes is hereafter essentially unchanged... !!! The tradition says that it was engraved on gold-plates too, still hidden. 100 Kashmir, India King Kanishka. Text & Commentary is engraved on copper plates which hidden in a stupa is still undiscovered. 430 Sri Lanka During King Mahanama Buddhagosa translates the commentaries. ~ Sri Lanka Many centuries of Tipataka rehearsal twice yearly, North & South. 1165 Sri Lanka King Parakramabahu convenes Council in Polonaruwa. Tikas. 1477 Chaing Mai, Thailand King Tiloka convenes council and rehearse the entire Tipitaka text. 1788 Bangkok, Thailand King Rama I restores the Sangha & rehearses the Tipitaka text. 1868 Mandalay, Burma V: King Mindon-Min convenes council and rehearse the Tipitaka. The complete text is engraved on 729 stone slaps arranged around Kutho-Daw pagoda still standing. 1954-6 Rangoon, Burma VI: 6th Council: Chattasanghayana. International panel, The elder Revata presided. The complete text in many editions is critically compared, edited & printed. This canonical Pali text is today freely available: http://www.tipitaka.org/ http://jbe.gold.ac.uk/palicanon.html http://www.mahidol.ac.th/budsir/budsir-main.html Because of this unprecedented critical effort, the words of the Buddha have so far survived 2500 years, with the remarkable stability of a variation of less than 5 words/page, when different editions are compared. Even today there are monks, who by heart can recite several thousand text pages without error... Consequently one can therefore place some confidence in this ancient strictly conservative line of tradition. ___________________________________________________________________________________ All yours in the Dhamma. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.msn.com/DirectDhamma/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/TrueDhamma 32346 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 0:59am Subject: Re: Video Games? Dear Eznir, > eznir: > How can there be concepts, long before any recognizing or naming? I > thought the Javana thought moments, where these concepts are > fabricated, is the last to come just before the retentive thought > moments, in the train of thoughts, am I right? :-) I just wrote to you that my knowledge of Abhidhamma, i.e. the technical details, is quite low. I don't know the answer to your second question above. :-( But I don't have any urgent need to find out, because as far as I am concerned, if the perception and mindfulness is not of a paramattha dhamma, then whatever else is perceived is `not real'. I classify this as concept, this may be a wrong term, but I am not sure. Also if there is any sense experience, by the time I realize it, it is a `thought' about what has just been experienced. So I am dealing with only shadows, even though there may not be any labeling and that other experiences occur before there is any recognition. > Moreover, how can you say "recognizing and naming" when "naming" > itself involves conceptualizing and still say there are > concepts "long before recognizing or naming"? As above, I believe the cittas dart amongst not only realities, but alternately, the signs and details, before any apparent `thing' becomes arammana and this is before recognition and labeling. And those signs and details may not be paramattha dhammas, and most likely informed by akusala cittas. What do you think? > By the way, how does those in the NAG follow the Teachings of Lord > Buddha as given in the Tripitaka in order to attain stream-entry let > alone Nibbana? Please understand that I am only trying to comprehend > the thought patterns that underlie this idea of non-action(ie, if NAG > means Non-Action Group). :-/ This is tough, especially when I can't really speak for other NAG members. I wish Sarah could say something. I refer you to my latest post to James to at least see what I believe to *not* be the correct practice. However, with reference to `attainment' and `goal', I think of none. There is some intimation every now and then, of how much ignorance there is, so I only seek to understand more the Buddha's teachings. This is all I feel like saying now. But if you want me to say more, let me know and I will try to sort my thoughts out and lay them before you. Metta, Sukin 32347 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 1:06am Subject: Re: Video Games? Friend Sukin, Sukin: ….So one has `clung' to some projected method, failing to appreciate the fact that `sati' is a conditioned reality and cannot be made to arise by following some conventional activity or even the lead of `volition'. In other words, if there is an idea of `doing something' to condition satipatthana, it is believe in a form of rules or ritual. James: This is silly. Not only does it not make logical sense it doesn't follow the teachings of the Buddha. Please quote where the Buddha taught this. Your ponderous explanations and questions, based on seemingly nothing but personal opinion, are getting very tiresome to me. Sukin: What does for example `sitting cross-legged' have anything to do with the arising of mindfulness? What is the causal connection? And `bringing mindfulness to the fore', is it so easily aroused? Or is volition so powerful in bringing about any desired state of mind? I understand that the experience during formal sitting appears different from the everyday activity of being caught in one sense or mind object or the other, like a monkey jumping here and there. But is it any less being `caught' when there is a sense of now being able to observe those activities more closely. Is there any awareness of the characteristic of ignorance, attachment, and aversion and such, i.e. independent of any `self' doing the noting? Is such kind of awareness in essence any different from generally being aware of one's experiences? Except for perhaps, attempting to relate them to the concept of Anatta and conditionality? Does the knowledge of the teachings validates the quality of experience or could it in fact be used to justify any wrong practice? Lobha can appear calm and peaceful like sati, is one mistaking one for the other? Panna is accompanied by detachment, why does one seek to continue sitting? For more sati and panna? Is one equally calm being interrupted during meditation or not having any chance to meditate at all? James: Why do you keep asking me these ridiculous questions? Honestly, I can't tell if you are playing dumb to see how I will answer or if you genuinely don't know the basics of Buddhism. Why don't you read this small booklet about Buddhism, get the basics, and then come back and ask me more intelligent and useful questions: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/nutshell.html You may think I am angry at you or something but that isn't the case. I am in this group to discuss Buddhism, and only Buddhism. I am only interested in what the Buddha taught. I have no problems with the Abhidhamma as long as it doesn't conflict with what the Buddha taught. (And I don't think it really does). You don't seem to be addressing what the Buddha taught; you are coming up with a lot of weird ideas and presenting them as if they are Buddhism, and then you expect me to respond. This group is called `Dhamma Study Group'- whose Dhamma are we supposed to be studying and discussing? On the home page of this group is this description, "A discussion forum for anyone interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings as found in all three baskets of the Tipitaka, the original record of the Buddha's word in the Theravada tradition, and as further elucidated in the ancient commentaries of that tradition." Therefore, this is a scholarly type of group that looks toward the Pali Canon as a basis for discussion. You aren't quoting the Pali Canon or referring to it at all. You are asking me a lot of leading questions based on your opinion. If you want to present your opinion, without bothering to get support from the Pali Canon, I suggest you join a group called "Dhamma List". Its description is, "A constructive and inspiring list for all who're interested in Buddhism (particularly Theravada Buddhism)." There you don't have to support your opinions with actual support from the Pali Canon, you only have to have an interest in Buddhism. Here is the link to join that group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhamma-list/ Sukin: However then, as it should be ideally now and forever, a person who joins the sangha, should have the panna enough not to follow these rules as `rules', but rather as `guide and reminder'. James: A rule is a guide and reminder, and a guide and reminder is a rule. Anyway, we were talking about rites and rituals. How is a rule a rite or a ritual? I do not think that a rule is a rite or a ritual. Metta, James 32348 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:05am Subject: Re: Video Games? Hi James, > James: Why do you keep asking me these ridiculous questions? > Honestly, I can't tell if you are playing dumb to see how I will > answer or if you genuinely don't know the basics of Buddhism. Why > don't you read this small booklet about Buddhism, get the basics, > and then come back and ask me more intelligent and useful questions: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/nutshell.html Sukin: Do I have to? I just checked the link and saw that the article is quite long. I don't usually have time to read anything more than the posts here and a little on another list. Could you give me a summary of what you think Buddhism is, or perhaps a shorter article than the above one? James: > You may think I am angry at you or something but that isn't the > case. I am in this group to discuss Buddhism, and only Buddhism. I > am only interested in what the Buddha taught. I have no problems > with the Abhidhamma as long as it doesn't conflict with what the > Buddha taught. (And I don't think it really does). You don't seem > to be addressing what the Buddha taught; you are coming up with a > lot of weird ideas and presenting them as if they are Buddhism, and > then you expect me to respond. Sukin: I try to understand reality. For me there is only one true authority in this regard, and that is the Buddha's Teachings, and I don't rely on any other. What I express is my interpretation of the little I have read, which is the best I can do. I don't however think that comprehensive knowledge and proficiency in quoting the Scriptures is necessarily a sign of any real understanding. So if I am off, it would make little difference trying to gather more details, I will after all interpret whatever I may read with the corresponding level of understanding/ misunderstanding. In fact if indeed I am wrong, it may become even more frustrating, if conveniently I am able to quote and counter quote any part of the Teachings to support my views. James: > This group is called `Dhamma Study > Group'- whose Dhamma are we supposed to be studying and discussing? > On the home page of this group is this description, "A discussion > forum for anyone interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings > as found in all three baskets of the Tipitaka, the original record > of the Buddha's word in the Theravada tradition, and as further > elucidated in the ancient commentaries of that tradition." > Therefore, this is a scholarly type of group that looks toward the > Pali Canon as a basis for discussion. You aren't quoting the Pali > Canon or referring to it at all. Sukin: Luckily for me, a few days ago I expressed to Sarah my opinion about how everyone should be allowed to express their understandings freely, no control. I did not then have myself in mind, but from now on I will. ;-) James: > You are asking me a lot of leading > questions based on your opinion. If you want to present your > opinion, without bothering to get support from the Pali Canon, I > suggest you join a group called "Dhamma List". Its description > is, "A constructive and inspiring list for all who're interested in > Buddhism (particularly Theravada Buddhism)." There you don't have to > support your opinions with actual support from the Pali Canon, you > only have to have an interest in Buddhism. Here is the link to join > that group: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhamma-list/ Sukin: But do the members there have any understanding of reality? If I went in and talked the way I do here, they may not feel any need to ask for reference, but would their wavelength match with mine? If not, wouldn't `frustration' arise anyway? > James: A rule is a guide and reminder, and a guide and reminder is a > rule. Anyway, we were talking about rites and rituals. How is a > rule a rite or a ritual? I do not think that a rule is a rite or a > ritual. Sukin: But the adherence to, and ignorant approach to the rules can become ritualistic. It is OK if you do not want to respond to this post. Metta, Sukin. 32349 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abidhamma Hi Howard (& Jack), > upasaka@a... > writes: > Coincidentally, though, next Sunday I'll be > spending my birthday from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at a (one-day) > "meditation > retreat" in Manhattan conducted by a Theravadin meditation teacher, > Andrew > Olendzki, who is very much Abhidhamma-oriented, and who teaches long > retreats > relating Abhidhamma to meditation. > Howard, > J: > I hope to hear more about this after you have attended this retreat. .... S: I hope you have a good day and meaningful birthday. I also look forward to your comments and summary afterwards. Perhaps you can encourage Andrew Olendzki (or any of the participants) to join in our discussions here as well. Metta and Best Wishes for many more wise birthdays in advance. Sarah p.s Glad to see you reminding everyone about paramattha dhammas in the suttas too;-). ====== 32350 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Victoria's Secret Swim Suit with the Buddha image Hi Alex (& KKT). --- axtran wrote: > Dear friends, > Perhaps you already heard about a swim suit product .... .... Alex, it's really great to hear from you again (though I have no interest in checking out the swim-suit;-)). For others, Alex was one of our very first members on DSG. Alex, have you been lurking? Are you still reading the texts and how is your family going now? I remember when you sadly lost your mother - must be a few years now already. KKT, I'm always glad to read your messages too. I don't think we need to concern ourselves so much with others' actions and their appropriateness (such as with the swim-suit line) so much as with our own. What do you think? Maybe better not to advertise it? Metta, Sarah ======= 32351 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Connie, KenO, ODW, Victor, Larry & All, I agree with these comments of Connie's: --- connie wrote: > Hi Ken O and old_dead_wood, > > I wonder if we can really say to look at seasons or plants to confirm > rebirth since those wouldn't have either life faculty or kamma. For > myself, it makes sense that there is the momentary life cycle of each > thought moment and that life is really only that long; .... S: By understanding more about this moment, I think we understand better that it always has to be like this - conditioned dhammas arising and falling away, conditioning each other and subsequent dhammas too. This is why the understanding of D.O. always comes back to present understanding which can develop so that doubts about rebirth or self will be eradicated. .... C: >or to think that > the conventional rebirth is like waking from a dream as we do each new > day. Why would the rules change at the physical end of life-span death > (given that I can't say I know there is no more rebirth for me)? ... S: Yes, a good analogy and not even each day, but each moment with a new experience! No self involved. ODW, thanks for all your honest and sincere sharing posts and questions. Perhaps you'll kindly tell us where you live and anything else you wish to share. I'm sorry to hear about your difficulties with depression. As you say, we never know what may be conditioned at any time. On our last morning in Bangkok we were discussing various mental problems with friends and the role that views and ideas of practice can play too. I hope you continue to participate here. I appreciated Larry's kind comments too. Metta, Sarah ======= 32352 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: greetings from Rob Epstein. Dear Nina & Rob Ep, S: Nina, thank you for forwarding Rob's news. I miss him on list a lot! .... --- nina van gorkom wrote: > For those who know Rob Epstein, here are his greetings and familiy news. > Maybe Sarah could react? .... S: For others, Rob Ep keeps the No 1 spot in the photo album;-) .... R:>I do miss my > friends > at dsg, but I have felt that dropping in every now and then just to say > hello or > throw in a comment was a bit annoying to some of the more serious > posters. > The > dsg discussions tend to move with great energy and intensity, which I > always > enjoyed, but I haven't wanted to "interrupt the flow" after trying it a > few > times. .... S: I've never known any posters (serious or not) to be annoyed when old friends drop in.....Rob, pls 'interrupt the flow' whenever the mood takes you;-) Let us know your news and latest reflections. It's good to hear from you. .... R:> Well, it is so nice to hear from you. Thank you for thinking of me. It > is > very > nice to know that I am not completely removed from my dsg comrades! > Please > give > my best wishes to all of my friends on dsg, and tell them I miss them > too! ... S: As I mentioned, we think of you whenever we open the photo album. Pls drop by directly from time to time. Glad Emily is doing well and hopefully your wife too. Metta, Sarah ======= 32353 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Chris C, Welcome here. Your question was interesting and has generated some useful discussion. Please share a little more about your background and where you live if you care to. (As there is another Chris and also Christine who is sometimes called Chris, I've added a 'C', but let us know if this is not right). Also, let us know if you have any other questions or difficulties in finding your way around. --- Christopher wrote: > Hello, > > This (rather strange) question is actually about Mahayana Buddhism. > Please forgive me for asking it here, I have often received lots of > friendly > help in here, and I'm not sure where else I might find an answer. So > any help is appreciated.. ... I hope you've found the responses helpful. I liked Ken O's recent comments (post 32319): "Furthermore, no one can choose whether they wish to enter certain mind stream, why, because all are anatta, so we do not the power to say, let my thoughts be thus or not thus." I'll look f/w to any further comments you make. Metta, Sarah ======= > > When meditating as a Mahayanist, one aims to avoid entering the > stream so as to stay in the round of rebirths in order to help other > beings. I am wondering if there is a certain way that a meditator does > this, and if so, how? Would there come a point in meditation where it is > obvious that entering the stream is possible, and a person can simply > choose not to advance? Or is it possible to 'accidentally' enter the > stream, only realizing afterwards what has happened? If so, what does > a Mahayanist do about this? 32354 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi Howard and all, The idea "all there is (leaving aside nibbana) is eye and visual object, ear and audible object, nose and olfactory object, tongue and gustatory object, body and bodily object, and mind and mind object. Everything there is partakes of only one of these domains." is the senior cosmology 'Everything exists' that the Buddha spoke of in Samyutta Nikaya XII.48, Lokayatika Sutta. And that idea has nothing to do with the teaching of dependent origination. Comments are welcome. Metta, Victor [snip] > As I said, Victor, I understand the middle way of dependent > origination. I understand that there are no self-existent dhammas, and I do not take > paramattha dhammas to be self-existent, mrely ctually experienced. They are > dependent, ephemeral phenomena which have no existence whatsoever *in and of > themselves*. You have seen me talk against the notion of sabhava often, you should > know that the Kaccayangotta sutta is one of my favorites, and I should think > you would understand my position on this matter by now. > Also, I would appreciate it, Victor, if, when you wish to make a > point, you would make it straight out rather than throwing a few quotations at me > and leaving it for me to deduce the teaching you hope to impart. For that > matter, I think it would be far preferable if matters were discussed rather > "teachings being imparted". > > With metta, > Howard 32355 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi, Sukin (and James) - In a message dated 4/20/04 3:06:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sukinder@k... writes: > > Hi James, > > >James: Why do you include `formal meditation practice' in this > >category? That doesn't make any sense. Adherence to rites and > >rituals is the superstitious belief that doing certain actions > will > >purify oneself, regardless of the reasons of apparent consequences > >of those actions. For example, during the Buddha's time there > were > >several ascetics who would wash themselves in the river Ganges > three > >times a day to purify themselves; some ascetics would keep various > >fires burning to purify themselves. This is supersititious > behavior > >that has no basis in reality. > > Sukin: > This is one aspect of it, but only the gross one. > One may have for an instant had an experience, say jhana. And may > have noticed that prior to that there was a nimita or something > which was the object of citta. One then seeks to simulate the > situation, perhaps experimenting or seeking guidance and then slowly > developing the right conditions to achieve it. This is possible, > because it requires the kind of panna which sees danger in sense > objects and fixing the attention on a `conceptual' object. This > object can be reproduced with practice. > However when it comes to the perception and understanding of nama > and rupa, it is altogether different. If indeed there has been a > moment of satipatthana, one may like to have it again. The wanting > may then seek to create a situation or believe in a practice which > is supposed to get one there. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: The Buddha provided such a practice, the noble eightfold path. ----------------------------------------- So one has `clung' to some projected > > method, failing to appreciate the fact that `sati' is a conditioned > reality and cannot be made to arise by following some conventional > activity or even the lead of `volition'. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Not "projected," but taught by the Buddha. and, yes, sati is conditioned - and the Buddha taught how to go about setting up the condtions. And the "conventional activity" that you disdain was exactly taught by the Buddha, and realities underlie that conventional activity as is the case with all conventional activity. ------------------------------------------- In other words, if there is > > an idea of `doing something' to condition satipatthana, it is > believe in a form of rules or ritual. -------------------------------------------- Howard: That would be news to the Buddha. The Buddha gave training in sila, he gave rules for the behavior of monks and nuns, and he trained his followers in guarding the senses and in meditation. None of that was an instruction to engage in ritual. I would imagine the Buddha would be amazed to see how adherents to his Dhamma are critical of what he taught. Whether it is those who say the Buddha didn't teach anyone to do anything or those who say the Buddha was just kidding when he talked about rebirth (or didn't know better) or those who say that nothing need be done for liberation except master the jhanas or those who say that jhanas are dangerous and should not be cultivated, there seem to be loads of Buddhists who want to dismantle and throw overboard core parts of the raft of the Dhamma before reaching the other shore. ------------------------------------------- > > James: > >Meditation does not fall into this > >category!! It has a reason and a measurable outcome which matches > >the reason! It is logical and makes sense. The Buddha taught for > >the practitioner to sit crosslegged, with the back straight, and > to > >bring mindfulness to the fore. Then the practitioner was to > develop > >vipassana, jhana, or brahama-viharas. What exactly do you see > that > >is superstitious in this behavior? > > Sukin: > What does for example `sitting cross-legged' have anything to do > with the arising of mindfulness? What is the causal connection? > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: A stable position, not prone to tipping over, is good to have when a jhana is entered, and one that is balanced and comfortable for a lengthy period, and conducive to alertness, is supportive of the task of meditation. But it is not necessary. ----------------------------------------------- > And `bringing mindfulness to the fore', is it so easily aroused? Or > is volition so powerful in bringing about any desired state of mind? > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Hmm, guess not. So, better to give up instead of taking the time and making the effort to develop the needed skills. (Hey, remember when the Buddha said "This is not easy - better forget it!"? ;-) ------------------------------------------------- > I understand that the experience during formal sitting appears > different from the everyday activity of being caught in one sense or > mind object or the other, like a monkey jumping here and there. But > is it any less being `caught' when there is a sense of now being > able to observe those activities more closely. Is there any > awareness of the characteristic of ignorance, attachment, and > aversion and such, i.e. independent of any `self' doing the noting? > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. -------------------------------------------- > Is such kind of awareness in essence any different from generally > being aware of one's experiences? > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. One does better when there is increased calm, concentration, and mindfulness - much better. -------------------------------------------- Except for perhaps, attempting to > > relate them to the concept of Anatta and conditionality? Does the > knowledge of the teachings validates the quality of experience or > could it in fact be used to justify any wrong practice? Lobha can > appear calm and peaceful like sati, is one mistaking one for the > other? Panna is accompanied by detachment, why does one seek to > continue sitting? For more sati and panna? Is one equally calm being > interrupted during meditation or not having any chance to meditate > at all? > These are some questions that come to mind, what do you think? > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think this is all just nay-saying as regards what the Buddha directly taught. ----------------------------------------------- > > >James: The Buddha's teachings are `a thing to do'. They aren't > pure > >philosophy to just think about and ponder. The Buddha asked his > >disciples to be diligent in their effort. If you don't think that > >the Buddha's teachings are a `thing to do' how do you explain the > >Vinaya Pitaka? It lists 227 different `things to do' for a monk. > > Sukin: > The institution of the Bhikkhu is indeed an important outcome of the > advent of the Buddha. The Buddha understood the full implications of > such a life, and in the beginning, most if not all the bhikkhus > lived perfectly without any rules. The rules were made as more and > more `weaker' people joined the sangha who lived less perfect lives. > However then, as it should be ideally now and forever, a person who > joins the sangha, should have the panna enough not to follow these > rules as `rules', but rather as `guide and reminder'. The monk > should have enough panna to see the urgency of developing > satipatthana all the time. These rules remind him about this fact > and also about other forms of kusala. But since no one is perfect, > the rules can and do help to wake the monk up. It is true that a > monk, who by supporting conditions following the 227 rules > perfectly, will outwardly appear no different from an arahat. And > even though this would more likely be with a good level of panna, > there is no guarantee that this will lead to enlightenment. The > bhikkhu could have enough panna of the kind that sees danger in > akusala of other kinds, but have little of the kind that sees danger > in *ignorance* and seeks to eradicate it. > > 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) 32356 From: Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Question Still Remains Hi, Ken (and Jack) - In a message dated 4/20/04 3:11:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hi Jack, > > I am glad to see, as you told TG, that some of the Abhidhamma is > very important to your practice. But there is no need for you to > break your "physical experience into paramattha dhammas." The > paramattha dhammas are already there. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, but Jack, through his practice, comes to be clearly aware of them, and not just memorize the claim of their presence. ------------------------------------------------- You explained:> > ---------------------- > >As he spreads the cow parts around, they cease being part of a cow > and become parts of meat. Just so, my sense of an "I" sitting on a > cushion meditating (somewhat) ceases to become an "I" and becomes > impersonal hardness, coolness, etc. > > At times during other meditations, thoughts and emotions also become > impersonal, without an "I". > ---------------------- > > It is not while they are being spread around that parts of meat > become 'not cow,' they were 'not cow' to begin with. Similarly, it > is not during meditations that thoughts and emotions become > impersonal; they are impersonal (anatta) by their own inherent > nature. -------------------------------------------- Howard: The meditation instructions given by the Buddha were not for the purpose of creating paramattha dhammas - they were for the purpose of creating vijja. --------------------------------------------- > > Another characteristic of thoughts, emotions and all other > conditioned dhammas is their fleetingness (anicca): they last less > than a billionth of a second. No amount of quiet concentration can > catch them. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh, there you go - the Buddha was wrong. Well, that's sure good to know. The Buddha certainly taught that rupas come and go quickly, and the mind still more quickly. But isn't it that quick mind that comes to see? The Buddha taught people how to cultivate the mind. ------------------------------------------------ But again, they don't need to be caught. If > > understanding (panna) arises with them, then all the necessary > mindfulness, effort and concentration is taken care of – long before > the concept "this is a paramattha dhamma" can be conceived. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes - IF pa~n~na arises. Did the Buddha teach people to read about pa~n~na arising and hope for the best - after all, it's all just random? I don't think so. ------------------------------------------------- > > What I am getting at is; before there can be satipatthana, you have > to understand there is no self who can bring it about. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay - understood. (If that's all you mean.) Or do you mean that before the means for liberation can be developed, liberation must already have occurred? To get to the goal one must already be there? -------------------------------------------------- > > Kind regards, > Ken H > ======================= 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) 32358 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:41am Subject: Non-action? Hi all, Please check the following passage regarding non-action: "Monks, there are these three sectarian guilds that -- when cross- examined, pressed for reasons, & rebuked by wise people -- even though they may explain otherwise, remain stuck in [a doctrine of] inaction. Which three? "There are priests & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences -- pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful -- that is all caused by what was done in the past.' There are priests & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences -- pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful -- that is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation.' There are priests & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences -- pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful -- that is all without cause & without condition.' "Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that... whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past?' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of what was done in the past. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of what was done in the past.' When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my first righteous refutation of those priests & contemplative who hold to such teachings, such views. "Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that... whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation?' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a supreme being's act of creation. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of a supreme being's act of creation.' When one falls back on creation by a supreme being as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those priests & contemplative who hold to such teachings, such views. "Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that... whatever a person experiences... is all without cause, without condition,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... whatever a person experiences... is all without cause, without condition?' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings without cause, without condition. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views without cause, without condition.' When one falls back on lack of cause and lack of condition as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my third righteous refutation of those priests & contemplative who hold to such teachings, such views. "These are the three sectarian guilds that -- when cross-examined, pressed for reasons, & rebuked by wise people -- even though they may explain otherwise, remain stuck in inaction. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an03-061.html Metta, Victor 32359 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 5:02am Subject: Re: Video Games? Friend Sukin, Sukin: Do I have to? James: No, you don't have to. It would just be for your benefit. Sukin: I just checked the link and saw that the article is quite long. I don't usually have time to read anything more than the posts here and a little on another list. Could you give me a summary of what you think Buddhism is, or perhaps a shorter article than the above one? James: The summary of Buddhism is: Don't do evil, do only good, and purify the mind. For a more detailed explanation, but not too detailed, I recommend the article I linked to you. It isn't really that long. Take it a little at a time. Judging from the length of your posts, I'm sure you could find the time ;-). Sukin: I try to understand reality. For me there is only one true authority in this regard, and that is the Buddha's Teachings, and I don't rely on any other. What I express is my interpretation of the little I have read, which is the best I can do. James: That is admirable but I am telling you that I think you are either reading the wrong things or not reading enough. I come to this conclusion by your questions and statements. They don't even match the most basic tenets of Buddhism. (See Howard's post, also). First, if you read just what is on the Internet that is going to lead you astray. All of these people positing their opinions are suffering from the taint of delusion! You should only go to what the Buddha taught. Sukin: I don't however think that comprehensive knowledge and proficiency in quoting the Scriptures is necessarily a sign of any real understanding. James: That is very true. I could quote the Buddha extensively, and even explain what he meant with summaries, analogies, and examples, but that doesn't mean I really `know' what he taught. But at least I go to a pure source. As Einstein said, "I see so far because I stand on the shoulders of giants." Sukin: So if I am off, it would make little difference trying to gather more details, I will after all interpret whatever I may read with the corresponding level of understanding/ misunderstanding. In fact if indeed I am wrong, it may become even more frustrating, if conveniently I am able to quote and counter quote any part of the Teachings to support my views. James: Well, this could be worked out over time. Of course you may misunderstand the Buddha, and I may also, but if we stick to what he taught eventually we will get to the right understanding. Actually, even in the time of the Buddha when an arahant was teaching disciples, he always referred to the Buddha. When Sariputta or Ananda gave a sermon they would always state, "As the Buddha has taught.." etc. Now, if arahants still cite the Buddha when teaching or discussing the dhamma don't you think us worldlings should even more so? Sukin: Luckily for me, a few days ago I expressed to Sarah my opinion about how everyone should be allowed to express their understandings freely, no control. I did not then have myself in mind, but from now on I will. ;-) James: I still think you should have freedom to express your opinions in whatever fashion you think. And I should have the same right. But, just consider, this isn't an `opinion' type of subject. It's not like we are discussing our favorite movies or something. ;-)) There is a right and a wrong and an authority to consult to determine which is which. Sukin: But do the members there have any understanding of reality? James: Some do and some don't. You wouldn't be in the group to get someone else's `understanding of reality', you would be in the group to develop your own understanding. If you don't jibe with that group, stay in this group. But just understand that your view of Buddhism doesn't jibe with me and you won't be able to make it jibe unless you reference what the Buddha taught. Sukin: But the adherence to, and ignorant approach to the rules can become ritualistic. James: You haven't explained why you think this; you have just restated what you stated earlier. A restatement isn't explanation or support. Sukin: It is OK if you do not want to respond to this post. James: Of course I wanted to respond. Like I wrote, I am not angry at you, I am just explaining to you my perspective. Metta, James 32360 From: gazita2002 Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 6:09am Subject: hello from Cha-am Dear group, Seems ages since I wrote to dsg. Am currently at a seaside resort about 2-3 hrs slow bus ride from Bkk. The ocean is just across the road from where I'm staying. Looking at the water reminded me of Acharn Sujin's comment about the 'ocean of concepts' which we float along on. All day -and night- we float along like a leaf on the water, not knowing realities as they really are altho they are all around us, they are what we take for 'us'. Realities such as seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling and touching, the object of seeing etc. attachment to what is seen, heard etc. dislike of what is seen etc. wrong view of what is seen, heard etc. Generally not much awareness or understanding of these realities even tho our whole life is made up of these realities, but we take it all for 'me or mine'. Acharn also spoke about 'whispering lobha' [and apologies if all this has been mentioned before, I have not yet read any other posts from the recent trip to T/land] this is the lobha that we don't even know we have. Attachment to hearing the Dhamma and then wanting to hear more, often thinking that this will hasten the arising of awareness, and maybe it will and maybe it won't, just depends on the conditions at any given moment, no amount of 'trying' will make awareness arise, that is generally classed as wrong practice. The more I hear about this Dhamma, the more I see how very subtle the teachings of the Buddha are and that 'trying' is a great hindrance to Sati. May we all have patience, courage and good cheer, Azita 32361 From: Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains In a message dated 4/19/04 4:35:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > I think part of my problem is that I have somewhat learned to deconstruct my > physical situation into ultimates through practice at many material 4-element > meditations. I can, though very imperfectly and clumsily, see some cetasikas > arise along with physical objects of meditation. But, a thought as object > arising and falling away seems different. I can't > deconstruct it. > > jack ============================= I *do* understand what you mean. It isn't different fo me most of the time. but I do think that that a more "microscopic" look would allow for that deconstruction. Of course I could well be wrong in this. Howard and all, I'm not clear what the Abhidhamma and Visud. say about the ultimates of a thought as object of attention, i.e., that which we can deconstruct a thought into. Cetasaikas arise with the object of attention but I am talking about the object itself. Ideas? jack 32362 From: Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi, Jack - In a message dated 4/20/04 9:21:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jackhat1@a... writes: > I'm not clear what the Abhidhamma and Visud. say about the ultimates of a > thought as object of attention, i.e., that which we can deconstruct a > thought > into. Cetasaikas arise with the object of attention but I am talking about > the > object itself. Ideas? > ======================= Yes, I agree with you. It seems that almost nothing is said in Abhidhamma or commentaries about "cognitive" paramatthic arammana. Perhaps it is acts of sa~n~na, at various "levels", that are what these are, at least in part. It seems so to me. (We probably should read up more on sa~n~na.) 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) 32363 From: Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi again, Jack - With regard to the relationship between sa~n~na and cognitive paramattha dhamma, look at Nyanatiloka's 3rd meaning for 'sa~n~na': > 3. saññá may also refer to the 'ideas', which are objects of meditation, > e.g. in a group of 7 ideas, of impermanence (anicca-s. ), etc. (A. VII, 46); of > 10: impurity (asubha-s.), etc. (A. X, 56), and another set of 10 in A. X. > 60; or to wrong notions, as in nicca-, subha-s. (the notion of permanence, > beauty), etc. ========================== 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) 32364 From: Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 5:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains In a message dated 4/20/04 6:50:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: Yes, I agree with you. It seems that almost nothing is said in Abhidhamma or commentaries about "cognitive" paramatthic arammana. Perhaps it is acts of sa~n~na, at various "levels", that are what these are, at least in part. It seems so to me. (We probably should read up more on sa~n~na.) Howard, Thanks for the sanna references. I will do some reading on this tonight. Maybe some of the others here will jump in here and add something in the meantime. jack 32365 From: Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 5:29am Subject: A Question About Sa~n~na/Nina Hi, Nina - In "Cetasikas" I have read the following: The proximate cause of sanna is an object, in whatever way that appears. The object can be a paramattha dhamma, i-e nama or rupa, or a concept (pannatti). ------------------------------------- Howard: One question I have here is exactly what, according to Abhidhamma, is meant by 'pannatti'/'concept'. It seems to me that most of the concepts that arise in the mind are not single mental events, but sequences of mental events, and thus their experiencing must also involve a series of mindstates, each with its own sa~n~na, and possibly a "capping" recognition at the end. (You seem to imply something along these lines a little further on.) --------------------------------------- Whatever object citta cognizes, sanna recognizes and marks it. Sanna performs its function through each of the six doors. There is sanna at this moment. When there is seeing there is sanna and it recognizes and marks visible object. When there is hearing there is sanna which recognizes and marks sound. There is sanna when there is smelling, tasting, touching or when there is the experience of objects through the mind-door. cittas experience objects through the six doors and the sanna which accompanies citta experiences the object through the same doorway and performs its function accordingly. When we recognize someone's voice, this is actually the result of different processes of cittas which experience objects through the sense-door and through the mind-door. ------------------------------------- Howard: It is this last sentence that I was referring to in my previous remark. ========================= 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) 32366 From: Philip Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 10:00am Subject: Re: hello from Cha-am (plus more Misuzu Kaneko) Hello Azita, and all > The ocean is just across the > road from where I'm staying. Looking at the water reminded me of > Acharn Sujin's comment about the 'ocean of concepts' which we float > along on. All day -and night- we float along like a leaf on the water, > not knowing realities as they really are altho they are all around us, they > are what we take for 'us'. Thank you for this. James said recently that we should only study dhamma at this group by studying sutta (the S in DSG bit) but I think that that is a shortsighted view of things. Taking a journey with one's nose in the map is the analogy I used elsewhere - we can't set out on the journey without the map, and we need to refer to the map often along the way - but becoming thoroughly absorbed in the map will lead to a deadening of experience - and we know that experience leads to insight. Sitting on the patio after breakfast and gazing on the ocean can teach us a lot, and I am quite confident that the Buddha wanted us to be studying realities in and around us. Thus "investigation of phenomena" is one of the factors of awakening. I would like to share another Misuzu Kaneko poem (in a very fast translation) that I think gets at "not knowing realities as they really are" as Azita put it. The Sea and the Seagull I believed the sea was blue and the gull white but now I look and both the wings of the gull and the sea are grey everyone else believed it too but it wasn't true I believe sky is blue and snow is white everyone looks and thinks it's true but that might be mistaken too. Metta, Phil 32367 From: Philip Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 4:52pm Subject: Re: hello from Cha-am (plus more Misuzu Kaneko) Hello all An afterthough to my own post > James said recently that we should only study > dhamma at this group by studying sutta (the S in DSG bit) but I > think that that is a > shortsighted view of things Now re-reading the introduction to the group that James referred to in another post, I see that he may be right. The group is to discuss based on the triple basket and commentary. In the light of that, I will want to reconsider what I posted previously about the need to refer to sutta and/or commentary, and stop quoting non-Theravadin material. Or look for another group to do so. It's very interesting how the Abhidhamma and its emphasis on direct experience has made me interested in Zen - I used to be a real Zenophobe because ofZen's reluctance to use clear, explicit references to the Buddha's teaching, and because of how my desire to do so got me branded as a bookish snob in Zen dominated groups. Now I'm swinging in the opposite direction - all part of the middle way. I'll eventually find a healthy balance between sutta study and direct experience. Metta, Phil 32368 From: Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 7:23pm Subject: mind-door process Hi Howard and Jack, Here's something from "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" that may be of interest. It's a bit long (9 paragraphs) and I've left out the Pali. Guide to the Limited Javana Process, p.163// 1. The mind-door process: When cognitive process occurs in one of the sense doors, two doors are actually involved: the physical sense door and the mind door, which is the bhavanga from which the cognitive process emerges. What is called the mind-door process is a cognitive process that occurs exclusively through the mind door, without any admixture of the sense doors. This kind of process is also called, for the sake of clarity, a bare mind-door process. 2. The mind-door process includes both the "limited" or sense-sphere process and the cognitive process in absorption pertaining to the sublime and supramundane attainments. 3. The limited or sense-sphere mind-door process is itself twofold: (1) that consequent to a five-door process, and (2) the independent process. 4. (1) Just as when a gong is struck once by a baton, the gong sends forth a continuous stream of reverberations, so when one of the five sense doors has been impinged upon once by a sense object, after the five-door process has ceased the past sense object comes into range at the mind door and sets off many sequences of mind-door processes. Because these cognitive processes come as the sequel to a five-door process, they are known as 'consequent processes'. They are counted as fivefold by way of the five sense-door processes which they follow. 5. Ledi Sayadaw explains that it is in these consequent processes that distinct recognition of the object occurs; such recognition does not occur in a bare five-door process itself. An eye-door process, for example, is followed first by a conformational mind-door process, which reproduces in the mind door the object just perceived in the sense-door process. Then comes a process grasping the object as whole; then a process recognizing the colour; then a process grasping the entity; then a process gasping the name; then a process recognizing the name. 6. "The process grasping the object as a whole" is the mind-door process perceiving as a whole the forms repeatedly perceived in individual frames by the two preceding processes, the original sense-door process and the conformational mind-door process. This process exercises a synthesizing function, fusing the perception of distinct "shots" of the object into the perception of a unity, as in the case of a whirling firebrand perceived as a circle of fire. It is only when this has occurred that recognition of the colour is possible. When the recognition of the entity occurs, one recognizes the entity or shape. When the recognition of the name occurs, one recognizes the name. Thus, Ledi Sayadaw asserts, it is only when a recognitional process referring to one or another specific feature occurs that one knows, "I see this or that specific feature." 7. (2) An 'independent mind-door process' occurs when any of the six objects enters the range of cognition entirely on its own, not as a consequence of an immediately preceding sense-door process. The question may be raised how an object can enter the range of the mind door independently of a proximate sensory impingement. Ledi Sayadaw cites various sources: through what was directly perceived earlier, or by inference from what was directly perceived; through what was learnt by oral report, or by inference from what was learnt by oral report; on account of belief, opinion, reasoning, or reflective acceptance of a view; by the power of kamma, psychic power, disturbance of the bodiy humours, the influence of a deity, comprehension, realization, etc. He explains that if one has clearly experienced an object even once, at a later time--even after a hundred years or in a future life--dependent on that object a condition may be set for the vibration of the bhavanga. The mind that has been nurtured on such an input of prior experiences is extremely susceptible to their influence. When it encounters any sense object, that object may trigger off in a single moment mental waves extending to many thousands of objects previously perceived. 8. The mental continuum, constantly being excited by these causal influences, is always seeking an opportunity to emerge from the bhavanga and acquire a clear cognition of an object. Therefore the mental factor of attention present in the bhavanga repeatedly cases the bhavanga to vibrate, and it directs consciousness again and again to advert to objects which have gained conditions to appear. Even though the bhavanga citta has its own object, Ledi Sayadaw explains, it occurs in the mode of inclining towards some other object. As a result of this perpetual "buzz" of activity in the bhavanga, when an object acquires sufficient prominence through other operative conditions, it draws the continuum of consciousness out of the bhavanga, and then that object comes into the range of cognition at the mind door. 9. The independent process is analyzed as sixfold: the process based on what was directly perceived; the process based on inference from what was directly perceived; the process based on oral report; the process based on inference from oral report; the process based on the cognized; the process based on inference from the cognized. "The cognized" here includes belief, opinion, comprehension, and realization; "inference from the cognized" includes judgements arrived at by inductive and deductive reasoning. 32369 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 7:54pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Question Still Remains Hi Howard (and Steve), We were talking about paramattha dhammas: --------------------------- H: > Yes, but Jack, through his practice, comes to be clearly aware of them, and not just memorize the claim of their presence. > ------------------------------------------------- Do you accept the " one billionth of a second" description of dhammas? Are you saying that you or Jack -- or anyone we know -- can be clearly aware of an object that appears and disappears in a billionth of a second? -------------------------------------------- Howard: >The meditation instructions given by the Buddha were not for the purpose of creating paramattha dhammas - they were for the purpose of creating vijja. > --------------------------------------------- Vijja? Is that a form of panna? If so, it is a paramattha dhamma. And, I agree, meditation does not create paramattha dhammas. -------------------- < . . . > Howard: > Ahh, there you go - the Buddha was wrong. Well, that's sure good to know. > --------------------------- I did not say the Buddha was wrong. But I understand the frustration that led you to accuse me of such a hideous thing. This morning, after reading certain posts from James, Victor and yourself, I was visibly furious. Isn't that ridiculous? When there is so much evil and injustice in the world, I direct my rage at a group of Buddhists! :-) I have deserved your ridicule and, perhaps, I should apologise. In my previous two posts (to you and Jack), I used language that I knew could be infuriating. In like-minded, NAG, company, it would not be infuriating. I remember a discussion led by Azita (at one of the Cooran meetings), which went something like: "There is only the present moment, nothing more." "Yes, I know, but we have to . ." "No! There is only the present moment." "Yes, but . ." "No buts!" "Bt" "No!" And so it went. My point is; all of us who took part in that conversation enjoyed it and there was no frustration. No one impersonated Homer Simpson throttling the life out of Azita: "Why you little . . . !" :-) --------------------- H: > The Buddha certainly taught that rupas come and go quickly, and the mind still more quickly. But isn't it that quick mind that comes to see? The Buddha taught people how to cultivate the mind. > --------------------- If I could cultivate a very, very, very quick mind – that could catch paramattha dhammas – what would I see? I would see what I see now: visible object, audible object, ignorance, self-view, conceit and so on. In the absence of panna, those dhammas would mean nothing to my thinking mind: they would be replaced by concepts – just like now. ------------ < . . . > Howard: > Did the Buddha teach people to read about pa~n~na arising and hope for the best - after all, it's all just random? I don't think so. ------------ Nor do I. That would be an extreme view held by annihilationists. ----------------------- KH: >> What I am getting at is; before there can be satipatthana, you have to understand there is no self who can bring it about. >> Howard: > Okay - understood. (If that's all you mean.) Or do you mean that before the means for liberation can be developed, liberation must already have occurred? To get to the goal one must already be there? -------------------------------------------------- Good question, but one that could expose me to ridicule. In that, like-minded, company I was talking about I would have a stab at it. :-) At another Cooran meeting, Steve was asked a question along the same lines – "Can there be right understanding when there is no right understanding to condition it?" He said, when the Buddha's sasana has completely died out, there can be no right understanding: There can be right understanding now only because the Buddha has introduced it into the world. That doesn't explain the potential for self-enlightened, non- teaching Buddhas. Sorry if I have misquoted you Steve: please butt in with a correction. Kind regards to you both, Ken H 32370 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 0:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: hello from Cha-am (plus more Misuzu Kaneko) HI Phil & All, --- Philip wrote: > Thank you for this. James said recently that we should only study > dhamma at this group by studying sutta (the S in DSG bit) but I > think that that is a > shortsighted view of things. .... S: I think it depends on what we understand by ‘study’. We’re used to associating ‘study’ with book-study and accumulating theoretical knowledge. When it comes to ‘dhamma study’, as I see it, it always has to refer to the present direct understanding, regardless of the activity. It is this development of wisdom which is stressed throughout the texts, rather than the amount of book study. On the other hand, our guidance comes from the Dhammavacara, the Buddha’s teachings as spelled out in the home page description. Without this guidance(whether in textual or paraphrased form), it would be impossible to develop an understanding of anatta whilst ocean gazing or reading poetry. .... P: >Taking a journey with one's nose in the > map is the analogy I used elsewhere - we can't set out on the journey > without the map, and we need to refer to the map often along the way - > but becoming thoroughly absorbed in the map will lead to a deadening > of experience - and we know that experience leads to insight. Sitting > on the patio after breakfast and > gazing on the ocean can teach us a lot, and I am quite confident that > the Buddha wanted us to be studying realities in and around us. > Thus "investigation of phenomena" is one of the factors of awakening. .... S: I agree with your comments. Of course if we went to gaze at the ocean thinking that this would bring any wisdom, it would be wrong again too;-) Please note that it’s also stressed in the home page description: “The discussions include matters of both theory and practice, with the aim of developing precise understanding of the realities of the present moment.” In other words, book study on its own without any development of understanding of what is read will not be of assistance. In one discussion at the weekend, we discussed the meaning of various words that we read about repeatedly in the texts, such as in the extract quoted before from the Kitagiri sutta which I was discussing with James, referring to the right conditions for wisdom to develop: ..... MN 70 "At Kitagiri" 22. "Bhikkhus, I do not say that final knowledge is achieved all at once. On the contrary, final knowledge is achieved by gradual training, by gradual practice, by gradual progress. 23. And how is final knowledge achieved by gradual training, gradual practice, and gradual progress? Here one who has faith [in a teacher] visits him; when he visits him, he pays respect to him; when he pays respect to him, he gives ear; one who gives ear hears the Dhamma; having heard the Dhamma, he memorizes it;he examines the meaning of the teachings he has memorized; when he examines their meaning, he gains a reflective acceptance of those teachings;.....” .... S: One ‘hears the dhamma’ through any means - by listening, reading or reflecting on different words, more or less depending on inclinations how, when and so on. The purpose is for understanding the meaning, not for accumulating more or less academic knowledge, for example. We can also see the role of sa~n~na ‘marking’ the sounds rightly or wrongly and playing its part too with each citta. When the citta is kusala (wholesome), so is the sa~n~na and vice versa. So there may be conventional forgetfulness, but kusala ‘marking’ or conventional memorizing, but with akusala cittas and ‘marking’ by sa~n~na as I see it. By ‘memorizes’, I take it to refer to the firm development of satipatthana as understanding develops, not to the ability to be able to repeat or recite. With understanding, the Dhamma can be ‘remembered’ and ‘recalled’ even if there is no ability to find particular suttas or recall particular names. We also discussed the meaning of ‘anussati’ which refers to often having sati, to not forgetting or following the object which appears with detachment, but without any ‘whispering lobha’ which Azita mentioned. As she also said, ‘no amount of ‘trying’ will make awareness arise’. So on the one hand, we can appreciate the benefit and value of hearing more, giving ear, reading the texts and wise considering and yet we can know that there is only any wise considering or hearing when panna understands the present namas and rupas and is accompanied by detachment. Nina also raised this topic (post 32100). She wrote "it depends again on conditions: inclination and circumstances of life, and these are also conditioned. Good to discuss. What if there is no time for any listening, only hurry to work? Reading a sutta now and then, following a discussion on dsg? Is that enough? But circumstances cannot be forced. And all the time: we have to be on the look out for lobha." S: When we read about ‘bahassuta’ - hearing a lot, it always implies 'with understanding'. We don’t need to memorize anything or to repeat any stanzas. It just depends on how much we get from what we hear. All enlightened beings are ‘bahassuta’, they’ve heard a lot with wisdom, but this doesn’t mean they are necessarily the ones with the greatest book knowledge at all. It means they've considered deeply and developed satipatthana. We shouldn't set any such rules about quantity at all.One person may read one line with good understanding, another may recite the entire Tipitaka with no understanding. Phil, this is a wordy answer to say that I think you’re very much on the right track with your considered reading and reflection and appreciation that sati can arise anytime, whether sitting by the ocean, reading poetry or teaching in class. As Sukin wrote so helpfully (I thought): Sukin: “If indeed there has been a moment of satipatthana, one may like to have it again. The wanting may then seek to create a situation or believe in a practice which is supposed to get one there. So one has `clung' to some projected method, failing to appreciate the fact that `sati' is a conditioned reality and cannot be made to arise by following some conventional activity or even the lead of `volition'. In other words, if there is an idea of `doing something' to condition satipatthana, it is belief in a form of rules or ritual.” Metta, Sarah p.s re your post 32227, pls also see samvega in U.P. and follow the thread. You mentioned ‘sensing of a kind of ecstasy in rising and falling of paramattha dhammas...’ - remember any state can be known and that it has to be a path of detachment from the start. ============== 32371 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 0:26am Subject: Re: The Question Still Remains Friend Ken H, Ken H: Do you accept the " one billionth of a second" description of dhammas? Are you saying that you or Jack -- or anyone we know -- can be clearly aware of an object that appears and disappears in a billionth of a second? James: I am a little confused about this issue. The Buddha said in the Sankhata Sutta: "Monks, these three are fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, alteration (literally, other-ness) while staying is discernible. "These are three fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated. "Now these three are unfabricated characteristics of what is unfabricated. Which three? No arising is discernible, no passing away is discernible, no alteration while staying is discernible. "These are three unfabricated characteristics of what is unfabricated." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an03-047.html James: I am confused as to if, according to the Abhidhamma, a dhamma is supposed to be considered `fabricated'? Or is it a completely different category? If a dhamma is fabricated then there must be some kind of change while it is persisting, according to the Buddha. Even if it lasts for one billionth of a second there must be some change happening within that short space of time. It doesn't simply go on and off does it? From my meditation experience, I perceive change while dhammas are persisting but I must admit that my concentration is not to the level of perceiving dhammas that last only a billionth of a second! ;-)) Is it necessary to perceive dhammas at that minute level of change? Ken H: This morning, after reading certain posts from James, Victor and yourself, I was visibly furious. James: I am very sorry to read this. I have been trying very hard not to upset anyone in this group by using harsh or unfair speech. If you would like to tell me how I have offended you, either on-list or off, I will try my best to rectify the situation. Sorry again :-( Metta, James 32372 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 1:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana - Rebirth with genetic Info. Hi Eddie, --- Eddie Lou wrote: > Hi, All, > > My reasoning is: > 1. the case of people (like historic figures - > Beethoven, Mozart, etc), who exhibited prodigial > talents from birth. > The prerequisite being - you must first believe firmly > in 'Cause & Effect', something no one should dispute > because it is all very clear-cut. Okay, with that > squared away and firm, we can proceed to say, why ? > some people like - Mozart or Beethoven got complex > skills with no visible/discernible cause of being > taught or tutored. > Why ? some infant born with physical deformities, with > no cause of it that make them ('most likely, though) > suffer from such handicap. .... S: Just as you said above - Cause and Effect or rather innumerable complex conditions and causes from the past and present which only a Buddha could ever fully comprehend. I think that when we study more about conditions and realize how this moment has been 'formed up' from past causes over aeons, nothing is so surprising anymore. > > All these causes are hidden somewhere -->-> in > previous live(s). Remember, we always believe there is > a cause to any effect. > > > Now, I have a nagging question..... ... S: Your story is interesting and the answer is the same - causes and conditions which meant the features, hair colour and so on had to be just this way and not another way. I've no idea about the wife's actions, but I've read about similar cases which seem to defy the odds. Whatever surprising things occur, the path remains the same....;-) Metta, Sarah ====== 32373 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 2:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi Eznir, Jack, Howard & All, --- Eznir wrote: > How can there be concepts, long before any recognizing or naming? I > thought the Javana thought moments, where these concepts are > fabricated, is the last to come just before the retentive thought > moments, in the train of thoughts, am I right? .... S: I understand you to be referring to the sequence of cittas in a mind-door process and the fact that the javana cittas occur just before the tadarammana or registration consciousness at the end of the process. As I understand, there are a multitude of mind-door processes occurring before there is any recognizing or naming. So as Sukin was suggesting, there are many mind-door processes long before there is any idea of naming or thinking in words when the sense object is just marked and the details attended to. In a single mind-door process, the cittas, with the assistance of sa~n~na and other mental factors, will take the same concept as object. I’m not sure we can refer to concepts being ‘fabricated’ by the javana cittas. Remember that only sankhara (i.e conditioned) dhammas are sankhata (formed up), not concepts. However, it is true that it is during these javana cittas that the object (in this case a concept) is attended to with various mental states such as attachment, aversion, wrong view or wholesome states. ..... E: > Moreover, how can you say "recognizing and naming" when "naming" > itself involves conceptualizing and still say there are > concepts "long before recognizing or naming"? .... S: Because there have to be many, many mind-door processes attending to and marking what was a sense-door experience before there is such recognizing and naming, by attending to the colour or shape or smell and so on. If you check ‘processes of cittas’ in UP for lots of detail: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts This is one fairly simple and clear post by RobM to give an idea: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/25755 ..... > By the way, how does those in the NAG follow the Teachings of Lord > Buddha as given in the Tripitaka in order to attain stream-entry let > alone Nibbana? Please understand that I am only trying to comprehend > the thought patterns that underlie this idea of non-action(ie, if NAG > means Non-Action Group). .... S: in an ultimate sense there is no one in the NAG to do or not do anything;-) Attaining stream-entry depends on the development of the eightfold path factors led by right understanding. These factors can never be developed by understanding of concepts, but only by understanding the conditioned dhammas, the namas and rupas appearing now as not-self. This is the same for all, regardless of any Group we may be categorized as being in;-). On your other post to me about the essence of sankhara, I get your gist and I always appreciate your well-considered comments. I think it’s very important to clarify that the dhamma in ‘sankhata dhamma’ refer to the 5 khandhas, i.e to paramattha dhammas only. The conditions for these sankhata dhammas to arise are usually realities, but when it comes to arammana paccaya (object condition), the object or arammana may also be a concept as discussed above. In D.O, it is abhi-sankhara that is specified as being sankhara, here referring to cetana (kamma) capable of bringing results. Under the khandhas, sankhara khandha refers to the 50 cetasikas. All references are to conditioned dhammas only, but we need to be clear on the context, I think. ***** Jack & Howard, you’re having a useful discussion on concepts and sanna. Whether the concepts are concepts about concepts or concepts about paramattha dhammas only the category of the concept is affected. They shouldn’t be confused with sanna which arises with each citta marking its object, regardless of whether it’s a reality or a concept or what kind of concept it is. Jack, as soon as there is ‘deconstructing’ of ‘an ultimate’, the object of the citta is a concept, however valid it may be. It doesn’t mean that this has to be unwise attention - in the development of samatha or the brahma vihara, concepts are the object, but the cittas are wholesome. However, this shouldn’t be confused with the development of satipatthana which directly knows realities or ‘ultimates’. Howard, as you say, ‘most of the concepts that arise in the mind are not single mental events, but sequences of mental events...’etc. Again we’re referrring to a great many mind door processes. Each citta in each process is accompanied by sanna marking its object, like the showing of a cartoon story. I think we can only refer to a ‘capping’ recognition conventionally in this regard as the ‘picture’ continues to move on. I remember you also explained this well with the ‘rose’ example. Comments most welcome. Metta, Sarah ===== 32374 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 2:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Dear Hasituppada, --- hasituppada wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I think it is here that one could differentiate between intellectual > undertanding by reading and listening, and realising through > experience the truth of what had been learnt by reading and > listening. .... S: Agreed, as I understand you. .... > When we know that what we call a being is afterall a continuous > rising and falling away of thoughts, we will also understand that > this is a thought process , and the last of the thoughts should > project itself to continue else where which is (probably) the > rebirth. .... S: Good points. So we can begin to understand that the plane of rebirth depends on the citta and the object. Now it's the kaamaavacara plane for us because sensesphere objects are experienced by the cittas (as opposed to rupajhana, arupajhana or lokuttara cittas with their respective objects). So the cittas continue on and the 31 planes are a conventional description detailing the cittas and objects experienced according to kamma and other conditions. I hope you can add more comments on this or other topics. Someone mentioned at the weekend that I hadn't replied to you before, but I said you were 'an old friend';-) Of course I'd be glad if you clarified on this for them too. Metta, Sarah ====== 32375 From: bodhi2500 Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 2:45am Subject: Re: The Question Still Remains wrote: > At another Cooran meeting, Steve was asked a question along the same > lines – "Can there be right understanding when there is no right > understanding to condition it?" He said, when the Buddha's sasana > has completely died out, there can be no right understanding: There > can be right understanding now only because the Buddha has > introduced it into the world. > > That doesn't explain the potential for self-enlightened, non- > teaching Buddhas. Sorry if I have misquoted you Steve: please butt > in with a correction. > > Kind regards to you both, > Ken H Hi Ken H and all, I may have said this, but I'm not sure I agree with it. :o) Like you said there are Pacceka Buddhas that realize Nibbana without hearing the teachings in that lifetime. I think perhaps what i may have been referring to (or what my understanding is now) was that for savaka's, hearing the Dhamma is a essential condition for the arising of lokutara pa~n~na. As the Buddha re-introduced the spoken Dhamma to the world, ultimately it was this re-introduction, and the hearing of it, that is an essential condition for the arising of lokutara pa~n~na for all except Pacceka and Sammasambuddhas. Looking forward to see you and the rest of the SEQLDDSG folks soon. :o) Take care Steve 32376 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: hello from Cha-am (plus more Misuzu Kaneko) Dear All, A couple of typos I’d like to correct and apologise for: > comes from the Dhammavacara, the Buddha’s teachings as spelled out in > the > home page description. ... This should have referred to: ‘dhamma-vicaya’(investigation of the teachings) or ‘Dhamma-Vinaya’ (the entire teachings as rehearsed at the Councils). I could also have used ‘Buddha-vacana’(word of the Buddha). .... > S: When we read about ‘bahassuta’ - hearing a lot, .... This should be ‘bahussuta’, ‘bahu’ meaning much or many, ‘suta’ meaning heard. Metta, Sarah ===== 32377 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti, Q. Bgk Nina I'm just starting to catch up on messages received before or during our time away. My apologies to you and others for the delay in responding. --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Jon and Howard, > First, Jon, about concepts. I asked A. Sujin: when we reflect in the right > way on paramattha dhammas, the object is still a concept so long as panna > does not directly realize the dhamma that appears. We are still > thinking > *about* realities. Answer: yes. This is a good subject to discuss. Thus we > have to make this distinction: when does a concept represents > conventional > truth and when ultimate truth, she also stressed that point. We are thinking > anyway. Should't we know what the object of thinking is? Yes, I've heard this said too. A concept can represent a dhamma, for example, when we are discussing aspects of the teachings. At such times there may or may not be an appreciation that the concept represents a reality, i.e., something that can be directly experienced, even perhaps at that very moment, given the right conditions. As I understand it, any kusala occurring at such moments would be kusala of the level of samatha. As to whether there is any understanding of kusala and akusala by their respective characteristics, this is another matter altogether. In my own case the understanding of that distinction by direct experience (i.e., other than by assumption or deduction) is not well developed. I don’t know of this is the experience of others also. Jon 32378 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and Nina and Lodewijk) - ... > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Here's just one example, Jon. There is the same for all the higher > jhanas through the sphere of nothingness: > > *********************** > Again, bhikkhus, Saariputta, dispelling pleasantness and > unpleasantness, ... > beyond this. With much practise they come to him. > ************************ > I particularly point out "contact, feelings, perceptions, intentions, > interest, resolution, effort" as cetasikas conducive to analysis of dhammas. > When, in the context of equanimity, concentration, and purified > mindfulness > there are also present contact, recognition, volition, interest, > and resolve, then cetasikas adequate to vipassana are present. > --------------------------------------------------- Cetasikas such as contact, feeling, perception and intention are among the universals that arise with every citta (including akusala cittas and vipaka cittas), so it would not be correct to think of them as cetasikas that are *conducive to analysis of dhammas*. I may be wrong, but I think none of the cetasikas you mention here occur exclusively with kusala cittas. But even if we take the cetasika panna, which is present during jhana and arises exclusively with kusala cittas, it would still not be correct to refer to this 'adequate to vipassana', since panna of the particular kind that accompanies jhana does not perform quite the same function as the panna that arises at moments of vipassana. To put this another way, ability in mundane jhana does not predispose a person to vipassana; those who are able to attain enlightenment based on jhana must still have developed insight to the necessary level, just like anyone else, since that is the 'only way'. In my view, nothing in the passage you have quoted says or should be read as suggesting that the cetasikas required for vipassana are present at momens of jhana. Jon 32379 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana James --- buddhatrue wrote: > Friend Jon and All, ... > Again, this all goes back to what the Buddha taught. We all need to > take a personal inventory of ourselves to determine where the three > poisons influence our thoughts/feelings, actions, and words. ... My advice is that you determine where you are the weakest and go from > there. Create a plan of self-improvement: don't just meditate or > study the dhamma and have no idea why you are doing it. Don't just > expect results like pennies from heaven ;-)). Be proactive in your > Buddhist practice. If you do this I don't think anyone could call > you a member of the NAG anymore ;-). To my understanding, whenever there is the understanding of a presently arising dhamma there is mundane insight, and this is the development of the path; it makes no difference whether the dhamma that is object of insight is kusala or akusala or neither (for example, a rupa). This being so then any taking if a 'personal inventory' or focusing on our worst areas, whatever merit that may have, is not a *necessary* part of the development of the path. What I'm saying is there can be the development of the path without implementing the kind of 'proactive' approach that you advocate. Insight is a matter of understanding, and understanding is not a matter of doing. Jon 32380 From: Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi, Larry (and Jack) - The following is great. I'm amazed it didn't catch my attention at times that I looked over the Abh-Sangaha. One thing that isn't totally clear to me in this material, is the nature of the "objects" involved, whether in the limited or independent mind-door processes. The first line of # 7 does seem to suggest paramatthic objects, not pa~n~natti. That line reads "An 'independent mind-door process' occurs when any of the six objects enters the range of cognition entirely on its own, not as a consequence of an immediately preceding sense-door process." I take the object as paramatthic because it is described as "any of the six objects," which means a sight, sound, taste, etc. So I'm not entirely sure this material quite elucidates the relationship between sa~n~na and pa~n~natti. It certainly does go into what one might call the rudimentary stage (or base case) of the process of concept formation - the "percept" level rather than the "concept level". If the same sort of processing comes to operate on a "higher level" (of abstraction and hierarchical grouping) it would, I suppose, then become true concept formation. I see concept formation as the construction of high-level tags/marks (created by sa~n~na), and I tend to see the "arising of a concept" in the mind as being the occurrence of a sequence (or collection) of related paramatthic phenomena or concepts, followed by a triggered occurrence of the tag that serves as a mental "capping" of that sequence. With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/20/04 10:25:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard and Jack, > > Here's something from "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" that may be > of interest. It's a bit long (9 paragraphs) and I've left out the Pali. > > Guide to the Limited Javana Process, p.163// > > 1. The mind-door process: When cognitive process occurs in one of the > sense doors, two doors are actually involved: the physical sense door > and the mind door, which is the bhavanga from which the cognitive > process emerges. What is called the mind-door process is a cognitive > process that occurs exclusively through the mind door, without any > admixture of the sense doors. This kind of process is also called, for > the sake of clarity, a bare mind-door process. > > 2. The mind-door process includes both the "limited" or sense-sphere > process and the cognitive process in absorption pertaining to the > sublime and supramundane attainments. > > 3. The limited or sense-sphere mind-door process is itself twofold: (1) > that consequent to a five-door process, and (2) the independent process. > > 4. (1) Just as when a gong is struck once by a baton, the gong sends > forth a continuous stream of reverberations, so when one of the five > sense doors has been impinged upon once by a sense object, after the > five-door process has ceased the past sense object comes into range at > the mind door and sets off many sequences of mind-door processes. > Because these cognitive processes come as the sequel to a five-door > process, they are known as 'consequent processes'. They are counted as > fivefold by way of the five sense-door processes which they follow. > > 5. Ledi Sayadaw explains that it is in these consequent processes that > distinct recognition of the object occurs; such recognition does not > occur in a bare five-door process itself. An eye-door process, for > example, is followed first by a conformational mind-door process, which > reproduces in the mind door the object just perceived in the sense-door > process. Then comes a process grasping the object as whole; then a > process recognizing the colour; then a process grasping the entity; then > a process gasping the name; then a process recognizing the name. > > 6. "The process grasping the object as a whole" is the mind-door process > perceiving as a whole the forms repeatedly perceived in individual > frames by the two preceding processes, the original sense-door process > and the conformational mind-door process. This process exercises a > synthesizing function, fusing the perception of distinct "shots" of the > object into the perception of a unity, as in the case of a whirling > firebrand perceived as a circle of fire. It is only when this has > occurred that recognition of the colour is possible. When the > recognition of the entity occurs, one recognizes the entity or shape. > When the recognition of the name occurs, one recognizes the name. Thus, > Ledi Sayadaw asserts, it is only when a recognitional process referring > to one or another specific feature occurs that one knows, "I see this or > that specific feature." > > 7. (2) An 'independent mind-door process' occurs when any of the six > objects enters the range of cognition entirely on its own, not as a > consequence of an immediately preceding sense-door process. The question > may be raised how an object can enter the range of the mind door > independently of a proximate sensory impingement. Ledi Sayadaw cites > various sources: through what was directly perceived earlier, or by > inference from what was directly perceived; through what was learnt by > oral report, or by inference from what was learnt by oral report; on > account of belief, opinion, reasoning, or reflective acceptance of a > view; by the power of kamma, psychic power, disturbance of the bodiy > humours, the influence of a deity, comprehension, realization, etc. He > explains that if one has clearly experienced an object even once, at a > later time--even after a hundred years or in a future life--dependent on > that object a condition may be set for the vibration of the bhavanga. > The mind that has been nurtured on such an input of prior experiences is > extremely susceptible to their influence. When it encounters any sense > object, that object may trigger off in a single moment mental waves > extending to many thousands of objects previously perceived. > > 8. The mental continuum, constantly being excited by these causal > influences, is always seeking an opportunity to emerge from the bhavanga > and acquire a clear cognition of an object. Therefore the mental factor > of attention present in the bhavanga repeatedly cases the bhavanga to > vibrate, and it directs consciousness again and again to advert to > objects which have gained conditions to appear. Even though the bhavanga > citta has its own object, Ledi Sayadaw explains, it occurs in the mode > of inclining towards some other object. As a result of this perpetual > "buzz" of activity in the bhavanga, when an object acquires sufficient > prominence through other operative conditions, it draws the continuum of > consciousness out of the bhavanga, and then that object comes into the > range of cognition at the mind door. > > 9. The independent process is analyzed as sixfold: the process based on > what was directly perceived; the process based on inference from what > was directly perceived; the process based on oral report; the process > based on inference from oral report; the process based on the cognized; > the process based on inference from the cognized. "The cognized" here > includes belief, opinion, comprehension, and realization; "inference > from the cognized" includes judgements arrived at by inductive and > deductive reasoning. > /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) 32381 From: Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Question Still Remains Hi, Ken - In a message dated 4/20/04 10:57:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > <. . . > > Howard: >Ahh, there you go - the Buddha was wrong. Well, that's > sure good to know. > > --------------------------- > > I did not say the Buddha was wrong. But I understand the > frustration that led you to accuse me of such a hideous thing. This > morning, after reading certain posts from James, Victor and > yourself, I was visibly furious. Isn't that ridiculous? When there > is so much evil and injustice in the world, I direct my rage at a > group of Buddhists! :-) > > I have deserved your ridicule and, perhaps, I should apologise. In > my previous two posts (to you and Jack), I used language that I knew > could be infuriating. > =========================== No, I apologize. Ridicule and sarcasm are never good, and especially not when directed at inappropriate targets! I'm 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) 32382 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] The 6 Great Councils ! Venerable Bhante Samahita, Thank you very much for your post on the six Councils, I shall keep it so that I can consult it. With respect, Nina. op 20-04-2004 07:10 schreef Bhikkhu Samahita op bhikkhu_samahita@y...: > > How were the actual Words of the Buddha preserved until today ? 32383 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abidhamma for birthday Hi Howard, I join Sarah in her good wishes for your birthday. My wish, and also Lodewijk's is: may you see evermore that the Abhidhamma is not abstract but that all of it pertains to daily life now. Nina. P.S. Before answering your Q on sanna, I have to wrestle through an ocean of mails, finishing some urgent work, and arranging all Lodewijk's good remarks on Dhamma during the discussions we had these days. He says Sujin's Concepts and Realities (Part of the Survey, on Rob K' s web) may be of help to you. op 20-04-2004 11:10 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > S: I hope you have a good day and meaningful birthday. I also look > forward to your comments and summary afterwards. Perhaps you can encourage > Andrew Olendzki (or any of the participants) to join in our discussions > here as well. > > Metta and Best Wishes for many more wise birthdays in advance. 32384 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi Howard, just a short answer. I read in the co to Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, about anicca sanna: WEe have to look under which heading a dhamma is. Nina. op 20-04-2004 15:49 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > With regard to the relationship between sa~n~na and cognitive > paramattha dhamma, look at Nyanatiloka's 3rd meaning for 'sa~n~na': > >> 3. saññá may also refer to the 'ideas', which are objects of meditation, >> e.g. in a group of 7 ideas, of impermanence (anicca-s. ), etc. (A. VII, 46); >> of >> 10: impurity (asubha-s.), etc. (A. X, 56), and another set of 10 in A. X. >> 60; or to wrong notions, as in nicca-, subha-s. (the notion of permanence, >> beauty), etc. 32385 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 1:23pm Subject: Re: The Question Still Remains Hi James, You wrote: --------------- > I am confused as to if, according to the Abhidhamma, a dhamma is supposed to be considered `fabricated'? Or is it a completely different category? If a dhamma is fabricated then there must be some kind of change while it is persisting, according to the Buddha. Even if it lasts for one billionth of a second there must be some change happening within that short space of time. It doesn't simply go on and off does it? > ---------------- Like you, I find it confusing (I'm not even sure I understand your question), but the Dhamma isn't easy. If, as we are told, a dhamma is changing even while it is persisting, then that is its characteristic – part of its inherent nature. There may not always be conventional examples of absolute realities but that should not mislead us into thinking dhammas do not really exist – that they are something nebulous. ----------------- J: > From my meditation experience, I perceive change while dhammas are persisting > --------------- Well there you are: no problem :-) ---------------- J: > but I must admit that my concentration is not to the level of perceiving dhammas that last only a billionth of a second! ;-)) Is it necessary to perceive dhammas at that minute level of change? ---------- Panna, sati and other cetasikas can perceive dhammas. As Howard was saying, they are equally as fast (or faster) than their objects. When we start thinking that you or I can perceive them, we are getting a little ahead of ourselves, I think. ---------- < . . . > J: > If you would like to tell me how I have offended you, either on- list or off, I will try my best to rectify the situation. Sorry again :-( ---------------- At a superficial level, my problem is that my Dhamma friends (if not the Dhamma itself) are being shunned and ridiculed. I don't like to see them being told, in effect, "I haven't listened to a single word you have said," and I don't like to see them called silly names. At a deeper level, I am being my own worst enemy: At any moment of partiality, or of anger, or of heedlessness, there is no respect for the Dhamma and no respect for any of you, here at dsg. So; enough about me and my problems, let's get on with the discussions. :-) Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > "Monks, these three are fabricated characteristics of what is > fabricated. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is > discernible, alteration (literally, other-ness) while staying is > discernible. > "These are three fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated. > "Now these three are unfabricated characteristics of what is > unfabricated. Which three? No arising is discernible, no passing > away is discernible, no alteration while staying is discernible. > "These are three unfabricated characteristics of what is > unfabricated." 32386 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 3:40pm Subject: Re: The Question Still Remains/Cooran Hi Steve, Thanks for your prompt reply – nice to know you are on the ball. ------------- S: > I may have said this, but I'm not sure I agree with it. :o) Like you said there are Pacceka Buddhas that realize Nibbana without hearing the teachings in that lifetime. ------------------------ Fair enough, but I will remind you of what you said when we meet at Cooran. Note to interested dsg members: The Cooran group is meeting on the Mayday weekend. (What a pity the rest of you live so far away.) It will be our first three-day meeting. How dedicated is that? Andrew has advised us to bring togs, ready for Stream-entry. (!) We will be having a talk to him. ----------------------- S: > I think perhaps what i may have been referring to (or what my understanding is now) was that for savaka's, hearing the Dhamma is a essential condition for the arising of lokutara pa~n~na. As the Buddha re-introduced the spoken Dhamma to the world, ultimately it was this re-introduction, and the hearing of it, that is an essential condition for the arising of lokutara pa~n~na for all except Pacceka and Sammasambuddhas. --------------- There's a lot if information in that, thank you, perhaps you could say more on it at Cooran (or here, of course). Christine and Andrew have each prepared several discussion papers. I have made a lot of promises but none that I look like keeping. :-) The surf has been good lately, have you noticed? I have yet to see you, or your longboard (shudder), at Noosa. Hopefully one day. Kind regards, Ken H 32387 From: Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 4:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi Howard, I really haven't figured out concept according to abhidhamma. The bare bones definition of concept is "word and/or meaning". 'Word' seems straight forward enough; it is 'meaning' that is vague and contradictory. Does 'meaning' include any combination, synthesis, mental formation? All of these are obviously conditioned in multiple ways; so that contradicts the abhidhamma idea that concepts are not conditioned. The object of jhana is said to be a concept. Does this mean the mental image (nimitta)? There are detailed instructions on how to _create_ a nimitta. Maybe 'meaning' is just the convention of pointing to a reality and has nothing to do with formations. If we have a mental image of a tree, maybe we have to say the image is real, like the visible data of a mirage is real. It is the interpretation that is a concept. Even this is unsatisfactory. 'Interpretation' seems obviously conditioned; ask any teacher;-) I think the 'not conditioned' characteristic of concept is very problematical; but if concept is conditioned, that would make it a reality, right? Larry ps: I think the difference between sanna and sati is that sanna is mistaken according to the buddhadhamma, while sati perceives correctly, especially as regards the three general characteristics. Both are concerned with identifying. 32388 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:52pm Subject: Mundane jhana and Supramundane jhana? Hi all, I have some questions regarding jhana: What is mundane jhana? What is supramundane jhana? I have not come across any reference regarding mundane jhana and supramundane in the discourses. Metta, Victor 32389 From: Beverly Westheimer Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:50pm Subject: It's so easy ? Hello Everyone: Tom and I are back home after a wonderful 10 days in Bangkok, the best of which were spent with Dhamma friends in a discussion group with Ajan Suchin. The 2 1/2 days spent with the group certainly made the 30+ hours travelling from the US to Thailand more than worthwhile. It is always good to be reminded to be aware of the realities appearing through the sense-doors and the mind-door in the present moment. How simple it sounds, yet so difficult to practice! Tom and Bev 32390 From: Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 3:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? In a message dated 4/21/04 2:25:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: Jack, as soon as there is ‘deconstructing’ of ‘an ultimate’, the object of the citta is a concept, however valid it may be. It doesn’t mean that this has to be unwise attention - in the development of samatha or the brahma vihara, concepts are the object, but the cittas are wholesome. However, this shouldn’t be confused with the development of satipatthana which directly knows realities or ‘ultimates’. Sarah, What do you mean when you say deconstucting of an ultimate? By definition an ultimate can't be deconstucted. Do you mean deconstucting into ultimates? Using my previous example, I look at a situation and then start to reduce the situation into ultimates. For example, I am nervous waiting in a dentist's office. I then say to myself, look at what is really happening. I check what is at each of my 5 sense doors and there isn't a problem. As long as I keep in touch with the object of these 5 sense doors instead of letting my imagination run wild, no problem. This is not that complicated or hard to do. jack 32391 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 8:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] It's so easy ? Bev It's great to see you here, as it was to see you and Tom in Bangkok (and a total surprise). I'm glad you found the discussion useful -- I certainly did. I hope you find your time here useful also. Reading your message is itself a reminder, so thanks for that. Like you say, it sounds so simple but it's not! Jon PS Sorry not to have had a chance to say good-bye before we left, but there was the usual general melee at the end of the session. Please pass my best on to Tom. --- Beverly Westheimer wrote: > Hello Everyone: > Tom and I are back home after a wonderful 10 days in Bangkok, the > best > of which were spent with Dhamma friends in a discussion group with > Ajan > Suchin. The 2 1/2 days spent with the group certainly made the 30+ > hours travelling from the US to Thailand more than worthwhile. It > is > always good to be reminded to be aware of the realities appearing > through the sense-doors and the mind-door in the present moment. > How > simple it sounds, yet so difficult to practice! > Tom and Bev 32392 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi Jack, Thankyou for responding. Apologies for any confusion in my comments without directly quoting you. I see I may have partially misunderstood your original comment inserted here: ..... Jack: >> I'm not clear what the Abhidhamma and Visud. say about the ultimates of > a > thought as object of attention, i.e., that which we can deconstruct a > thought > into. Cetasaikas arise with the object of attention but I am talking > about the >> object itself. Ideas? ...... Sarah: >> Jack, as soon as there is ‘deconstructing’ of ‘an ultimate’, the > object of > the citta is a concept, however valid it may be. It doesn’t mean that > this > has to be unwise attention - in the development of samatha or the brahma > vihara, concepts are the object, but the cittas are wholesome. However, > this shouldn’t be confused with the development of satipatthana which >> directly knows realities or ‘ultimates’. ***** Jack: > What do you mean when you say deconstucting of an ultimate? By > definition an > ultimate can't be deconstucted. .... S: Exactly. We’re agreed - I misread you. .... J:Do you mean deconstucting into > ultimates? .... S: I think you’re suggesting above that thoughts can be deconstructed into ultimates. I’m suggesting that again this is merely more thinking about concepts. For example, thinking about how the body consists of elements is a conceptual analysis, even though in this case it’s a correct conceptual analysis. ..... J: > Using my previous example, I look at a situation and then start to > reduce the > situation into ultimates. For example, I am nervous waiting in a > dentist's office. > I then say to myself, look at what is really happening. I check what is > at > each of my 5 sense doors and there isn't a problem. .... S: This may well be helpful reflection, but I’m suggesting that thinking in this way or ‘reducing the situation into ultimates’ is thinking about concepts of ultimates, not satipatthana which has ultimate realities as objects of awareness. Of course, even whilst thinking like this (or on the contrary, nervously pacing up and down), satipatthana can arise and know any ultimates directly without any special ‘reducing’ or ‘deconstructing’. ..... >As long as I keep in > touch > with the object of these 5 sense doors instead of letting my imagination > run > wild, no problem. This is not that complicated or hard to do. .... S: I agree and I don’t think this kind of concentration on the sense door objects is unique to those who have heard the Buddha’s teachings. I don’t understand it to be the same as directly understanding conditioned dhammas with detachment and without any idea of self. For example, whether the imagination runs wild or we feel nervous or there is ‘keeping in touch’ with sense objects, there are realities (‘ultimates’) arising and falling away which can be known regardless without anything special ‘to do’. I’d be grateful for any further comments, Jack. You’ll be doing others a favour by keeping the dialogue open, however frustrating it may seem;-). Metta, Sarah ===== 32393 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 0:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] It's so easy ? Hi Tom & Bev (Nina & All), Thank you so much for touching base after your very long trip home to New Hampshire. For us, it was a weekend of pleasant surprises, the first of which was finding you’d specially come to join the dhamma sessions. I appreciated your contributions very much. Let’s hope it’s not another 21 years before I see you again!! .... --- Beverly Westheimer wrote: > Hello Everyone: > Tom and I are back home after a wonderful 10 days in Bangkok, the best > of which were spent with Dhamma friends in a discussion group with Ajan > Suchin. The 2 1/2 days spent with the group certainly made the 30+ > hours travelling from the US to Thailand more than worthwhile. .... S. Perhaps you’ll encourage others to do the same:-) Christine’s regular commute from Queensland no longer seems so extraordinary and far less so our weekend hops from Hong Kong. .... >It is > always good to be reminded to be aware of the realities appearing > through the sense-doors and the mind-door in the present moment. How > simple it sounds, yet so difficult to practice! .... S: Another pleasant surprise was when our old friend, Peter, turned up to a session, not having done so for 20years. As he said, the message stays the same, and there are still no ‘loop-holes’;-) I hear K.Sujin saying ‘develop a little until it gets used to that reality’. On Lodvijk’s qu about satipatthana and the difficulty of understanding its meaning, she stressed that no term is needed. We merely use this or any other word to differentiate awareness of realities, not for thinking about concepts. Sati has to be aware of a characteristic of reality accompanied by understanding. In the beginning awareness is stressed because the characteristic of awareness has to be known first in order for understanding to develop. When it seems that we’re just hearing ‘fragments’ or that part of the picture is missing, it shows that it’s a self at these times who is reading or developing, looking for more. Repeatedly the ‘clinging to results’ with an idea of self was stressed over the weekend. It creeps in all the time. Whispering lobha again as Azita reminded us. Nina, I also repeated your message in which you asked K.Sujin for some encouraging comments for when one is sick. While she responded, I was reflecting on how what is conventionally encouraging is so very different from what is considered encouraging from an abhidhamma understanding. The latter can seem quite sharp and tough when one is not able to hear the truth. Sukin also stressed at the weekend that abhidhamma was the best medicine for any difficulties and I appreciated his keen ability to hear the truth at such times. When sick or diagnosed with any disease, K.Sujin stressed that it depends on whether ignorance or panna arises at any moment. Nothing can be done. It depends on satipatthana. One would like just to have pleasant feeling but this is just wishing or more attachment to the self. The reality at that moment is not-self and is arising and falling away in a moment. While we are thinking about friends and people in life, in truth there is no one, no name, no disease, no cancer. At the moment of bhavanga cittas, there is no story of anyone or any disease at all. I suggested the doctor might say otherwise and that one needs to take actions, but K.Sujin stressed ‘never mind what the doctor says’ and one follows various actions accordingly, but never mind about the name or label. In other words, we do what needs to be done anyway. We don’t need to hear the teachings for this. However, while leading our lives accordingly, the development of satipatthana and the understanding of realities is the only real cure of our problems. Usually we float along on the ocean of concepts forgetting about the sense-door and mind-door realities. Can we swallow the medicine of satipatthana at this moment? Metta, Sarah p.s Hope to hear more from you Bev, now you’ve broken the ice.....perhaps even a little about how you came to be so very interested in the Dhamma......and of course, how nice if you decide to join the India trip, though I realize it’s not long since your last one (with Jon, Nina & 100+ others;-)). Did you read my other post about the last big surprise of our weekend?? (Vince & Nancy!!). ========== 32394 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 0:55am Subject: Re: dialogue on satipatthana Friend Jon, Jon: To my understanding, whenever there is the understanding of a presently arising dhamma there is mundane insight, and this is the development of the path; James: But Jon, there isn't any understanding of a presently arising dhamma. You don't have ANY real understanding of ANY presently arising dhammas. Your mind is suffering from the taint of delusion, just as mine is, so you don't have any real understanding. Understanding presently arising dhammas isn't development of the path- it is completion of the path. The only way to have understanding of presently arising dhammas is to be enlightened already. Jon: it makes no difference whether the dhamma that is object of insight is kusala or akusala or neither (for example, a rupa). James: The object of insight cannot be akusala (unwholesome) unless it is recognizing unwholesomeness in someone else (like what a Buddha recognizes). The akusala states in your own mine cannot be the object of insight because they are the antithesis of insight. Insight can only arise when the mind is pure and wholesome. For example, people kill other people because they do not know that it is wrong. It would not be possible for a person to develop insight by being mindful while killing someone else. The two cancel each other out. Jon: This being so then any taking if a 'personal inventory' or focusing on our worst areas, whatever merit that may have, is not a *necessary* part of the development of the path. James: As I have explained, this isn't so. We all should take a `personal inventory' as often as possible. We also should be proactive in eliminating unwholesome states of mind so that insight can arise. Jon: Insight is a matter of understanding, and understanding is not a matter of doing. James: Well, I agree with you that one cannot `force' or `choose' to have insight, but one can take actions to cultivate wholesome states of mind so that insight can naturally arise. Metta, James 32395 From: Ken O Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi Larry I beg to differ on Ledi Sayadaw comments, when he said that recognition is not at the five door process that why did Buddha say that eye and form, eye consciousness arise and when eye consciousness arise, so does sanna cetasikas that arise with the eye consciousness. When sanna arise, recogntion arise. I suspect he mixed it up with pannati, because only recognition of concept (he said the process of grasping the object as a whole) can only appear in mind door but not sense door process. Ken O 32396 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Question Still Remains/Cooran Hi KenH & Cooranites, --- kenhowardau wrote: > Note to interested dsg members: The Cooran group is meeting on the > Mayday weekend. (What a pity the rest of you live so far away.) It > will be our first three-day meeting. How dedicated is that? Andrew > has advised us to bring togs, ready for Stream-entry. (!) We will > be having a talk to him. .... S: We’ll be looking forward to hearing about the secrets of your success;-) Remember, no halting, no straining and no standing still when you meet any contrary currents;-) You captured Azita perfectly in that little conversation. She's a good friend to us all. Perhaps you should record her and play it to the ignorant wordlings anytime they suggest you’re lacking in diplomacy;-) When she joins you, I’m sure you’re a formidable team. .... >Christine and Andrew > have each prepared several discussion papers. I have made a lot of > promises but none that I look like keeping. :-) ..... S: KenH, I think we all know that it would be a major upset to the routine if you were to drop the surfboard and get organised;-) .... > The surf has been good lately, have you noticed? I have yet to see > you, or your longboard (shudder), at Noosa. Hopefully one day. .... S: Perhaps he’s also read about your surf rage when it comes to those poor longboarders and is keeping his distance. Chris I’m sure will be giving you a full report on the discussions at the weekend (Chris, hope you’re back safely and patiently looking forward to any of your comments and humourous anecdotes). Talking of surf rage reminds me that we talked about how there may be conditions for a lot or a little of any particular kilesa (defilements) in this lifetime, but we really don’t know our accumulations from the past at all and can only know that which is conditioned now. For example, on our last morning, Vince and Nancy recounted how they were stopped at gun-point on a trip in Italy and how Nancy who is usually very quiet and calm, grabbed hold of the gun and wouldn’t let it go in sheer fright. She said she realized she was capable of anything at that instant. We really never know. K.Sujin (in passing) referred to a Jataka story about Big prince and Little prince and something about giving away his kingdom and later claiming it back. Maybe Nina or someone can give us the source. In other words, we may think we don’t get into rages or even have a lot of accumulated generosity like Big prince, but we never know. Defilements can be conditioned to arise anytime, but the stream-enterer understands there’s no ‘me’ or ‘them’, just conditioned dhammas. I think when kilesa or any other realities are seen with detachment as ‘just conditioned dhammas’ for an instant, even whilst one is upset or lost in attachment, there is a little taste of the teachings and it no longer matters what is conditioned at this moment. We discussed how the stream-enterer doesn’t kill because there is full understanding about conditioned dhammas, no‘me’ and ‘them’. Jealousy is also eradicated because again there is no ‘me’ and ‘them’ when it comes to fame, wealth and other wordly conditions and no hoping or wishing for anything by a ‘self’ or for a ‘self’. So attachment and other defilements can only be reduced by understanding, not by force or wishing, even if there may seem to be temporary improvements. I hope you all have a good weekend then and we’ll look forward to hearing more about the preparations and the various accounts afterwards which we’ve now come to expect;-) KenH, please report back any more exchanges too and I hope they all continue to take what you have to say in such good humour unlike our unruly mob here who insist on challenging your every word;-). Metta, Sarah ====== 32397 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi Ken O and Larr, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > I beg to differ on Ledi Sayadaw comments, when he said that > recognition is not at the five door process that why did Buddha say > that eye and form, eye consciousness arise and when eye consciousness > arise, so does sanna cetasikas that arise with the eye consciousness. > When sanna arise, recogntion arise. I suspect he mixed it up with > pannati, because only recognition of concept (he said the process of > grasping the object as a whole) can only appear in mind door but not > sense door process. Perhaps I can help here to explain Ledi Sayadaw's point. Sanna as a cetasika arises in every citta; it's function is to mark an object and "recognize" an object by its mark. This is not "memory" where we match a current object with a previous experience. As an analogy, consider what happens when we watch TV. In reality, there are coloured dots coming from a screen. Our "low level" sanna allows us to take in multiple dots, remember their colour and position and then create a complete image for us to "see". Only once this "low level" process is complete can the function of matching the actor's face with our previous experiences arise; this matching of the actor's face is "high level" memory. When Ledi Sayadaw (or Bhikkhu Bodhi) uses the term "recongition" in this section, they are referring to "high level" memory which is quite different from "low level" sanna. Hope this helps... let me know if clarification is required. Metta, Rob M :-) 32398 From: Suravira Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 5:30am Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher" wrote: > Hello, > > This (rather strange) question is actually about Mahayana Buddhism. > Please forgive me for asking it here, I have often received lots of friendly > help in here, and I'm not sure where else I might find an answer. So > any help is appreciated.. > > When meditating as a Mahayanist, one aims to avoid entering the > stream so as to stay in the round of rebirths in order to help other [Suravira] The experience of stream entry is not discouraged in Mahayana practice. In that stream entry dispells doubt in the efficacy of the dharma and also eradicates false views of individuality, it is embraced in all Mahayana traditions, not avoided. > beings. I am wondering if there is a certain way that a meditator does > this, and if so, how? Would there come a point in meditation where it is > obvious that entering the stream is possible, and a person can simply > choose not to advance? Or is it possible to 'accidentally' enter the > stream, only realizing afterwards what has happened? If so, what does > a Mahayanist do about this? [Suravira] The Mahayana meditator does not aspire to avoid stream entry. Dispelling doubt in the efficacy of the dharma and the eradication of false views of individuality are critically important accomplishments along the path to enlightenment. For example, in Zen traditions, kensho is highly valued - kensho is equivalent to stream entry. And in Vajhrayana traditions, 'seeing the clear nature of mind' is highly valued - that is equivalent to stream entry. When the conditions are suitable, stream entry occurs. All Buddhist meditation practices, regardless of their lineage, have as their aim facilitating stream entry - and eventually enlightenment. With metta, Suravira > > Thanks, > > Chris. 32399 From: Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 2:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana Hi, James and Jon - In a message dated 4/22/04 3:56:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > > Friend Jon, > > Jon: To my understanding, whenever there is the understanding of a > presently arising dhamma there is mundane insight, and this is the > development of the path; > > James: But Jon, there isn't any understanding of a presently arising > dhamma. You don't have ANY real understanding of ANY presently > arising dhammas. Your mind is suffering from the taint of delusion, > just as mine is, so you don't have any real understanding. > Understanding presently arising dhammas isn't development of the > path- it is completion of the path. The only way to have > understanding of presently arising dhammas is to be enlightened > already. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: James, this position strikes me as an all-or-nothing-at-all position which isn't correct. If, along the way, we were entirely bereft of insight, how could there be further progress? Even the realization that things are not perfect involves a degree of insight. In total blackess, one can't even see the light switch. The path culminates with the perfection of right intention and right understanding, but it must begin with a modicum of these as well. --------------------------------------------------- > > Jon: it makes no difference whether the dhamma that is object of > insight is kusala or akusala or neither (for example, a rupa). > > James: The object of insight cannot be akusala (unwholesome) unless > it is recognizing unwholesomeness in someone else (like what a > Buddha recognizes). The akusala states in your own mine cannot be > the object of insight because they are the antithesis of insight. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: So, while we are angry, or, better said, when we momentarily take that anger as an object (and not as a concomitant), can we not see it clearly for what it is? If not, are we not then lost, consigned to slavery to our base emotions? -------------------------------------------------- > Insight can only arise when the mind is pure and wholesome. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: That given, cannot moments of insight be interspersed? Is it not insight that spurs letting go of harmful states? ---------------------------------------------------- For > > example, people kill other people because they do not know that it > is wrong. It would not be possible for a person to develop insight > by being mindful while killing someone else. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: But mindstates go by quickly, and many kusala and akusala states, it appears to me, can be rapidly alternating in what seem to us to be but a moment. Heightened concentration, mindfulness, and comprehension must be developed, the lighting must be turned up in all states, so that our vision may become clearer, sharper, and more penetrating, and we can come to *see* kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala. ----------------------------------------------------- The two cancel each other> out. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree - they couldn't co-occur. When taking an akusala feature as object with clear understanding, that momentary state is, itself, kusala. At a moment that the immediately passed anger of the last moment is fleetingly seen as painful, that is a kusala moment. ----------------------------------------------------- > > Jon: This being so then any taking if a 'personal inventory' or > focusing on our worst areas, whatever merit that may have, is not a > *necessary* part of the development of the path. > > James: As I have explained, this isn't so. We all should take > a `personal inventory' as often as possible. We also should be > proactive in eliminating unwholesome states of mind so that insight > can arise. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I very much agree with you on this, James. This is certainly a part of what the Buddha was talking about when he taught right effort. From ATI, there is the following: The definition (the four Right Exertions): > "And what, monks, is right effort? [i] "There is the case where a monk > generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent > for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not > yet arisen. [ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, > upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful > qualities that have arisen. [iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates > persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful > qualities that have not yet arisen. [iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, > activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, > non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities > that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort." > >> -- SN XLV.8 > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Jon: Insight is a matter of understanding, and understanding is not a > matter of doing. > > James: Well, I agree with you that one cannot `force' or `choose' to > have insight, but one can take actions to cultivate wholesome states > of mind so that insight can naturally arise. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I strongly concur, James. If I dd not think so, I would find little interest in the Dhamma except as pleasant philosophy. -------------------------------------------------- > > Metta, James > > =========================== 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) 32400 From: Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 2:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? In a message dated 4/21/04 10:45:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: Jack: >> I'm not clear what the Abhidhamma and Visud. say about the ultimates of> a > thought as object of attention, i.e., that which we can deconstruct a> thought > into. Cetasaikas arise with the object of attention but I am talking > about the >> object itself. Ideas? ...... [snip] .... S: I think you’re suggesting above that thoughts can be deconstructed into ultimates. I’m suggesting that again this is merely more thinking about concepts. For example, thinking about how the body consists of elements is a conceptual analysis, even though in this case it’s a correct conceptual analysis. all, I am not suggesting that thoughts can be deconstructed into ultimates. As I said, I am unclear on this. "Unclear" to me means I don't know. See below for my comments about deconstructing body and conceptual analysis. ..... J: > Using my previous example, I look at a situation and then start to > reduce the > situation into ultimates. For example, I am nervous waiting in a > dentist's office. > I then say to myself, look at what is really happening. I check what is > at > each of my 5 sense doors and there isn't a problem. .... S: This may well be helpful reflection, but I’m suggesting that thinking in this way or ‘reducing the situation into ultimates’ is thinking about concepts of ultimates, not satipatthana which has ultimate realities as objects of awareness. Of course, even whilst thinking like this (or on the contrary, nervously pacing up and down), satipatthana can arise and know any ultimates directly without any special ‘reducing’ or ‘deconstructing’. Here is what I mean by deconstructing. I'm sitting in the dentist's office. I see I am in discomfort. I think (use concepts) to decide to put my attention on my physical body sense door. Once my attention is there, I just observe with no thought or direction. At times, my training in 4 material elements (ultimates) meditation kicks in and my attention goes to the physical body elements without the first step of using concepts to decide to do it. It all happens with "my" doing anything. Thinking, deciding and using concepts in this situation to me is only useful in that it points me toward a state of not thinking, deciding or using concepts. My meditation practice has benefits to me such as reducing stress but its ultimate use to to practice "directly understanding dhammas with detachment and without any idea of self." as you say below. "Understanding" in this sense means direct, non-conceptual wisdom not book learning. By the way, I am worried that I am coming off as claiming advanced powers. Most people who have been meditating for a few years and been on some vipassana retreats would probably say the same. I am still very much a beginner. ..... >As long as I keep in > touch > with the object of these 5 sense doors instead of letting my imagination> run > wild, no problem. This is not that complicated or hard to do. .... S: I agree and I don’t think this kind of concentration on the sense door objects is unique to those who have heard the Buddha’s teachings. I don’t understand it to be the same as directly understanding conditioned dhammas with detachment and without any idea of self. For example, whether the imagination runs wild or we feel nervous or there is ‘keeping in touch’ with sense objects, there are realities (‘ultimates’) arising and falling away which can be known regardless without anything special ‘to do’. This concentration on the sense doors (guarding the sense doors the Visud. calls it) can refer to different steps in the process as taught by the Buddha. As its simplest level, it is still part of the process as taught by the Buddha. At its highest level it is "directly understanding dhammas with detachment and without any idea of self." >I’d be grateful for any further comments, Jack. You’ll be doing others a >favour by keeping the dialogue open, however frustrating it may seem;-). Probably not. But, I am thinking and learning about my practice and your views from this dialogue. jack 32401 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 6:46am Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Friend Sukin, > > Sukin: ?.So one has `clung' to some projected method, failing to > appreciate the fact that `sati' is a conditioned reality and cannot > be made to arise by following some conventional activity or even the > lead of `volition'. In other words, if there is an idea of `doing > something' to condition satipatthana, it is believe in a form of > rules or ritual. > > James: This is silly. Not only does it not make logical sense it > doesn't follow the teachings of the Buddha. Please quote where the > Buddha taught this. Your ponderous explanations and questions, > based on seemingly nothing but personal opinion, are getting very > tiresome to me. > > Sukin: What does for example `sitting cross-legged' have anything to > do with the arising of mindfulness? What is the causal connection? > And `bringing mindfulness to the fore', is it so easily aroused? Or > is volition so powerful in bringing about any desired state of mind? > I understand that the experience during formal sitting appears > different from the everyday activity of being caught in one sense or > mind object or the other, like a monkey jumping here and there. But > is it any less being `caught' when there is a sense of now being > able to observe those activities more closely. Is there any > awareness of the characteristic of ignorance, attachment, and > aversion and such, i.e. independent of any `self' doing the noting? > Is such kind of awareness in essence any different from generally > being aware of one's experiences? Except for perhaps, attempting to > relate them to the concept of Anatta and conditionality? Does the > knowledge of the teachings validates the quality of experience or > could it in fact be used to justify any wrong practice? Lobha can > appear calm and peaceful like sati, is one mistaking one for the > other? Panna is accompanied by detachment, why does one seek to > continue sitting? For more sati and panna? Is one equally calm being > interrupted during meditation or not having any chance to meditate > at all? Hi. This is Rob Ep jumping in. Since Nina, Sarah and others were kind enough to invite me to say hello from time to time with a personal hello or update, and perhaps also poke my nose into a thread or two, I decided to say hello right in the middle of the intense issue above. This happens to be one of the recurrent themes that interest me: the distinction between the naturally arising mindfulness in everyday life, and the promotion of sati through formal meditation, or "sitting." I have changed the thread name to reflect this theme so that I will be able to recognize it in case anyone replies. As you know this lively group generates scores of messages every day. I got dizzy just looking for Sarah's kind reply to Nina's posting of my "hello" note. Anyway, there seems to be a view associated with Abidhamma that formal sitting does not promote and may possibly prevent the arising of sati, and that one must foster proper conditions for the development of mindfulness only by the most "passive" or "natural" means. One can understand an aspect of this philosophy, in that the attempt to manipulate the mind brings up more thoughts and expectations. One may promote "thoughts about" sati and expectations that mindfulness is being increased, and this may merely be concept disguised as actual awareness or insight. So one, by raising specific expectations, tied to a practice, may interfere with the natural process of observation of the mind as it occurs in everyday life, and overlay this process with a further layer of conceptual delusion. Obviously, to the extent this happens, it would prevent rather than promote the development of genuine awareness that would lead to gradual awakening. The question is, does formal sitting meditation cause the kind of expectation that prevents rather than promotes the development of sati, and on the other hand, is there a process taking place in formal meditation that promotes rather than prevents the development of sati? And if both are present, does one outweigh the other in the affect they have on understanding? A corollary question then is: does sati in fact develop through ?natural observation? in conjunction with study of suttas and commentaries, and is there any expectation in *that* process that would prevent rather than promote the development of genuine awareness? First of all, from experience, there are definite mental changes that occur from formal sitting meditation, and these occur whether one is expecting something in particular or not. The mind either becomes calmer and thought becomes slower, or the mind becomes more excited as thoughts become aggravated and become more apparent to the observing citta, or other contents of consciousness become more obvious to the observer as he sits without the normal distractions of moving from one activity to another. Just like any activity, sitting still and paying attention allows one to concentrate more fully than jumping around and doing one thing after another. To deny the natural benefit for concentration, insofar as that goes, of sitting still and paying attention, is to deny common sense. This is true not just of observing the mind, but of any activity. There is nothing that is not benefited with increased awareness when it is focused on and paid attention to. If one were to say that the jumpiness of everyday life can be followed equally easy and that the mind can be observed equally while running for the bus as when sitting and focusing, I would say that this person has a philosophical predisposition to think so, as this obviously flies in the face of common sense. The person who is in favor of everyday life observation, naturally occurring as it were, will say that observing the natural cittas occurring during running of the bus is a lot more valuable as a natural mental event, than the contrived situation of sitting somewhere with eyes closed or looking at a wall for the express purpose of observing a mind that is now taken out of its natural environment and put into an artificial one. It is like observing a rat in the wild and how it behaves, as opposed to observing a lab rat under controlled conditions and seeing how it behaves in a cage with a maze and a food box at the end of the maze. To extend this analogy, it might be interesting to observe what one can learn by this laboratory observation, and what one can learn from the naturalist in the wild, following the rat in his daily life. I think it is obvious to anyone who is objective that these two situations do not replicate each other, but instead enhance each other. Why would one say ?We want only the knowledge and scientific development that can be gotten from observing our rat in the wild. We will accept only the natural rat, the whole rat and nothing but the rat.? The lab worker will say on the other hand: ?Please don?t infect my pristine environment with all the extraneous influences of the natural habitat. You will mess up the results of my carefully controlled experiment. Both are wrong, because they have adopted a partial view and clung to it, something that the Buddha warned most explicitly against. Obviously, the ?middle way? is to include both processes, the natural and the scientific, and to let them inform each other for what they have to offer. There is also no way to deny that these two individuals above have become part of a culture that has adopted certain practices and the real reason they are going to work the way they do is because they trust that culture and thus naturally adopt its practices. The scientist trusts his laboratory, and the naturalist trusts the natural habitat. They are not going to be too open to the other view, even if it were logically demonstrated to them. They will go back to their culturally accepted view which they share with others in their field and in their approach. The chiropractor is always going to have some skepticism about the medicine the doctor prescribes, and the doctor is always going to roll his eyes at the chiropractor?s unscientific methods. This is also true for the Abidhammist and the Thai Forest Monk, to give two examples. The Abhidhammist will have a set of reasons why formal sitting meditation is ?bad? which come from the traditional interpretation of the commentaries, and the Thai Forest Monk will laud the benefits of meditation with a bunch of explanations of all the qualities that are developed in his tradition. They are both part of a culture of practices and ideas, and neither one will probably be open to challenges. They will go back to the ideas and rationalizations that come from each of their philosophies. So let us see if we can break open this impasse between cultures. Those who are in favor of practicing meditation will say ?this is the way.? Those who are in favor of naturally arising sati in everyday life promoted by study and understanding of sutta and commentary will say ?this is the way.? They will criticize the others? view, although Buddha would probably say that to do this would harden the mind and make it more difficult to approach the openness and promote the letting go of partial views that actually promotes mindfulness and understanding. I have spoken of the changes in the mind and awareness that occur ?naturally? from sitting in meditation. Concentration increases, awareness of mental processes and of contents of consciousness increases. This should appear to be good for development of sati, but what about that expectation that develops false concepts of mindfulness? It is indeed an obstacle to promote or cling to results from meditation. One must understand the results that meditation may bring and then practice for the living experience of it, not to get those results. It is indeed possible to surrender to the experience of meditation and not spend the time in expectation and concept. In fact, one can spend time dropping those expectations or treating them with awareness as thoughts only when they occur. But when one finishes meditating the go back into life and the meditation experience is dropped. So what does the practitioner do who wants to develop the path continuously, and grow towards awakening? They treat their entire experience as an opportunity to observe the processes of mind and to promote mindfulness. And so they go into the process which is promoted by Abhidhamma, being present naturally for the occurrences of cittas and mental processes in everyday life, to see into their true nature. In other words, there is no conflict necessary between these two modalities given by the Buddha. We don?t have to be confined to the understandings of one culture or another, but can be open to all the skillful devices available for the path. Is it *impossible* that formal meditation will enhance the experience of the development of mindfulness for an Abidhammist? Is it even *impossible* that some physical culture which opens the body and nervous system such as yoga, may have some affect on the mind that allows a greater development of awareness? To say that these things are impossible closes the door to all of the aspects of the body and mind that may possibly promote greater development of awareness and feed the path. I don?t think we should have our cultural doors limited or closed. The body and the mind are what we carry with us in this life, the only equipment we?ve been given for the path, and so we should be open to making the best use of all of this equipment, not restrict ourselves to one modality. We may have a main modality that we think is best, but we should be open, not closed, to other modalities, just as Abidhamma enjoins us to be open to all the moments that occur in life, whatever activity we are doing. There are yoga practices that say, don?t worry about the physical culture so much, but what happens to your mind in this or that position. Be aware of the activity of consciousness at all times, and the yoga thus tests the ability to maintain awareness under shifting conditions. Being aware while running for the bus also gives an opportunity to see what the mind process is under particular conditions. These situations *all* give this opportunity, and we should not fall into prejudice one way or the other, and say ?Oh well, now I?m doing my yoga so there is no opportunity here for observing the nature of cittas and concept.? Of course, it gives its own unique opportunity for observation and growth. And it is a part of daily life itself. But the meditator who only wants to observe his mind like a ?lab rat? and thinks that all meditation takes place on the cushion is also wrong. He is also confined to a false view of what gives results and what doesn?t. Everything gives results if one includes it. The meditator should get up off of his cushion and do the equally hard job of being available with awareness to the events and flow of everyday life. He must take his cushion with him and ?sit? when he is standing, lying, eating, etc., as Buddha enjoined him to. So there is really no separation between Abidhamma and meditation, nor between meditation and Abidhamma. There is only life and its various events and practices to be observed and understood at all times. Practices should not be rejected, but should be included, even if this flies in the face of ?traditional understandings.? We should use common sense and skillful practices of all sorts, not fall into prejudices about what is ?right and wrong.? Sukin says rather disdainfully, already knowing the answer from the culture of Abidhamma, ?What does sitting cross-legged have to do with the arising of mindfulness?? Well, Sukin is wrong to have that opinion. He should have *no* opinion, and that is the problem with Buddhist subcultures, all of them. The participants think they already know all the answers and there is one practice that is good, and all the others are bad. The truth is that Sukin has no idea whether crossed legs promotes mindfulness or not. He really doesn?t know, neither do any of us. We can only judge by actual results, and only that a ways down the road. We may have faith in our given path, but that faith must produce some sort of development or that faith is misplaced. We must see something in this lifetime whereby we can say ?Not only am I comfortable in this culture and enjoy the practice and the company I keep, not only do I admire my teachers, but there is some clear development of sati in this lifetime from following this path.? I personally think there is even a physiological aspect to awakening and the path, and that physical practices such as yoga make a difference in producing the mental awareness and energy necessary to observe the mental and perceptual process and promote understanding. But I don?t really know either. What is most important is that I keep my mind open to observe the process of thought, consciousness, perception, so that I may awaken, and I will engage in the practices I choose to engage in. Buddha?s principles must apply no matter what I am doing. Any tradition that substitutes belief for an open mind, shuts down the development of sati. Perhaps we should practice exactly those things that we are most prejudiced against. Let Sukin sit with crossed legs for a while and observe cittas, and then say whether he experienced anything different by sitting in a comfortable sitting position on a cushion and observing the mind process. Not to say ?Well what does this have to do with anything?? And it would be silly of me to say ?Sorry, I?m only open to sitting meditation? when invited to observe the mind process in everyday life. I should say ?Wow, let?s see what that is about? and do it, as I do try to do. A person who only pays attention when meditating and does not have an interest in the budding apple tree out the window and what mind process allows the blossoms to look pink, is not much of a meditator. Anyway, that is all for now. There is more to say but I will perhaps return to this after hearing any responses. I hope this may generate a few thoughts or perceptions that are out of the ordinary mold or predisposition of our given cultures, as it has for me. And thanks for having me over! : ) Best, Rob Ep 32402 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 6:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Howard Thanks for the additional info. As a general observation, while we are much indebted to the early Western scholar/translators, I don't think they should be regarded as authorities on doctrinal aspects of the teachings. Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, Jon - > > Just one more tid bit about the Anupada Sutta. In his book Abhidhamma > Studies, Ven Nyanaponika Thera sites that discourse "as a sutta > source for > Abhidhamma terminology," and he does so after a strong defense of its > authenticity against an attack by Ms. Rhys Davids to the effect > that this sutta is a > clear after-the-fact compilation and not the Buddha word. > Ms. Rhys Davids, according to the Venerable, apparently also went off > the deep end in what he calls her "hypercriticism" of Abhidhamma, itself. It > seems that she thought not only that the Abhidhamma Pitaka is not likely the > literal word of the Buddha, for which many think a good argument can be made, > but that it is not even "the message of the Founder" and was > concocted by later > monks. The inference I draw from Nyanaponika is that she thought that the > Abhidhamma was largely cut from whole cloth. > > With metta, > Howard 32403 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 6:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: greetings from Rob Epstein. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Nina - > > Thanks for passing this on to the group. It'sreally good to hear from > Rob! > > With metta, > Howard Thanks Howard! I hope you are very well! Best, Rob Ep 32404 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 6:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: greetings from Rob Epstein. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear Nina & Rob Ep, > > Please > > give > > my best wishes to all of my friends on dsg, and tell them I miss them > > too! > ... > S: As I mentioned, we think of you whenever we open the photo album. Pls > drop by directly from time to time. Glad Emily is doing well and hopefully > your wife too. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= Dear Sarah, Thanks for your response, and for inviting me back to say hello. It's very nice to say hi to you. My family is doing well, although some of us [my wife] are working too hard. I really also thank Nina for her lovely Easter/Passover note to me. I am grateful that my friends here remember me. Well, I hope you won't regret the invitation. I have posted a massive missive on meditation. If you have the patience to read through all of it, I will be very interested in your response. It's really nice to be here, and hope that everyone is well and happy! I may have to pop back out, but I will try to keep popping back in and keep in contact! Best Regards, Rob Ep 32405 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Lodewijk (and Nina) --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Jon and Larry, ... > Lodewijk thinks that when I say vipassana is the same, the > eightfold Path is > the same as satipatthana I create confusion. He suggests: vipassana > developed in stages leads to lokuttara by means of satipatthana. The goal is > understanding that can eradicate defilements. As to the development of the > eightfold Path, panna together with the other factors is developed to reach > enlightenment. This is also done by means of satipatthana. I don’t have anything particular to add to your comments here, except to say that there can only ever be a limited conceptual understanding of satipatthana, since even conceptual level understanding needs direct understanding to support it, just as direct understanding in turn needs correct conceptual understanding. This is the spiral analogy that has been mentioned from time to time. Another way of saying this is that conceptual level understanding can take one only so far. Sooner or later one needs to talk about, consider and reflect upon the teaching concerning the potential objects of satipatthana such as seeing and visible-object, hardness and softness, for these 'bits and pieces' also happen to be parts of 'the whole' that has to be known. And the whole can only ever be known one tiny bit or piece at a time. Remember the parami of patience -- this includes patience with one's own lack of progress. Jon 32406 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anapanasati Sutta (was, satipatthanasutta) Jack I realise you've since bowed out of this thread, so I won't respond at length. Just to say 2 things. First, if by 'non-doer' you mean someone interested only in talking about insight and not interested in its actual development, then I'm definitely a 'doer' and not a 'non-doer'. But that still leaves the question as to what the development of insight entails, and I happen to believe that the Buddha's message was a somewhat deeper, more subtle one than I think you do. Secondly, I do of course have a fair idea of the 'usual method of meditation instruction' and of how people practice meditation, but I don't see how that helps decide what a given sutta means. In my view a careful reading of the sutta itself and its commentary, and of the rest of the Tipitaka, is needed. If our 'doing' gets off to a wrong start it's going to be difficult to admit the possibility of error, especially if we've decided that the 'right' results are being experienced. Jon --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > In a message dated 4/12/04 12:50:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... > Jon, > > James pointed out something here that I didn't pay any attention to in my > response to you. I keep forgettting I am talking to non-doers. > > When the Buddha (or I) am talking about paying attention to the > breath, he is > using the concept of breath to point us toward an area of > attention. I think > this is a valid use of the concept of breath. The usual method of meditation > instuction is to, at first, teach to pay attention to the breath in general. > Then farther down the road, the instuctions are to pay attention to the body > sensations at one point where the breath touches the body. We are taught to > reduce the breath down to ultimates such as hot/cold. hardness, > etc. > > Another point is that the first teaching in the Anap. Sutta is to pay > attention to a long breath. "Long breath" is a concept that uses a comparison. One > point of doing this is to show us to be mindful of the effect that a long breath > has on the body and mind. Some people with a lot of experience > using the > Anap. Sutta in their practice start off each of their meditation sessions with > deliberately breathing long and being mindful of what is happening then breathing > short (the 2nd teaching) and being mindful of that, working > themselves > through each step. But, once the deliberate invocation of a step is completed, they > leave that technique behind. There would be no deliberately > breathing long, > for instance. They are just mindful, pure seeing in the seeing. > > jack 32407 From: Ken O Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Rob Ep What a long letter, its been a long time I have seen you in DSG. Good to hear from you. Are you still doing Zen meditation? Ken O 32408 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:21am Subject: [dsg] Re: Illusion of Control --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Ken - > > In a message dated 4/14/04 3:24:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > kenhowardau@y... writes: > > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > ---------------------- > > H: >Yes, it all can be understood in such a manner. But there is > > understanding, and there is understanding. An intellectual > > translation of the Buddha's suttic teachings into "ultimate form" is > > not the sort of understanding that is liberative, though it can > > certainly be useful. > > ---------------------- > > > > Mere intellectual understanding is liberating in its way. To > > understand that there is no self, only nama and rupa, is to have a > > weight lifted from your shoulders. Don't you get this from your > > own, phenomenalist viewpoint? > > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Correct intellectual understanding - and we can't be too sure when our > understanding *is* correct - is helpful. It is an important factor. In > itself, however, it is only liberating, as you say, "in its way". > ------------------------------------------------ Hi Howard. Maybe you could say that it liberates the mind to the extent that it clarifies thoughts one might have about the nature of "self" and replaces those thoughts to some extent with thoughts that are geared towards the liberative process. If one sees that there are only arising cittas and not a "self" at the center, and sees this only intellectually, then perhaps they will point their awareness towards the process and away from the false concept? This would only be a partial measure though, as you say, without some practice that is liberative, and not only correcting of the conceptual tendency on a conceptual level. More below. > > ---------------------- > > > > Howard: >Yes, all true. However - there are complex relations that > > hold among the momentary actualities, and a concept such as that of > > a process of meditation is a way of (indirectly) grasping not only > > the actualities involved, but also the multi-layered pattern of > > relations among them. > > --------------------- > > > > I agree that we have to know how concepts are created. I am not > > convinced, however, that the concept of a process of meditation > > bears any relation to actual, momentary, meditation. > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > ---------------------------- > > H: >But substituting belief in a intellectual theory of ultimate > > reality is an ineffective alternative to engaging in the > > conventional practices taught by the Buddha that lead to > > purification of mind and to liberation. > > -------------------- > > > > But is that so? Did the Buddha specify conventional practices? > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, indeed. > --------------------------------------------------- > Here > > > at dsg, we are shown a wealth of evidence to the contrary. > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > And in the 45 years of the Buddha's teaching as recorded in the Sutta > Pitaka, we are shown exactly what I claim. If I need to choose between the > two, you can be assured that there is little doubt as to my decision. > -------------------------------------------------- > Why side > > > against it? > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Because I am a *Buddhist* (!), not a DSG-er or even an Abhidhammika. > ----------------------------------------------- > > > Why not stay true to your phenomenalist leanings? > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I most assuredly do. To be a thoroughgoing phenomenalist doesn't > require not communicating. It only requires understanding the difference between > what is merely manner of speaking and what is actuality. Just quoted this to agree with you Howard. There is a still a conceptual chaos around the issue of meditation as a means to understand realities. How do you personally reconcile Abhidhamma principles with your meditation practice? I think an understanding of how they go together would be very helpful. Best, Robert Robert 32409 From: Ken O Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi Rob M I dont think so. Because recognition is a function of sanna be it explained as marking the object or not. I think a lot of pple make the same mistake that sense process are bare attention only. Just because our panna and sati are weak and we only known the mind door process, that does not mean it is bare attention only. Sense process are equally as potent as the mind door process, or not why would Buddha pay so much emphasis on six sense doors. If it is only the mind door that matters, Buddha would have said one sense door and not five sense doors. Ken O 32410 From: Eddie Lou Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana - "Rebirth with genetic Info." Hi, Sarah, Thanks. I think the scientific community can do more research on such kind of phenomena. I believe they did but never quite heard about real conclusive hypotheses, whatsoever. So I am resorting to our Buddhist community, to find some kind of an explanation in my jig-saw puzzle. I had once asked a learned Buddhist, who has no answer to it. Metta, Eddie Lou --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Eddie, > > --- Eddie Lou wrote: > Hi, > All, > > > > My reasoning is: > > 1. the case of people (like historic figures - > > Beethoven, Mozart, etc), who exhibited prodigial [snipped] > > Now, I have a nagging question..... > ... > S: Your story is interesting and the answer is the > same - causes and [snipped] > surprising things occur, the path remains the > same....;-) > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== 32411 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:43am Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi Howard (and Victor), > > However when it comes to the perception and understanding of nama > > and rupa, it is altogether different. If indeed there has been a > > moment of satipatthana, one may like to have it again. The wanting > > may then seek to create a situation or believe in a practice which > > is supposed to get one there. > > > ------------------------------------------ > Howard: > The Buddha provided such a practice, the noble eightfold path. > ----------------------------------------- Sukin: I think we have gone through this before. It seems to me that there is a group of Buddhists who view the eightfold path as eight factors each to be developed individually, and when conditions are ripe, these come together at enlightenment. This is probably why they stress the practice of concentration, and putting in deliberate effort to bring mindfulness to the fore. And within this kind of interpretation it seems, that right speech, right livelihood and right action are seen as deliberate moral actions which one can "do". Also here, some people may see Right View as necessary `basic knowledge' gathered, but to be put aside when the time to so called `application' comes. Or if they see it as an important accompaniment to the practice from beginning to end, still they make the distinction between intellectual rt. View and Rt. View of the N8FP in a way almost as if the former has nothing to do with the latter. To me, you seem to be inclined more towards this interpretation. I on the other hand, see the development of panna as starting from intellectual understanding (pariyatti) of the Dhamma and this conditions practice (patipatti), which is satipatthana. Satipatthana are moments when five of the eight rights are present, Rt. View, Thought, Mindfulness, Effort and Concentration. There is after all, no sense in saying that the other four cetasikas without Rt. View can be `right'. All these *must* arise together if the object is a paramattha dhamma. True that there is Sati of the samatha level, and the effort, concentration and thought accompanying those moments are kusala. But this has no direct connection with the development of panna. In other words when satipatthana arises, all five factors are being developed. And I believe that *only this* is what culminates in pativedha, the arising of the N8FP. ------------------------------------------------------------ > So one has `clung' to some projected > > > method, failing to appreciate the fact that `sati' is a conditioned > > reality and cannot be made to arise by following some conventional > > activity or even the lead of `volition'. > ------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Not "projected," but taught by the Buddha. and, yes, sati is > conditioned - and the Buddha taught how to go about setting up the condtions. And the > "conventional activity" that you disdain was exactly taught by the Buddha, and > realities underlie that conventional activity as is the case with all > conventional activity. > ------------------------------------------- Sukin: We have gone through this too, and whether the teachings are descriptive or prescriptive. Even here we have not made any progress. So Howard, instead of throwing back and forth between us, the same basic statements (did you make a recording? ;-)), can we discuss our positions in relation to our understanding of paramattha dhammas and the three characteristics? And perhaps consider paccaya (I need some lessons in that)? Or do you have any other suggestion? -------------------------------------------------------------- > In other words, if there is > > > an idea of `doing something' to condition satipatthana, it is > > believe in a form of rules or ritual. > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > That would be news to the Buddha. The Buddha gave training in sila, he > gave rules for the behavior of monks and nuns, and he trained his followers > in guarding the senses and in meditation. None of that was an instruction to > engage in ritual. > I would imagine the Buddha would be amazed to see how adherents to his > Dhamma are critical of what he taught. Whether it is those who say the Buddha > didn't teach anyone to do anything or those who say the Buddha was just > kidding when he talked about rebirth (or didn't know better) or those who say that > nothing need be done for liberation except master the jhanas or those who say > that jhanas are dangerous and should not be cultivated, there seem to be loads > of Buddhists who want to dismantle and throw overboard core parts of the raft > of the Dhamma before reaching the other shore. > ------------------------------------------- Sukin: Those of us who have been studying Buddhism for some time, don't we all have the idea that we *know* the Middle Way, and have a sense that we are at least walking in the Right direction if not always able to keep balance? I think all the above people think of themselves this way, and everyone else is walking in the wrong direction. So who is right? How do we find out? Any suggestions? Keep on discussing I guess? :-) ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Sukin: > > What does for example `sitting cross-legged' have anything to do > > with the arising of mindfulness? What is the causal connection? > > > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > A stable position, not prone to tipping over, is good to have when a > jhana is entered, and one that is balanced and comfortable for a lengthy > period, and conducive to alertness, is supportive of the task of meditation. But it > is not necessary. > ----------------------------------------------- Sukin: What do you mean by "conducive to alertness", and "is supportive of the task of meditation"? Do you mean more than just jhana? ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > And `bringing mindfulness to the fore', is it so easily aroused? Or > > is volition so powerful in bringing about any desired state of mind? > > > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Hmm, guess not. So, better to give up instead of taking the time and > making the effort to develop the needed skills. (Hey, remember when the Buddha > said "This is not easy - better forget it!"? ;-) > ------------------------------------------------- Sukin: This isn't the point at all. The point is that the very idea of `doing it' is contradictory to my understanding of the conditioned nature of realities. In fact in terms of having something to latch on and give direction, formal practice is more alluring to the kilesas. The NAGs don't `forget' the Buddha's teachings; they only try to determine the correct interpretation. The apparent `easy going' attitude is only from the standpoint of `wrong effort', which has the nature of "doing something", but not necessarily anything positive is being done. Right effort appears as laxity only because there is no understanding on the part of those making the criticism, of what the object is. It is sometimes frustrating that what Nina, Sarah, Jon, Robert K. and others have been saying for so long is still misinterpreted and results in the kind of mischaracterization as shown by Victor in his post `Non-action?'#32358. I have never heard any NAG member express any of the views mentioned in that particular Sutta. But we do see what we like to see. :-/ > > Is such kind of awareness in essence any different from generally > > being aware of one's experiences? > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes. One does better when there is increased calm, concentration, and > mindfulness - much better. > -------------------------------------------- Sukin: Have you considered how much our subjective impressions may be influenced by the kilesas? Here in DSG, there is stress in studying about the characteristic, manifestation, function and proximate cause of dhammas, because only by this means can we gain familiarity and not misidentify. ---------------------------------------------------------- > Except for perhaps, attempting to > > > relate them to the concept of Anatta and conditionality? Does the > > knowledge of the teachings validates the quality of experience or > > could it in fact be used to justify any wrong practice? Lobha can > > appear calm and peaceful like sati, is one mistaking one for the > > other? Panna is accompanied by detachment, why does one seek to > > continue sitting? For more sati and panna? Is one equally calm being > > interrupted during meditation or not having any chance to meditate > > at all? > > These are some questions that come to mind, what do you think? > > > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I think this is all just nay-saying as regards what the Buddha > directly taught. > ----------------------------------------------- Sukin: We could examine each question to see which of them are misdirected!? > ============================= > With metta, > Howard Metta, Sukin. 32412 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi Ken O, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > I dont think so. Because recognition is a function of sanna be it > explained as marking the object or not. I think a lot of pple make > the same mistake that sense process are bare attention only. Just > because our panna and sati are weak and we only known the mind door > process, that does not mean it is bare attention only. Sense process > are equally as potent as the mind door process, or not why would > Buddha pay so much emphasis on six sense doors. If it is only the > mind door that matters, Buddha would have said one sense door and not > five sense doors. This is interesting. I have the opposite viewpoint. I believe that the kammic impact of sense door processes are very weak. How excited can one get over a dot of light - a visible object, as compared to the objects of the mind door - dots of light constructed and recognized as people, flowers, etc.? In the Honeyball Sutta, the Buddha identified the mental proliferation (papanca) as the source of the problems. Consider the vipallasa; ditthi-vipallasa (perversion of view) is the most serious whereas sanna-vipallasa is the least serious. Certainly the sense door processes are important as they act as triggers for the mind-door processes, where the serious kamma gets created. I would be interested in pursuing this further. How do you see the relationship between the sense door process and the mind door process? Metta, Rob M :-) 32413 From: Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 4:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Illusion of Control Hi, Rob - Nice to be talking with you! In a message dated 4/22/04 10:26:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@Y... writes: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Ken - > > > >In a message dated 4/14/04 3:24:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > >kenhowardau@y... writes: > > > >> > >>Hi Howard, > >> > >>---------------------- > >>H: >Yes, it all can be understood in such a manner. But there is > >>understanding, and there is understanding. An intellectual > >>translation of the Buddha's suttic teachings into "ultimate form" is > >>not the sort of understanding that is liberative, though it can > >>certainly be useful. > >>---------------------- > >> > >>Mere intellectual understanding is liberating in its way. To > >>understand that there is no self, only nama and rupa, is to have a > >>weight lifted from your shoulders. Don't you get this from your > >>own, phenomenalist viewpoint? > >> > >------------------------------------------------ > >Howard: > > Correct intellectual understanding - and we can't be too sure > when our > >understanding *is* correct - is helpful. It is an important factor. In > >itself, however, it is only liberating, as you say, "in its way". > >------------------------------------------------ > > Hi Howard. > Maybe you could say that it liberates the mind to the extent that it > clarifies thoughts one might have about the nature of "self" and > replaces those thoughts to some extent with thoughts that are geared > towards the liberative process. If one sees that there are only > arising cittas and not a "self" at the center, and sees this only > intellectually, then perhaps they will point their awareness towards > the process and away from the false concept? > > This would only be a partial measure though, as you say, without some > practice that is liberative, and not only correcting of the conceptual > tendency on a conceptual level. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: We seem to agree on this, Rob. ----------------------------------------- > > More below. > > >>---------------------- > >> > >>Howard: >Yes, all true. However - there are complex relations that > >>hold among the momentary actualities, and a concept such as that of > >>a process of meditation is a way of (indirectly) grasping not only > >>the actualities involved, but also the multi-layered pattern of > >>relations among them. > >>--------------------- > >> > >>I agree that we have to know how concepts are created. I am not > >>convinced, however, that the concept of a process of meditation > >>bears any relation to actual, momentary, meditation. > >> > >------------------------------------------------- > > > >>---------------------------- > >>H: >But substituting belief in a intellectual theory of ultimate > >>reality is an ineffective alternative to engaging in the > >>conventional practices taught by the Buddha that lead to > >>purification of mind and to liberation. > >>-------------------- > >> > >>But is that so? Did the Buddha specify conventional practices? > >> > >--------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Yes, indeed. > >--------------------------------------------------- > >Here > > >>at dsg, we are shown a wealth of evidence to the contrary. > >-------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > And in the 45 years of the Buddha's teaching as recorded in > the Sutta > >Pitaka, we are shown exactly what I claim. If I need to choose > between the > >two, you can be assured that there is little doubt as to my decision. > >-------------------------------------------------- > > Why side > > >>against it? > >----------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Because I am a *Buddhist* (!), not a DSG-er or even an > Abhidhammika. > >----------------------------------------------- > > > >>Why not stay true to your phenomenalist leanings? > >>------------------------------------------------ > >Howard: > > I most assuredly do. To be a thoroughgoing phenomenalist doesn't > >require not communicating. It only requires understanding the > difference between > >what is merely manner of speaking and what is actuality. > > Just quoted this to agree with you Howard. There is a still a > conceptual chaos around the issue of meditation as a means to > understand realities. How do you personally reconcile Abhidhamma > principles with your meditation practice? I think an understanding of > how they go together would be very helpful. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I see much in Abhidhamma (but far from all) that fits in perfectly both with meditation practice and with a phenomenalist "take" on matters. This coming Sunday I'll be attending a study/meditation workshop on the 4th foundation of mindfulness taught by a meditator-Abhidhammika. I'll "report back" afterwards. ;-) ----------------------------------------------- > > Best, > Robert > ======================== 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) 32414 From: Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 4:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 4/22/04 10:44:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sukinder@k... writes: > Sukin: > Those of us who have been studying Buddhism for some time, don't we > all have the idea that we *know* the Middle Way, and have a sense > that we are at least walking in the Right direction if not always > able to keep balance? I think all the above people think of > themselves this way, and everyone else is walking in the wrong > direction. So who is right? How do we find out? Any suggestions? > Keep on discussing I guess? :-) > ========================= Yes, I guess so as well! :-) 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) 32415 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:03am Subject: Re: dialogue on satipatthana Friend Howard, Howard: James, this position strikes me as an all-or-nothing-at-all position which isn't correct. If, along the way, we were entirely bereft of insight, how could there be further progress? Even the realization that things are not perfect involves a degree of insight. In total blackess, one can't even see the light switch. The path culminates with the perfection of right intention and right understanding, but it must begin with a modicum of these as well. James: I'm sorry you got that impression, please allow me to explain. I was responding specifically to Jon's comment, "whenever there is the understanding of a presently arising dhamma there is mundane insight, and this is the development of the path;" I don't agree that the `understanding' of a presently arising dhamma is mundane insight, that is insight of the highest order! There are different levels of panna (wisdom) and the level of panna which can truly understand arising dhammas is of the highest level; this is panna which only an arahant or Buddha has. Just consider, in order to truly understand arising dhammas (which would be more than just knowing terms memorized from the Abhidhamma) would require that the person understand fully: anatta, dependent origination, rebirth, samsara, and nibbana. Any lack of understanding in any of these areas would mean that the person couldn't truly know the arising, persisting, and ceasing of dhammas. They might have a theoretical understanding, but not an actual understanding…and theoretical understanding doesn't lead to insight, it just leads to more theories! ;-)) Howard: So, while we are angry, or, better said, when we momentarily take that anger as an object (and not as a concomitant), can we not see it clearly for what it is? If not, are we not then lost, consigned to slavery to our base emotions? James: Anger is a defilement and therefore cannot be the object of the level of panna Jon and I were discussing (panna which `understands' dhammas); I do, however, believe that anger can be the object of mundane panna to a limited extent. It would depend on how strong the anger is and how much the person wants to examine and dismantle the anger. Actually, I guess you could say that anger could be the object of mundane insight only when the anger is ceasing, not when the anger is arising or persisting. I don't know if the Buddha taught this last part or not though; I am extrapolating from what I know of the teachings. Howard: That given, cannot moments of insight be interspersed? Is it not insight that spurs letting go of harmful states? James: Yes, but again we are discussing a different level of panna. The type of panna which would understand dhammas is not interspersed, it is continual. If it wasn't continual it wouldn't understand dhammas, it would still be hidden behind the taint of delusion and could only peak out every once in a while. Howard: But mindstates go by quickly, and many kusala and akusala states, it appears to me, can be rapidly alternating in what seem to us to be but a moment. Heightened concentration, mindfulness, and comprehension must be developed, the lighting must be turned up in all states, so that our vision may become clearer, sharper, and more penetrating, and we can come to *see* kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala. James: True; and I like that you used the metaphor of `lighting', I am going to continue with that. The Buddha taught that the mind is naturally luminous and that defilements are those things which block the natural luminosity of the mind, just as clouds, dust, haze, and the moon block the sun. To know kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala means that the mind is completely freed and the light is shining bright. But, even with defilements present some light from the mind is able to get through; it isn't completely dark and it isn't completely light. The important thing is not to mistake darkness for light and to work toward creating the conditions for more and more light until dhammas can be truly seen for what they are. Okay, in the rest of the post you agree with me; I will stop there. ;-)) Metta, James 32416 From: Dan D. Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:59am Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? [benefit of conventional "right" effort] Hi RobEp, The "way"? Right view, right effort, etc. Could it be that the value of sitting is not that it constitutes "right effort" but that it provides great opportunities for recognizing all sorts of wrong effort? Of course, there is plenty wrong effort that arises in the course of a day even without sitting, but presumably, when sitting, the task is to contemplate "right" and "wrong". At the beginning of practice, sitting can bring the benefit of a time set aside for contemplation. Gradually, the mind may learn to recognize the occasional moment of right effort -- but perhaps only after it can recognize the quasi-ubiquity of wrong effort. Sitting has the potential to really help clarify moments of "wrong effort" because so much effort is expended in trying to cause "right effort" to arise. The beginning meditator (i.e., one who does not yet recognize the overwhelming frequency of micchas relative to the sammas) may eventually learn to recognize: "This is wrong effort; this also is wrong effort; this is wrong effort too! And this, and this, and this, and this..." As the avenues of wrong effort are seen with sufficient facility, then the moments of right effort might just be recognized as moments of right effort. But can this happen before a decade or two of practice with serious sitting and then some substantial non- sitting contemplation of the "sitting practice" and of the Dhamma in general? Ooooo..... I didn't mean to spend this much time here. Starting with: "Hmmm... Why don't I look into DSG? I'll only read a post or two to see what's happening.... Interesting comments from RobEp; maybe just a sentence or two in reply," I end up biting off more than I should chew. Dan 32417 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: to old_dead_wood, present moment, no 1 Dear Dhamma friend old_dead_wood, During three hiking days with Lodewijk (my husband) we discussed Dhamma and also your questions. Lodewijk said a few things that may be of help to you. We come to that later on. I shall write all this in several posts. Others (Sarah, Hasituppada) pointed out that we should first understand the present moment. So I will speak more about that. After that we travel to the future, to your last moment which is sure to come. Lodewijk and I do not think lightly about such a depression, our late Prince Consort had them twice. It must be like a torture in hell. Lodewijk knew him personally because of his work with the development section on foreign affairs. He found that it was important to keep on writing to him when he was ill, to give him support. I hope the worst is now behind you. Now you are here, talking about Dhamma. As Larry said, also physics play their part, the Prince Consort had some chemicals missing in his body. So we see that the physical conditions the mental and mental phenomena condition physical phenomena. What is physical, like brain, heart, blood, does not feel or experience anything. What is mental knows, experiences or feels, and it changes each moment. You may feel sad now but the next moment you may think of something else, you may even laugh. We can learn that there is only one experience at a time, they come and go, succeeding one another. By way of referents I use the term rupa for what is physical and nama for what is mental. They are only referents, and actually it is not important how we call them. You found it difficult to be sure what consciousness is. Consciousness is mental, it is nama. I refer to it as citta. Seeing is citta, it cognizes visible object. There are many types of citta, some are unwholesome, some are wholesome and some are neither. Each citta arises and then falls away to be succeeded by the next one. This citta now was preceded by another citta, and so we can go back to the first moment of your life. We all came into this world with different capacities, different talents and inclinations. Inclinations to wholesomeness or to unwholesomeness. Where did they come from? From the past. This teaches us that there are conditions for whatever we think, do or speak. Some doctors make their patients see past lives by hypnosis. However, seeing a few lives does not give you the truth, you would have to go back for aeons and this is impossible. What is the use, it is only thinking and that cannot change our lives. Those who were our foes in our previous life may have been friends in other lives, who can tell? This is the Buddha's domain and belongs to the unthinkables. If one tries to find out about the past it can lead to madness. Let us study more the citta at this moment. But knowing that there were past lives helps us to see that there are conditions for whatever we experience and that these may stem from aeons ago. You may have listened to a Buddha aeons ago and this conditions you to go to the Dhamma now. This intro may not be very meaningful to you, but you need it so that you will understand what Lodewijk has to say to you. You do not like to go into word meanings, but he will not speak about word meanings, but about what is down to earth. I conclude with the verse from a Sutta (often quoted here) that our Dhamma friend Suan who is a psychiatrist uses for his patients who are troubled by the past. But it is good for us all. MN131 Bhaddekaratta Sutta > "A Single Excellent Night" as translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi. .... The Blessed One said this: > > 3. "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; > Let him know that and be sure of it, > Invincible, unshakeably. > Today the effort must be made; > Tomorrow Death may come, who knows? > No bargain with Mortality > Can keep him and his hordes away, > But one who dwells thus ardently, > Relentlessly, by day, by night - > It is he, the Peaceful Sage has said, > Who has had a single excellent night. (to be continued) Nina. op 18-04-2004 06:50 schreef old_dead_wood op old_dead_wood@y...: > Hi. Thanks to all for responding to my question regarding re-birth. > I didn't really want to end up discussing the meaning of words, > though. 32418 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] It's so easy ? Dear Bev, Wonderful to see you here! So sorry to miss you and Tom, we often think of both of you and our wonderful time together in India. All the Dhamma talks in between in English, drinking tea in the teashop, or in the halls of hotels. Looking forward to have more discussions with you here. The discussions certainly help to have more understanding of what appears now. What about seeing and thinking of what you see? For all of us it is difficult to really know the difference when they appear. In theory yes, but just now? As Jon says: What impressed you most of what A. Sujin said during your discussions? I think daily life itself reminds us all the time. Realities are never lacking, including our defilements. The more we see this the less there are obstacles for understanding to develop. Dhamma is very much down to earth, and this was the subject I discussed with Lodewijk during our tour which was also a spiritual journey. I hope to render our discussions the next days. Please convey our warmest regards also to Tom, Nina. op 22-04-2004 03:50 schreef Beverly Westheimer op bev@w...: It is > always good to be reminded to be aware of the realities appearing > through the sense-doors and the mind-door in the present moment. How > simple it sounds, yet so difficult to practice! > Tom and Bev 32419 From: Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:16am Subject: The Bikini Buddha Image Hi, all - On another list (none of the three to which this post is being sent) there was posted the original web site with the photo of the bikini that has Buddha images. As you will see, the placement of the main Buddharupa on the suit bottom is *quite* inappropriate and disrespectful. Sould they have the legal right to do this? Well, of course. But others certainly also have the right to complain about it and point out the disrespect involved. 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) 32420 From: Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:18am Subject: Re: The Bikini Buddha Image Hi again, all - I forgot to post the url. It is the following: http://www.ondademar.com/site_international/swimsuit.php?ref=2117/2263/B/72 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) 32421 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 0:41pm Subject: Re: The Bikini Buddha Image --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, all - > > I forgot to post the url. It is the following: > http://www.ondademar.com/site_international/swimsuit.php? ref=2117/2263/B/72 > > With metta > Howard Friend Howard, Thanks for alerting us all to this! I was never able to find the bikini in question from the links so this is the first time to see it. I wrote a letter to the company and sent it at this link: http://www.ondademar.com/contactus.htm Maybe you and others might want to do the same? Here is the letter I wrote: Dear Sirs, I just wanted to let you know that I find your bikini with images of Quan Yin on the breasts and the Buddha image on the crotch very disrespectful of these holy images. I own a shirt with a Buddha image but it is placed very nicely, and I have seen other articles of clothing with Buddha images that are not disrespectful, but this bikini is very disrespectful. The placements of the images on the female sex organs associate these images with sex and carnal desire. One doesn't need to know much about Buddhism to know that this type of association is inappropriate because to the entire world's religions this type of association would be inappropriate. I ask that you discontinue this article of clothing for the benefit of consumers and your company. Sincerely, James 32422 From: Eddie Lou Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 0:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Bikini Buddha Image Hi, Howard, Thanks for the info. I have just send a protest email to the company saying: 'In my opinion, inappropriate to place a (well-known to be respected) symbol on a bikini.' 'Mild' response but just to let them know at least. Metta, Eddie Lou --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, all - > > I forgot to post the url. It is the > following: > http://www.ondademar.com/site_international/swimsuit.php?ref=2117/2263/B/72 > > With metta > Howard 32423 From: Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Bikini Buddha Image Hi, James - Superb letter! With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/22/04 3:45:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi again, all - > > > > I forgot to post the url. It is the following: > >http://www.ondademar.com/site_international/swimsuit.php? > ref=2117/2263/B/72 > > > >With metta > >Howard > Friend Howard, > > Thanks for alerting us all to this! I was never able to find the > bikini in question from the links so this is the first time to see > it. I wrote a letter to the company and sent it at this link: > http://www.ondademar.com/contactus.htm > > Maybe you and others might want to do the same? Here is the letter > I wrote: > > Dear Sirs, > > I just wanted to let you know that I find your bikini with images of > Quan Yin on the breasts and the Buddha image on the crotch very > disrespectful of these holy images. I own a shirt with a Buddha > image but it is placed very nicely, and I have seen other articles > of clothing with Buddha images that are not disrespectful, but this > bikini is very disrespectful. The placements of the images on the > female sex organs associate these images with sex and carnal > desire. One doesn't need to know much about Buddhism to know that > this type of association is inappropriate because to the entire > world's religions this type of association would be inappropriate. > I ask that you discontinue this article of clothing for the benefit > of consumers and your company. > > Sincerely, James > /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) 32424 From: Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Bikini Buddha Image Hi, Eddie - That's great! With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/22/04 3:57:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, eddielou_us@y... writes: > Sent from the Internet > > > > Hi, Howard, > Thanks for the info. > > I have just send a protest email to the company > saying: > > 'In my opinion, inappropriate to place a (well-known > to be respected) symbol on a bikini.' > > 'Mild' response but just to let them know at least. > > Metta, > > Eddie Lou /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) 32425 From: Philip Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 4:15pm Subject: Re: The Bikini Buddha Image HI James, and all. Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to send that letter, James. The Buddha is fortunate to have such a devoted copyright attorney! ;) There are so many examples of the misuse of the Buddha's image or gross misunderstandings of what Buddhism is about I have stopped paying attention, but maybe it's time to be more vigilant. And I will *certainly* ask my wife to throw that damn bikini out and I'll stop looking for the speedo version for guys! Seriously, I wonder if our desire to see the Buddha treated with respect in the world could possibly - and I stress possibly - represent a lack of faith that the great compassion and wisdom inherent in the Buddha's teaching will eventually win out. I think of the Last Temptation of Christ controversy some years back. I wondered at the time why the protestors' faith in Christ wasn't enough to allow them to look past a blasphemous misrepresentation of it. Or could concern about the way the Buddha's image is represented possibly point at an attachment to that image that even the Buddha himself might have frowned upon? Again, I stress possibly. Just playing devil's advocate here. (Mara's advocate?) "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him," is how one famous saying puts it. I guess it was Zen. Maybe we can update it to "If you see the Buddha on a bikini..." Well, I'll stop there! ;) Metta, Phil 32426 From: Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 4:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mundane jhana and Supramundane jhana? Hi Victor, Re: what is supramundane jhana? Here is something from "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma". Larry Guide to 121 Types of Consciousness, p.72. All meditators reach the supramundane paths and fruits through the development of wisdom (panna)--insight into the three characteristics of impermanence, suffering, and non-self. However, they differ among themselves in the degree of their development of concentration (samadhi). Those who develop insight without a basis of jhana are called practitioners of bare insight (sukkhavipassaka). When they reach the path and fruit, their path and fruit cittas occur at a level corresponding to the first jhana. Those who develop insight on the basis of jhana attain a path and fruit which corresponds to the level of jhana they had attained before reaching the path. The ancient teachers advance different views on the question of what factor determines the jhana level of the path and fruit. One school of thought holds that it is the basic jhana (padakajjhana), i.e., the jhana used as a basis for concentrating the mind before developing the insight that culminates in attainment of the supramundane path. A second theory holds that the jhana level of the path is determined by the jhana used as an object for investigation by insight, called the comprehended jhana (sammasitajjhana). Still a third school of thought holds that when a meditator has mastered a range of jhanas, he can control the jhana level of the path by his personal wish or inclination (ajjhasaya). Nevertheless, no matter what explanation is adopted, for bare insight meditator and jhana meditator alike, all path and fruition cittas are considered types of jhana consciousness. They are so considered because they occur in the mode of closely contemplating their object with full absorption, like the mundane jhanas, and because they possess the jhana factors with an intensity corresponding to their counterparts in the mundane jhanas. The supramundane jhanas of the paths and fruits differ from the mundane jhanas in several important respects. First, whereas the mundane jhanas take as their object some concept, such as the sign of the kasina, the supramundane jhanas take as their object Nibbana, the unconditioned reality. Second, whereas the mundane jhanas merely suppress the defilements while leaving their underlying seeds intact, the supramundane jhanas of the path eradicate defilements so that they can never again arise. Third, while the mundane jhanas lead to rebirth in the fine-material world and thus sustain existence in the round of rebirths, the jhanas of the path cut off the fetters binding one to the cycle and thus issue in liberation from the round of birth and death. Finally, whereas the role of wisdom in the mundane jhanas is subordinate to that of concentration, in the supramundane jhanas wisdom and concentration are well balanced, with concentration fixing the mind on the unconditioned element and wisdom fathoming the deep significance of the Four Noble Truths. 32427 From: Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 4:59pm Subject: 'ocean of concepts' Hi all, TA Sujin said we live in an 'ocean of concepts'. IMO this is neither good nor bad. What is bad is that most of our attachments are to concepts. Attachment to concept arises due to reason and inference. What arises due to reason can be dispelled by reason. What we need is more thinking! Or so it seems to me. Larry 32428 From: Ken O Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Bikini Buddha Image Hi Howard it is just rupas - we cant stop what other people choose to do, they have their own cittas and cetanas to answer. At least we can promote good dhammas ;-) Ken O 32429 From: Dan D. Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:54pm Subject: Re: The Bikini Buddha Image Hi Howard, Isn't the whole bikini thing disrespectful to Buddha, whether there are Buddha icons on the cloth or not? I think one would quickly go mad if they were to get offended whenever they saw disrespect shown toward Buddha. It bothers me more that I show disrespect to Buddha every single day by not carrying out his teachings. Dan 32430 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? [benefit of conventional "right" effort] Dear Dan. So good to see you too! I was thinking of you, but you had told us that you were busy for a few months. I quoted you recently, what you said about meditating on the Abhidhamma. I am happy to see old friends again, Nina. op 22-04-2004 18:59 schreef Dan D. op dalthorp@s...: > I didn't mean to spend this much time here. Starting > with: "Hmmm... Why don't I look into DSG? I'll only read a post or > two to see what's happening.... Interesting comments from RobEp 32431 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Dear Jon, Thank you very much. You will hear more about this subject, we went through the sutta just now and many things became clearer. The recent Dhamma discussions Lodewijk and I had were helpful for both of us in many respects. As you say, patience, and this was one of our topics as you will see. Nina. op 22-04-2004 16:02 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonoabb@y...: > Another way of saying this is that conceptual level understanding can > take one only so far. Sooner or later one needs to talk about, > consider and reflect upon the teaching concerning the potential > objects of satipatthana such as seeing and visible-object, hardness > and softness, for these 'bits and pieces' also happen to be parts of > 'the whole' that has to be known. And the whole can only ever be > known one tiny bit or piece at a time. > > Remember the parami of patience -- this includes patience with one's > own lack of progress. > 32432 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] It's so easy ? Dear Sarah, this is lovely, greatly appreciated A. Sujin's and Sukin's words about disease. Indeed, Abhidhamma is the best medicine. You wrote: sense-door and mind-door realities. Can we swallow the medicine of satipatthana at this moment?> N: my answer: yes, we can at this moment, but moments are never the same. There are also many moments of kilesa. You said, < I was > reflecting on how what is conventionally encouraging is so very different > from what is considered encouraging from an abhidhamma understanding.> N: We should combine the two ways, no contradiction. The truth can be brought gently, and adapted to the level of understanding and inclinations of persons. If we don't do this, many people will take the Abhidhamma amiss. They will not get the message. As to satipatthana, Lodewijk did not agree that no terms are needed. When one explains the terms are necessary, he said. Of course, it depends on the person's level of understanding. Nina. op 22-04-2004 09:54 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > Nina, I also repeated your message in which you asked K.Sujin for some > encouraging comments for when one is sick. While she responded, I was > reflecting on how what is conventionally encouraging is so very different > from what is considered encouraging from an abhidhamma understanding. The > latter can seem quite sharp and tough when one is not able to hear the > truth. Sukin also stressed at the weekend that abhidhamma was the best > medicine for any difficulties and I appreciated his keen ability to hear > the truth at such times. 32433 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi Sukin, As far as I see, the "NAGs" fall into the first sectarian guild: "There are priests & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences -- pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful -- that is all caused by what was done in the past.' For the "NAGs", there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' They can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done. The very view "The point is that the very idea of `doing it' is contradictory to my understanding of the conditioned nature of realities" reflects that. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Howard (and Victor), [snip] > > Sukin: > This isn't the point at all. The point is that the very idea > of `doing it' is contradictory to my understanding of the > conditioned nature of realities. In fact in terms of having > something to latch on and give direction, formal practice is more > alluring to the kilesas. The NAGs don't `forget' the Buddha's > teachings; they only try to determine the correct interpretation. > The apparent `easy going' attitude is only from the standpoint > of `wrong effort', which has the nature of "doing something", but > not necessarily anything positive is being done. Right effort > appears as laxity only because there is no understanding on the part > of those making the criticism, of what the object is. > It is sometimes frustrating that what Nina, Sarah, Jon, Robert K. > and others have been saying for so long is still misinterpreted and > results in the kind of mischaracterization as shown by Victor in his > post `Non-action?'#32358. I have never heard any NAG member express > any of the views mentioned in that particular Sutta. But we do see > what we like to see. :-/ [snip] > Metta, > Sukin. 32434 From: Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 5:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Bikini Buddha Image Hi, Ken - In a message dated 4/22/04 10:49:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > it is just rupas - we cant stop what other people choose to do, they > have their own cittas and cetanas to answer. At least we can promote > good dhammas ;-) > > Ken O > ======================= Yes, just rupas. Everything is just namas or rupas. Killing is just rupas too, to speak of an extreme. This business is, of course, a relatively minor matter, but something that is wrong, insensitive, and disrespectful shouldn't remain uncriticized. No, we may not be able to stop it, but should we remain silent? If good people don't bother to express disapproval of what deserves disapproval, then there is certainly no motive for people to cease in their improper behavior. How far should inaction go? How far should one take the no-control perspective? Was Jesus right when he said "resist not evil"? I like an awful lot of what he did say, but that is not included. 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) 32435 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mundane jhana and Supramundane jhana? Hi Larry, I appreciate your reply. It occurs to me that the ideas of mundane jhana and supramundane jhana are later classification/complication that has no basis in the Pali Canon. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Re: what is supramundane jhana? Here is something from "A Comprehensive > Manual of Abhidhamma". > > Larry > > Guide to 121 Types of Consciousness, p.72. All meditators reach the > supramundane paths and fruits through the development of wisdom [snip] 32436 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 0:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: greetings from Rob Epstein. Hi Rob Ep & Dan, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > Thanks for your response, and for inviting me back to say hello. It's > very nice to say hi to you. My family is doing well, although some of > us [my wife] are working too hard. I really also thank Nina for her > lovely Easter/Passover note to me. I am grateful that my friends here > remember me. .... We could never forget all those great marathon sessions (Sukin's are like a quick picnic in comparison;-)). .... > Well, I hope you won't regret the invitation. I have posted a massive > missive on meditation. If you have the patience to read through all > of it, I will be very interested in your response. .... Of course I'm delighted (Jon too) to see you both around and hope to respond to the MMM (massive missive on meditation). I'm busy teaching today and tomorrow, so will get back to it after the weekend. PLS DON'T RUN AWAY in the meantime. I’ve printed out and put aside the MMM to read more carefully, but I can see it’s beautifully crafted and considered. Thankyou also for inspiring other ‘big DSG guns’ like Dan to pop in too. Hope others will follow him. (Is anyone in touch with Erik??) Meanwhile, Dan, I was trying to find that great post you wrote on right and wrong effort with the Abhidhamma quotes, but haven't been able to put my finger on it. Do you have a link you could give or could you repost it? In my search, I did come across these gems which anyone relatively new to the list might enjoy for a taste of Danitis: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/8187 http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m9166.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/8823 I see in your recent post to Rob Ep you haven’t lost your way with words either;-) .... > It's really nice to be here, and hope that everyone is well and happy! > I may have to pop back out, but I will try to keep popping back in > and keep in contact! ... S: Rob, Pls don’t use up your year’s supply of posting energy in the first couple of days so that you have to pop out too soon. I hope Nina and others can also find ways to keep you in popped in mode too. Metta, Sarah ====== 32437 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 0:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Suravira, It took me a little time to realize that you’re the same-that was-our friend Chuck. Perhaps you’d care to tell us about the meaning of your new Pali name. We thought of you in Bangkok and I hoped you were going to join us, but perhaps you were busy again or back in Phil. I think you were going to tell us more about your experiences during the services for your late teacher at Wat Amphawan. It would also be good to hear about your recent visit. --- Suravira wrote: > > When the conditions are suitable, stream entry occurs. All Buddhist > meditation practices, regardless of their lineage, have as their aim > facilitating stream entry - and eventually enlightenment. .... Thank you for clarifying this. Of course stream entry is the first stage of enlightenment, but by your last comment I’m sure you’re referring to arahantship. Metta, Sarah ====== 32438 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 1:00am Subject: Re: The Bikini Buddha Image Friend Philip, Philip: The Buddha is fortunate to have such a devoted copyright attorney! ;) James: LOL! Yes, I hope they take action soon or I will have to get a court order and shut down that company! ;-)) Philip: There are so many examples of the misuse of the Buddha's image or gross misunderstandings of what Buddhism is about I have stopped paying attention, but maybe it's time to be more vigilant. James: I think you should do whatever your heart tells you to do in this regard. Don't imitate me with the thought "James has got it right and I have got it wrong; I have to be more like James." We each have our own path. Notice that I didn't say that people should write to the company, I just suggested it as a possible course of action to take…if you so desire. Philip: And I will *certainly* ask my wife to throw that damn bikini out and I'll stop looking for the speedo version for guys! James: LOL! Philip, if you bought a speedo with the Buddha image emphasizing your basket/crotch, I think you would deserve to be flogged and quartered! ;-)) You should know better! Philip: Seriously, I wonder if our desire to see the Buddha treated with respect in the world could possibly - and I stress possibly - represent a lack of faith that the great compassion and wisdom inherent in the Buddha's teaching will eventually win out. James: Philip, this is samsara we are talking about. Samsara is fueled by ignorance and base desires/craving. The wisdom of the Buddha is not going to `eventually win out'—this is wishful thinking based on popular, fantasy ideology (`the good guy always wins'). Actually, according to the Buddha, the wisdom of the Buddha always dies out, at the end of the Buddha Sasana. It is our responsibility, I think, to make it last as long as possible, for the benefit of all sentient beings. Philip: I think of the Last Temptation of Christ controversy some years back. I wondered at the time why the protestors' faith in Christ wasn't enough to allow them to look past a blasphemous misrepresentation of it. James: I don't know a lot about that movie; I didn't see it. My impression was that it was all `much ado about nothing'. And in this case, I had seen several posts about this Buddha Bikini but didn't take any action or think anything about it because I hadn't seen the actual bikini. Now, when Howard provided the direct link and I saw the actual bikini, I was very shocked! I thought that maybe the Buddha image was somewhere on the bikini, which would be no big deal really, I didn't think it would be right on the crotch drawing attention to and simulating the appearance of a woman's vagina! Goodness gracious! That is definitely something to be concerned about, at least to me. So I decided to take a small action, for the benefit of the karma of those who buy this bikini and the company that sells it. Believe it or not, that bikini is going to generate a lot of bad karma for both. I am more concerned for their karma than the `reputation' of the Buddha. Philip: Or could concern about the way the Buddha's image is represented possibly point at an attachment to that image that even the Buddha himself might have frowned upon? James: Again, I am more concerned about the negative kammic consequences, not the reputation of the Buddha. As the last line in my letter stated, "I ask that you discontinue this article of clothing for the benefit of consumers and your company." I meant their karma when I wrote this but didn't want to use that word and thus turn them away from my message…thinking I am some kind of `Buddhist Fanatic'. Philip: Just playing devil's advocate here. (Mara's advocate?) James: This is good and I am glad that you asked me these questions. Perhaps others were thinking the same things. I hope that I replied in a pleasant manner [*James thinks to himself*: "Hmmm…maybe I should take out that part about him being flogged and quartered?? Maybe he will take me seriously and be offended?? Maybe others will be offended?? Hmmm…well, I think it is funny so I am going to leave it in! People should, by now, expect some humor in my posts."] Metta, James 32439 From: Ken O Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Bikini Buddha Image Hi Howard You forget what I said about promote good dhamma. Being out loud will not change things in this world. Because worldings like us will still do what they think how the world should be. Just like previously where the Talibans have destroyed the Buddha statute, the Buddhist world make a big outcry, there is basically nothing they can do. Only create more aversion from more Buddhists that the Talibans should not do this. So attach are we to form. However promoting dhamma, will change the world - that is what we can do. If during the Taliban destroying of statute, someone will have written as such is form, impermanent as what Buddha said. I think more people will have become Buddhists. That is why Buddha said do not depend on me, depend on the dhamma. IMHO respect is inside us and not outside and respect is what Dan said, follow the teacher dispensation. And this is not inaction, to me this is wise move, know when to cry out loud ;-). On the hindsight, it is not the non-Buddhist that destroy dhamma, in fact to me, the Buddhists themselves that are destroying dhamma. Ken O p.s. Something strike me, people cannot stand this, yet many of us can stand shoalin shows that showing monk killing evil doers - ;-). such is the decline of dhamma. 32440 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:19am Subject: Re: The Bikini Buddha Image Friend Ken O, Ken: it is just rupas - we cant stop what other people choose to do, they have their own cittas and cetanas to answer. At least we can promote good dhammas ;-) James: I believe that you are promoting a doctrine of non-causality, which is contrary to the Buddha's teaching. From MN 76 "To Sandaka": [Ven. Ananda:] 16. "Again, Sandaka, here some teacher holds such a doctrine and view as this: `There are these seven bodies that are unmade, not brought forth, uncreated, without a creator, barren, standing like mountain peaks, standing like pillars. They do not move or change or obstruct each other. None is able [to arouse] pleasure or pain or pleasure-and-pain in another. What are the seven? They are the earth-body, the water-body, the fire-body, the air-body, pleasure, pain, and the soul as the seventh. These seven bodies are unmade… Herein, there is no killer, no slaughter, no hearer, no speaker, no cognizer, no intimater. Even those who cut off someone's head with a sharp sword do not deprive anyone of life; the sword merely passes through the space between the seven bodies. There are these fourteen hundred principal kinds of generation, and sixty hundred kinds, and six hundred kinds…There is none of this: "By this virtue or observance or asceticism or holy life I shall make unripened action ripen or annihilate ripened action as it comes." Pleasure and pain are meted out. The round of rebirths is limited, there is no shortening or extending it, no increasing or decreasing it… 18. "This is the fourth way that negates the living of the holy life that has been declared by the Blessed One who knows and sees, accomplished and fully enlightened…" Metta, James 32441 From: Ken O Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi RobM and others > This is interesting. I have the opposite viewpoint. I believe that > the kammic impact of sense door processes are very weak. How > excited can one get over a dot of light - a visible object, as >compared to the objects of the mind door - dots of light constructed > and recognized as people, flowers, etc.? k: I am not qualify to said that it has little or big impact. When we look at a sense process, I think we have to know that there is latency involve. A visible object that is disagreeable may condition akusala javana process and in turn condition latency. And this latency may or may not condition unfavourable mental process. In the Honeyball Sutta, the > Buddha identified the mental proliferation (papanca) as the source > of the problems. k: If you see the para 16 carefully , "dependent on the eye and forms, eye -citta arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as condition, there is feeling. What one feels one perceive" There is two way to say these statement 1. Buddha is seems to say that what you think depends on how we feel ;-) - which is not the intention here 2. IMHO this is what I called latency where one feels one perceive, whereby the feeling is condition by the javana process of the sense process. So the effect of sense process already condition the mind process - in that sense we also have to be in sati, not just in mind process but also in the sense process. As you and I know, the only way is to develop panna till it is strong enough to arise in the sense process. Maybe others could help with the commentary notes. Ken O 32442 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 4:15am Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Rob Ep, Good to see you back. Long time no write. :-) You have indeed given this topic much thought, and I wish I could find more points to agree with than disagree, but……:-/ !! Your post reminds me of the concept of `informal mediation' used here some time back by some members, which I felt quite uncomfortable with. To me `formal' or `informal' both are equally wrong, both being with the idea of `doing'! You said: > Anyway, there seems to be a view associated with Abidhamma that formal > sitting does not promote and may possibly prevent the arising of sati, > and that one must foster proper conditions for the development of > mindfulness only by the most "passive" or "natural" means. One can > understand an aspect of this philosophy, in that the attempt to > manipulate the mind brings up more thoughts and expectations……… I understand that the idea of "natural" has been expressed a few times, and sometimes even meant to support the argument in the same way you have expressed above. But this is not the whole story, "natural" is only one aspect of it. And natural *really* means natural. That is, without any idea of anyone practicing `naturally'. After all there is *no* one to be practicing naturally or not. So actually, the point is not about whether to meditate or not, both are equally "ideas". But rather about having the correct understanding of this present moment. You said further: > One may > promote "thoughts about" sati and expectations that mindfulness is > being increased, and this may merely be concept disguised as actual > awareness or insight. So one, by raising specific expectations, tied > to a practice, may interfere with the natural process of observation > of the mind as it occurs in everyday life, and overlay this process > with a further layer of conceptual delusion. Obviously, to the extent > this happens, it would prevent rather than promote the development of > genuine awareness that would lead to gradual awakening. The only "interference" I am concerned about is "wrong view". There is no concern about the "natural process of observation of the mind as it occurs in everyday life" being interrupted with any kind of conventional activity, even `sitting and watching the breath' or `doing yoga' is fine, as long as it is not associated with `patipatti'. There is no concern even if days go by without a moment of sati arising, though samvega may arise, there is however no urge to then "do" something. The eight worldly conditions, lobha, dosa or moha is never a problem when it comes to walking the path. The main culprit for prolonging samsara is `wrong view', and this is what I believe, most important to deal with. You said: > The question > is, does formal sitting meditation cause the kind of expectation that > prevents rather than promotes the development of sati, and on the > other hand, is there a process taking place in formal meditation that > promotes rather than prevents the development of sati? And if both > are present, does one outweigh the other in the affect they have on > understanding? A corollary question then is: does sati in fact > develop through ?natural observation? in conjunction with study of > suttas and commentaries, and is there any expectation in *that* > process that would prevent rather than promote the development of > genuine awareness? This is thinking in stories. Rob, do you agree that all there is are just the presently arising dhammas? That the past and future are just ideas? Any right or wrong understanding is contained in this present citta which interprets the experience? Would you agree then that any correct direction the citta takes with respect to the development of `more understanding' depends on whether there is any correct understanding "now" in this moment? So when you talk above about the positive aspect of meditation outweighing the negative, is it being realistic, or is it just a consoling notion? Every moment of `wrong understanding' accumulates, and wrong understanding cannot see itself as wrong. And like I remarked to Howard yesterday, every Buddhist thinks he is walking the Middle Way. Should we not relate any understanding to the present moment? Is the idea of `formal practice' viewed from the standpoint of what it means in relation to `realities' or is it a `belief' that the Buddha taught it, perhaps reinforced by the idea that the `Forest Monks' did it? And now there is added to this a subjective impression of having gained something? Further down you said: > So let us see if we can break open this impasse between cultures. > Those who are in favor of practicing meditation will say ?this is the > way.? Those who are in favor of naturally arising sati in everyday > life promoted by study and understanding of sutta and commentary will > say ?this is the way.? They will criticize the others? view, although > Buddha would probably say that to do this would harden the mind and > make it more difficult to approach the openness and promote the > letting go of partial views that actually promotes mindfulness and > understanding. Favoring one way or the other, both are attachment to an `idea' of practice which I don't promote. How can I promote right understanding!!? ;-) So my criticism is in reality not directed to some defined `practices', but to `wrong view'. So if I perceive wrong view, should I accept it in the name of `openness'? Letting go is good, but that shouldn't mean `agreeing' with wrong view, should it?! Rob Ep: > I have spoken of the changes in the mind and awareness that occur > ?naturally? from sitting in meditation. Concentration increases, > awareness of mental processes and of contents of consciousness > increases. This should appear to be good for development of sati, but > what about that expectation that develops false concepts of > mindfulness? It is indeed an obstacle to promote or cling to results > from meditation. But the clinging to results is seeded *in* the idea of practice. Rob Ep: > Sukin says rather disdainfully, already knowing the answer from the > culture of Abidhamma, ?What does sitting cross-legged have to do with > the arising of mindfulness?? Well, Sukin is wrong to have that > opinion. He should have *no* opinion, and that is the problem with > Buddhist subcultures, all of them. The participants think they > already know all the answers and there is one practice that is good, > and all the others are bad. The truth is that Sukin has no idea > whether crossed legs promotes mindfulness or not. Actually that was just the warm up question ;-), it was supposed to lead to more relevant ones. So it is not an `opinion' in relation to personal experience sitting/not sitting. It was meant to determine if there is right or wrong view with regard to an activity. In the end there is only *one* correct practice, which is satipatthana. And this does not depend on any bodily position, place or time, but hinges upon whether there is any panna (right view), starting with the correct intellectual understanding of the Dhamma. I intended to make this no more than one page, but conditions rule! ;-) Metta, Sukin. 32443 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:02am Subject: Seeing and seeing of seeing ( 02 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, In the whole universe, there is nothing more than citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana in the ultimate sense. Citta, cetasika, and rupa dhamma are sankhata dhamma. They are influenced by kamma, citta, utu, and ahara. These dhamma are going on their own and no one is influencing on them. When these realities are not recognized, they are viewed in many different ways. Some like them while others hate them and on the basis of attachment and ignorance kusala kamma and akusala kamma have been created and being created and will have still been created as long as there is the source. Due to kamma, which actually was raised by our past lives, we have to be reborn and have to exist in this life. As we are born, we are facing all the worldly things whether good or bad. All these worldly things like birth, rebirth, oldness, disease, death, sorrow, lamentation, physical pains and sufferings, stress and mental pain or dissatisfaction or unpleasant mental feeling, and despair, dissociation with beloved ones, association with hated ones, not getting what one wants and all five clinging aggregates are all dukkha and they all are sufferings of truth. Why are all these happening? Because there is the origin or the source for all these. All these derive from the source. It is attachment or craving or lobha or tanha. There are kamma tanha or craving for sensual pleasure, bhava tanha or craving for existance or better existence, and vibhava tanha or craving for non-existence. We are doing kammapatha actions or actions that bring about kamma while we are in javana cittas or in the mental impulse of citta series. Actually these javana series derive from the first citta in the vithi series. It is pancadvaravajjana citta. It is a consciousness that arises at one of 5 sense door. It is the earliest citta which might lead to javana cittas or mental impulse craving of different kinds is quite evident while in javana even though there always is anusaya or in subtle forms. These cittas arise at cakkhu pasada or eye, sota pasada or ear, ghana pasada or nose, jivha pasada or tongue, and kaya pasada or body. These are sources for craving and javana cittas which might create kamma. Rupa or vanna or colour, sadda or sound, gandha or smell, rasa or taste, photthabba or touch-sense ( including pathavi or hardness-softness, tejo or coldness-warmness, vayo or resilence or compressibility-repressibility ) are also the source for craving and arising of javana citta. When there are conditions appropriate vinnanas arise and these vinnana or consciousness are all the source for craving. Phassa or contact are also the origin or the source for craving. Vedana or feelings are all the source for craving. All sanna or perceptions are the source for craving. All sankhara or mental formations or fabrications or preparations are the source for craving. At eye, at ear, at nose, at tongue, at body these establish and cause arising of successive things without interruption. When these are experienced the first thought or initial thought or initial application also raise craving and it also is the source. These initial thoughts establish sustained thinking and these sustained thoughts also raise craving and they are also the source for craving. May you all see craving the source for all sufferings and see that you see them. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htootintnaing@y... 32444 From: Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Bikini Buddha Image Hi, Ken - In a message dated 4/23/04 5:37:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > You forget what I said about promote good dhamma. Being out loud > will not change things in this world. Because worldings like us will > still do what they think how the world should be. Just like > previously where the Talibans have destroyed the Buddha statute, the > Buddhist world make a big outcry, there is basically nothing they can > do. Only create more aversion from more Buddhists that the Talibans > should not do this. So attach are we to form. However promoting > dhamma, will change the world - that is what we can do. =========================== Yes, promoting the Dhamma is of great importance. (BTW, just in case there is any question on this, I don't doubt your good will and intentions *in the slightest*.) As far as complaints having any impact - well, they can. Companies are interested in profit. Public discontent isn't good for profit, and complaints do have an effect. Moreover, even if this product is not withdrawn, the complaints might dissuade further production of similar items. 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) 32445 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: to old_dead_wood, present moment, no 2 Dear Dhamma friend old_dead_wood, Lodewijk and I spoke about the present moment and we found that it is most valuable to understand the different cittas that arise now because of conditions. Lodewijk said that he finds it very important to consider truthfulness or sincerity, he considered it while we were hiking. Truthfulness is one of the perfections, good qualities, the Boddhisatta accumulated and developed for aeons. These were the necessary conditions for his attainment of Buddhahood. We all have to develop them, though not to the same extent as the Buddha, so that once we shall attain enlightenment. Lodewijk said: We also talked about conceit, and how important we find ourselves. We are attached to people's opinion about us. Our conversation was like a general confession, as the monks have to make, according to the Vinaya. The study of the Abhidhamma leads to this. I talked about the troublesome inclinations and tendencies that I have accumulated and Lodewijk talked about his weak points. People have different variations of them, but they are caused by the three unwholesome roots of attachment, aversion and delusion. The Dhamma is like a mirror, it makes us see our own defilements more clearly, and this is beneficial. While we are talking about the Dhamma we can inwardly pay respect to the Buddha who taught us to know our different cittas and also the deepst motives for all our actions, speech and thoughts. The development of understanding is the way to pay respect to him. Lodewijk said: We were also talking about you, that you should feel safe and secure. Lodewijk said, This is confidence, not vain belief. Confidence should be balanced with understanding. The Buddha speaks to you through the suttas and his message is very consoling. Sutta and Abhidhamma go together, his message is to understand your life as conditioned elements, no self in them. The Dhamma is the best medicine but it cannot help immediately. You should feel safe, because all problems can be solved through the Dhamma. We also talked about your name. It is your own decision what name you like but Lodewijk had a suggestion for a name with a more optimistical ring to it. He said, what about rosewood? Rosewood is strong and resilient, it can stand adversities. But just ignore this, if you do not like to change your name. Nina. 32446 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts' Hi Larry, op 23-04-2004 01:59 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > TA Sujin said we live in an 'ocean of concepts'. IMO this is neither > good nor bad. What is bad is that most of our attachments are to > concepts. Attachment to concept arises due to reason and inference. N: Attachment arises due to our accumulated defilements. We can reason and think about concepts with kusala citta or with akusala citta, but mostly with akusala citta. L:What > arises due to reason can be dispelled by reason. What we need is more > thinking! Or so it seems to me. N: It depends on the citta. Is it thinking with understanding? That helps to a certain extent, and it can lead to direct understanding if lobha does not play tricks and works in a counteractive way. The last thing happens when we have desire (I mean lobha, not chanda) for insight. We get out of the ocean by understanding paramattha dhammas as they really are. Take tangible object: hardness, softness, heat, cold, motion and pressure are just tangible object, not the body. These are characteristics of the three great Elements to be experienced one at a time. Some people think that fluidity or cohesion is also tangible object. But, we can verify that this is not so. When we touch water it is not fluidity, but one of the other three great Elements that is experienced. But we think of water, of a story of water, that is a concept. We are drowning again. We take our thinking for so great and important, but it is only a kind of nama. People think that there are other tangibles apart from the three great Elements, such as smoothness or roughness. In reality there are many moments of touching hardness, and they join these moments into a whole, they form up a concept of smoothness and roughness. These exist only in their thinking. Thus whatever is experienced through the bodysense, are only the three great Elements. The same goes for breath. We cling to it, but only the three great Elements are experienced. Vis. 76 explains tangible object and understanding this can makes us see the difference between reality and concept. Larry, I am ready for Vis. 76 and Tiika, if you are ready with the footnote 32 which I shall unravel where necessary. Nina. 32447 From: robmoult Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 0:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi Ken O and others, Ken, I know that you like Pali, so I added "extra Pali" to this post :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > Hi RobM and others > > > This is interesting. I have the opposite viewpoint. I believe that > > the kammic impact of sense door processes are very weak. How > > excited can one get over a dot of light - a visible object, as > >compared to the objects of the mind door - dots of light constructed > > and recognized as people, flowers, etc.? > > k: I am not qualify to said that it has little or big impact. When > we look at a sense process, I think we have to know that there is > latency involve. A visible object that is disagreeable may condition > akusala javana process and in turn condition latency. And this > latency may or may not condition unfavourable mental process. > > > In the Honeyball Sutta, the > > Buddha identified the mental proliferation (papanca) as the source > > of the problems. > > k: If you see the para 16 carefully , "dependent on the eye and > forms, eye -citta arises. The meeting of the three is contact. > With contact as condition, there is feeling. What one feels one > perceive" There is two way to say these statement > > 1. Buddha is seems to say that what you think depends on how we feel > ;-) - which is not the intention here > > 2. IMHO this is what I called latency where one feels one perceive, > whereby the feeling is condition by the javana process of the sense > process. So the effect of sense process already condition the mind > process - in that sense we also have to be in sati, not just in mind > process but also in the sense process. As you and I know, the only > way is to develop panna till it is strong enough to arise in the > sense process. > > Maybe others could help with the commentary notes. Let us examine this portion of the Honeyball Sutta in detail. I will give my interpretation of each line (from an Abhidhamma perspective) and ask for your comments / corrections. "Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises." (cakkhun c'avuso paticca rupe ca uppajjati cakkhuvinnanam) My comments: The term "paticca" (because of / dependent on) is reminiscent of paticcasamuppada. This phrase is a somewhat simplified form of the fourth link in paticcasamuppada; "namarupa-paccaya salayatanam" or "conditioned by nama, rupa and namarupa, the sixth base and the sixfold base arise". In this case, the conditioning factor is eye- base and the conditioned factor is eye-consciousness. According to Vism XVII 217, the conditions are support, prenascence, faculty, disassociation, presence and non-disappearance. It is clear by examining the set of conditions involved that this is an impersonal seeing function; there is no pakatupanissaya condition (natural decisive support) at work. It is also clear from the rest of this portion of the Sutta, that the "perceiving" and "thinking about" happen after this "mechanical" function arises. In other words, at this point, we are dealing with the simple function of seeing. This corresponds to the eye-consciousness citta, which is always accompanied by indifference. Let us now consider the remaining of the citta-vithi. Since there is no associated pleasant feeling, there will not be lobha. Since there is no unpleasant feeling, there will be no dosa. The javana cittas of this citta-vithi will be kirya (in the case of an Arahant), maha-kusala (if one sees things as they truly are) or moha-mula (if one does not see things as they truly are). Moha-mula cittas create very weak kamma. This is why I say that the sense door process creates very weak kamma. "The meeting of the three is contact." (tinnam sangati phasso) My comments: We are following paticcasamuppada to the next step; the fifth link in paticcasamuppada is "salayatana-paccaya phasso" or "conditioned by the sixth base and the sixfold base, contact arises". According to Vism XVII 227, the same six conditions (support, prenascence, faculty, disassociation, presence and non-disappearance) are in play. Clearly, this is still a "mechanical" function. I see this as being part of the same citta-vithi that included the eye-consciousness; in other words, the sense-door process. "With contact as a condition, there is feeling." (phassa paccaya vedana) My comments: This is the exact wording of the fifth link in paticcasamuppada. Consulting Vism XVII 231, we see that feeling in the eye- consciousness citta (which is always neutral) is conditioned through conascence, mutuality, support, result, nutriment, association, presence and non-disappearance. This is still a mechanical function. However, Vism XVII 231 also mentions that for the vipaka cittas in the sense-door process (receiving, investigation and registration), pakatupanissaya is the condition. This is where it starts to get "personal". The feeling for receiving and investigation are always neutral, so the kamma produced by the sense-door process will always be very weak. "What one feels, that one perceives." (yam vedeti tam sanjanati) My comments: The sutta now changes direction. It is no longer following the mechanical functions of paticcasamuppada. It is no longer impersonal. Terms such as "yam" and "tam" put a "personal" element into the progression. According to the PTS dictionary, when sanjanti is grouped with vedeti, it means to be aware of the feeling. Clearly, this cannot be the same citta-vithi as the previous activities. The object of this citta-vithi is the feeling associated with the rupa that was contacted. Feeling (vedana) is not a rupa, it cannot be the object of a sense-door process. Feeling can only be the object of a mind-door process. "What one perceives, that one thinks about." (yam sanjanati tam vitakketi) My comments: When one "thinks about" something, one adds to it. One of the things that one adds is a label or designation to help classify the object. The object is no longer the initial rupa nor the feeling that arose; the object is now a concept with layer upon layer being added by subsequent mind door processes as "thinking about" occurs. This is where Ledi Sayadaw's progression of "grasping the object as a whole", "recognizing the colour", "grasping the entity", "recognizing the entity", "grasping the name" and "recognizing the name" occur. In his introductory essay to PTS' Abhidhammattha-sangaha ("Compendium of Philosophy"), Shwe Zan Aung gives more details, "In order to enable a man to say `I see a rose', no less than four classes of the simple group of sequels are required, each of which may be repeated several times. He must first of all perceive a rose, presented in one or other of the forms of external intuition already described. Each process is followed, with a brief moment or two of the subconscious continuum intervening, by the process called `grasping the past', in which there is necessarily a depicting to the imagination of the past object which he has just perceived, the images alone of the different parts of the rose being present in the mind. These two processes may alternate with each other several hundred thousand times before the synthetic process takes place. The alternation of thee two processes may be compared to that of makes and breaks in the connection of an electric dynamo." Bhikkhu Bodhi quotes Nanamoli as making the comment, "What is perceived as `this' is thought about in its differences and is thus diversified from `that' and from `me'. This diversification - involving craving for form, wrong view about permanence of form, etc., and the conceit `I am' - leads to preoccupation with calculating the desirability of past and present forms with a view to obtaining desirable forms in the future." "What one thinks about, that one mentally proliferates." (yam vitakketi tam papanceti) My comments: Papanca (mental proliferation) has been likened to clouds in front of the moon. Because of papanca, one does not see the object for what it truly is. It is through papanca that the defilements find a place to take root. What starts out as perversion of perception (sanna- vipallasa - in the dark, a man spontaneously perceives a coil of rope as a snake) grows into perversion of thought (citta-vipallasa - he assumes that what he has seen is a snake) and eventually into perversion of view (ditthi-vipallasa - he is convinced that he has seen a snake). "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 by the eye," (yam papanceti tato nidanam purisam papancasanna sankha samudacaranti atitanagatapaccuppqannesu cakkhuvinneyyesu rupesu) My comments: We can see how pananca feeds upon itself. Papanca (conceptual proliferation) is clearly the manifestation of many mind-door processes (only mind-door processes can take concepts as objects). One can see how the kamma created at this stage can be quite strong compared to the kamma created at the previous stages of perception. The sutta now changes direction again. What started as a mechanical process (from eye-consciousness to feeling) evolved into an active involvement of the observer (perception to mentally proliferates) and now the mental proliferation takes control of the observer. Metta, Rob M :-) 32448 From: connie Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 0:06pm Subject: Re: Robber Guests Thanks for the poetry, Sarah. I think we'll all be happier if I don't return the favor. Have rounded up a few more robber types to kick around, though. Hope I'm not being too repetitious. From Mahathera Ledi Sayadaw's Manual of the 4NT: 'Monks, the six somatic bases--the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body, and the mind-base or consciousness (manayatana) are figuratively termed "a ruined village". The six external bases--visible objects, sound, odor, taste, body-impressions and mental-objects are figuratively termed "gangs of robbers who plunder the village."' Sunnogamo sunnogamoti kho bhikkhave channetam ajjhattikanam ayata-nanamadhivacanam; cakkhayatanassa, sotayatanassa, ghanayatanassa, jivhayatanassa kayayatanassa, manayatanassa, gamaghatakacora ti kho bhikkhave channetam bahiranam ayatanam, ruipayatananam, saddayatananam, gandhayatananam, rasayatananam, photthabbayatananam, dhammayatananam. Samyutta-Nikaya, Salayatanavagga, Salayatana-Samyutta (4) Asivisvagga, Asivispama Sutta. 6th syn. Edition. p. 383. I can't find the exact same Pali in the VRI (tipitaka.org) version. It does talk about the cha cora, etc. but doesn't list all the individual ayatanas. I thought that was curious and then ran across Joe Smith's mention of "the addition of the longer section on the Four Noble Truths from the Diigha version to the Majjhima version of the Satipa.t.haana sutta in the Burmese edition (Sixth Sangaayana)" in his article on "The 17 Versions of The Buddha's First Discourse". Just more reminders that it's not so much the words themselves as the understanding and where that leads, or that there are all kinds of 'criminal acts': < There are some foolish persons who learn the Dhamma, Sutta, Geyya, and so on by heart but once they have learned them by heart they do not examine the meaning in order to understand the texts. Those texts, the meaning of which they have not examined in order to understand them, do not please them and the only advantage they gain from their memorization is to be able to contradict others and to give quotations. All the same, they do not reach the goal for the sake of which they memorized the Dhamma. Those texts which they do not understand will, for a long time, earn them much sorrow and suffering. Why? Because those texts have not been understood. Alagaddupama Sutta, M 1:133 > Also, I think, things we've only thought we understood that did please us so we've followed and defended our wrong views with great faith and good intent. Reckon that's the difference between a Path and a 'well' paved road. As always, pardon my pronouns... I just want to feel that I've been in 'good company'. And as long as I'm stealing quotes today, "So long as we are not sotaapanna we shall have the inclination to wrong practice all the time." Then there are those things that might sound criminal but aren't: Having killed mother and father, And two kings, and having slaughtered A realm together with its governor-- The brahman wanders unafflicted (anigho). (Dh 294) "mother" = craving, which gives birth to beings in the 3 planes of existence; "father" = the conceit "I am", which gives the egoist value to individuality; "two kings" = the eternalist and the annihilationist views, that divide the world between them; "realm" = the 6 pairs of sense-bases beginning with eye-and-form; "governor" = the will and lust for those. (NettA 212 f.) from "Teaching Methods of the Buddha: A study of Buddhist hermeutics (a documented research)" by Piya Tan. He also writes about solitude: < the Antevasika Sutta (quoted at Nm 362, 469): Monks, this holy life is lived without students and without a teacher (anantevasika. ida. bhikkhave brahmacariya. vussati anacariyaka.). A monk who has students and a teacher dwells in suffering, not in comfort. A monk who has no students and no teacher dwells happily, in comfort. And how, monks, does a monk who has students and a teacher dwell in suffering, not in comfort? Here, monks, when a monk has seen a form with the eye, there arise in him evil unwholesome states, memories and intentions connected with the mental fetters [S 5:61; A 5:13; Vbh 377]. They dwell within him (antovasanti). Since those evil unwholesome states dwell within him, he is called "one who has students" (santevasiko). They assail him (te na. samudacaranti). Since evil unwholesome states assail him, he is called "one who has a teacher" (sacariyako). There is a pun on two Pali words in this sutta. A "student" (antevasi) is literally "one who dwells within"; thus one for whom defilements do not dwell within (na antovasanti) is said to be "without students". The word "teacher" (acariya) is here playfully connected with the verb to assail (samudacarati); thus one unassailed by defilements is said to be "without a teacher". The Commentary here glosses anantavesika. (one who has no students) with anto vasana,kilesa,virahita. (devoid of defilements dwelling within), and anacariyaka. with acara.a,kilesa,virahita. (devoid of the "assailing" defilements). > peace, connie 32449 From: Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts' Hi Nina, Which is more meaningful to you, the thought "feeling is impermanent" or simply attending to feeling? the thought "body is not self" or simply attending to hardness? Also you wrote: "Larry, I am ready for Vis. 76 and Tiika, if you are ready with the footnote 32 which I shall unravel where necessary." L: Did you want to say something about Vism. 75, or did I not get that one? Larry 32450 From: Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts' Hi, Larry (and Nina) - In a message dated 4/23/04 6:14:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Which is more meaningful to you, the thought "feeling is impermanent" or > simply attending to feeling? the thought "body is not self" or simply > attending to hardness? > ========================== I think you may be posing the wrong choice, Larry. The thought "Feeling is impermanent" is a good and useful thought. Better yet, I believe, is the observing of decay in conventional objects such as the body, for that leads to a degree of insight. Best of all, I think, is the realization of the impermanence of the phenomena - the actualities - that underlie the decaying conventional objects, for that realization leads to transforming insight. It is not, I think, the mere *attending* to feeling that is superior to the thought "Feeling is impermanent", and it is not the mere *attending* to hardness that is superior to the thought "Body is not self". Rather, what is superior is the direct *knowing* of the impermanence of feeling and of the impersonality and insubstantiality of hardness that is derived from the attending to feelings and hardness. 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) 32451 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 4:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Victor Thanks for the sutta reference, the emphasis of which seems to be on the 3 kinds of action (through body, speech and mind). As I think we've discussed before, 'the body' and 'breathing' are used in the suttas as representative of the rupa-aggregate (perhaps because they are being clung to all the time as being 'self'). One example of this is the 'contemplation of the body' section of the Satipatthana Sutta. The commentary to the sutta clarifies that it is all rupas that are being referred to. Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' gives the following information about rupa-khandha: <> I believe the 'corporeality depending thereon' is a reference to the (24) derived rupas. Jon --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon and James, > > Jon, regarding what you said : > > > - The dhammas/five aggregates spoken of in the suttas do not > include 'breath'. > > > you might find the following quote helpful: > > > "Now, lady, what are fabrications?" > > "These three fabrications, friend Visakha: bodily fabrications, > verbal fabrications, & mental fabrications." > > "But what are bodily fabrications? What are verbal fabrications? What > are mental fabrications?" > > "In-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Directed thought & > evaluation are verbal fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are > mental fabrications." > > "But why are in-&-out breaths bodily fabrications? Why are directed > thought & evaluation verbal fabrications? Why are perceptions & > feelings mental fabrications?" > > "In-&-out breaths are bodily; these are things tied up with the > body. > That's why in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Having first > directed one's thoughts and made an evaluation, one then breaks out > into speech. That's why directed thought & evaluation are verbal > fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental; these are things > tied up with the mind. That's why perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications." > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn044.html > > > Metta, > Victor 32452 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) James --- buddhatrue wrote: > Friend Jon, ... > James: If you sit down and do it, mindfulness of breathing, you > will eventually figure out what it means. If you are talking about mindfulness of breathing as described for example in the Satipatthana and Anapanasati Suttas then you are only 'doing it' if, in the words of the sutta, you are a person who has gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty place; who sits down, bends in his legs crosswise on his lap, keeps his body erect, and arouses mindfulness in the object of meditation, namely, the breath which is in front of him; and who being mindful breathes in, and being mindful breathes out. I don’t think this is a description of just sitting down and doing it in the hope that somehow it will all become clear in time. The advice the Buddha himself gave to others was to listen more, consider more, reflect more on the presently arising dhammas. I understand this to be advice that applies at any time regardless of the activity or posture, rather than being intended as referring to a special time of 'practice'. Certainly in the suttas there are many instances of people, including lay-followers, becoming enlightened while listening to the Buddha's discourses, with no indication of any special practice involved. > There is no reason to start > looking at numerous commentaries to figure it out. I don't believe anyone can figure out the Anapanasati Sutta entirely on their own without any help or influence from of other people's views and comments on the sutta, and I'm sure you must have been influenced by things you’ve read about it. In my view the most authentic and reliable of all such sources would be the commentaries. It beats me why people are so quick to prefer modern writers over the ancient commentators. > It means that the person will breathe in and out contemplating > the impermanence of > samsara. Samsara would include dhammas and those things that are > fabricated...and the breath. They are all impermanent. Doing this > can rid the mind of defilements through non-clinging. I agree that all dhammas are said to be impermanent. But I don’t find in the sutta any mention of a specific causal connection between mindfulness of breathing and seeing the impermanence of all dhammas. Of course, the whole sutta is a description of how the latter may be developed while doing the former, but it does not seem to be saying that one is *due to* the other. I think if you read the sutta carefully you'll see that mindfulness of dhammas, not of breathing per se, is the key. (BTW, I'm not sure what you mean by 'those things that are fabricated'. In the suttas it is said that all dhammas are 'sankhata', sometimes translated as 'fabricated', but this terms is applied only to dhammas as far as I know. Likewise the term 'sankhara', which is sometimes translated as 'fabrications'.) Jon 32453 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Howard (and James) Your description reflects the generally accepted 'meditative' approach to insight;-)) But if you look at it carefully, there are things you say or imply that are not expressly stated in the suttas, and which you've filled in yourself (e.g., the purpose or effect of mindfulness of breathing is to restrict the domain of attention and hence heighten the level of concentration, and then mindfulness can come in; paramattha dhammas are not directly experienced until enlightenment is near). I prefer to do my in filling from the commentaries ;-)). In any event, what you say here doesn't explain the significance of breathing in particular i.e., why the same insight should not result with concentration on an object other than breathing. It seems to me that the progression from concentration to insight as you have described it here is independent of the nature of the object of concentration. Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James & Jon - ... I think you are both right! We worldlings, are typically unable to attend directly to paramattha dhammas during "ordinary" mindstates. Pretty much all that we experience is passed through a more or less opaque filter of conceptualization. This is where we begin. When the Buddha directs attention to the breath, he is directing our attention to a somewhat restricted range of experience which we conceptualize as in-breathing and out-breathing. The realities subsumed by breathing are earth (solidity), air (motion), fire (temperature), and water (dryness - wetness), and, of course, a variety of derivative touch sensations. Those that are subsumed by in-breathing are somewhat different from those subsumed by out-breathing (for example, coolness vs warmth). Mindfulness of breath begins at the conceptual level. Even at that level, mundane understanding of impermanence and conditionality arises, but it is of minor import. However, the relative restriction of domain of attention tends to heighten the level of concentration. If by effort, with other conditions cooperating, one can maintain clarity and resist succumbing to sloth and torpor, then there is a corresponding heightening of mindfulness and comprehension, and one begins to see through the obfuscating conceptual filter a bit, getting somewhat closer to attending to actualities. At the pinnacle of this process, one attends directly to the subsumed paramattha dhammas, at which point there is the possibilty for supermundane insight into the tilakkhana to arise as the mind gains direct insight into the hindrances, the khandhic elements, the internal and external sense media, the enlightenment factors, and the four noble facts of dukkha. With metta, Howard 32454 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:27pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi Jon, No problem. Given the sutta reference, it should be clear now that in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > Thanks for the sutta reference, the emphasis of which seems to be on > the 3 kinds of action (through body, speech and mind). > > As I think we've discussed before, 'the body' and 'breathing' are > used in the suttas as representative of the rupa-aggregate (perhaps > because they are being clung to all the time as being 'self'). One > example of this is the 'contemplation of the body' section of the > Satipatthana Sutta. The commentary to the sutta clarifies that it is > all rupas that are being referred to. > > Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' gives the following information > about rupa-khandha: > < groups: > "What, o monks, is the corporeality-group? The 4 primary elements > (mahá-bhúta or dhátu) and corporeality depending thereon, this is > called the corporeality-group.>> > > I believe the 'corporeality depending thereon' is a reference to the > (24) derived rupas. > > Jon > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon and James, > > > > Jon, regarding what you said : > > > > > > - The dhammas/five aggregates spoken of in the suttas do not > > include 'breath'. > > > > > > you might find the following quote helpful: > > > > > > "Now, lady, what are fabrications?" > > > > "These three fabrications, friend Visakha: bodily fabrications, > > verbal fabrications, & mental fabrications." > > > > "But what are bodily fabrications? What are verbal fabrications? > What > > are mental fabrications?" > > > > "In-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Directed thought & > > evaluation are verbal fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are > > mental fabrications." > > > > "But why are in-&-out breaths bodily fabrications? Why are directed > > thought & evaluation verbal fabrications? Why are perceptions & > > feelings mental fabrications?" > > > > "In-&-out breaths are bodily; these are things tied up with the > > body. > > That's why in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Having first > > directed one's thoughts and made an evaluation, one then breaks out > > into speech. That's why directed thought & evaluation are verbal > > fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental; these are things > > tied up with the mind. That's why perceptions & feelings are mental > fabrications." > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn044.html > > > > > > Metta, > > Victor 32455 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:32pm Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher" wrote: > Hello, > > This (rather strange) question is actually about Mahayana Buddhism. > Please forgive me for asking it here, I have often received lots of friendly > help in here, and I'm not sure where else I might find an answer. So > any help is appreciated.. > > When meditating as a Mahayanist, one aims to avoid entering the > stream so as to stay in the round of rebirths in order to help other > beings. I am wondering if there is a certain way that a meditator does > this, and if so, how? Would there come a point in meditation where it is > obvious that entering the stream is possible, and a person can simply > choose not to advance? Or is it possible to 'accidentally' enter the > stream, only realizing afterwards what has happened? If so, what does > a Mahayanist do about this? From the Mahayana Vajracchedika Sutra (Diamdond Cutter): "Subhuti, it is the same concerning bodhisattvas. If a bodhisattva thinks that she has to liberate all living beings, then she is not yet a bodhisattva. Why? Subhuti, there is no independently existing object of mind called bodhisattva. Therefore, the Buddha has said that all dharmas are without a self, a person, a living being, or a life span. Subhuti, if a bodhisattva thinks, 'I have to create a serene and beautiful Buddha field', that person is not yet a bodhisattva. Why? What the Tathagata calls a serene and beautiful Buddha field is not in fact a serene and beautiful Buddha field. And that is why it is called a serene and beautiful Buddha field. Subhuti, any bodhisattva who thoroughly understands the principle of non-self and non-dharma is called by the Tathagata an authentic bodhisattva." 32456 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:57pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi Jon, Commentaries, ancient or modern, on anapanasati may be helpful to one who develops anapanasati(being mindful with breath). Why does one want to develop & pursue anapanasati? Because "Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their culmination." Developing & pursuing anapanasati is a "doing" and a skillful one. And by "doing" I mean kamma/action. It is the "doing" that leads to the cessation of "doing." There is nothing wrong spending certain amount of time a day dedicating to developing and pursuing anapanasati. Why does one want to sit down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect? Speaking from my own understanding, because it is a stable posture that keeps the body still, conducive for calming the bodily and mental fabrications and arousing energy. While in the suttas (references would be helpful) there may be many instances of people, including lay-followers, becoming enlightened while listening to the Buddha's discourses, it does not mean that these people did not spending time on developing & pursuing anapasati. As I see it, anapanasati is being mindful of and with in-&-out breathing. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > James > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > Friend Jon, > ... > > James: If you sit down and do it, mindfulness of breathing, you > > will eventually figure out what it means. > > If you are talking about mindfulness of breathing as described for > example in the Satipatthana and Anapanasati Suttas then you are only > 'doing it' if, in the words of the sutta, you are a person who has > gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty place; who > sits down, bends in his legs crosswise on his lap, keeps his body > erect, and arouses mindfulness in the object of meditation, namely, > the breath which is in front of him; and who being mindful breathes > in, and being mindful breathes out. > > I don't think this is a description of just sitting down and doing it > in the hope that somehow it will all become clear in time. > > The advice the Buddha himself gave to others was to listen more, > consider more, reflect more on the presently arising dhammas. I > understand this to be advice that applies at any time regardless of > the activity or posture, rather than being intended as referring to a > special time of 'practice'. Certainly in the suttas there are many > instances of people, including lay-followers, becoming enlightened > while listening to the Buddha's discourses, with no indication of any > special practice involved. > > > There is no reason to start > > looking at numerous commentaries to figure it out. > > I don't believe anyone can figure out the Anapanasati Sutta entirely > on their own without any help or influence from of other people's > views and comments on the sutta, and I'm sure you must have been > influenced by things you've read about it. In my view the most > authentic and reliable of all such sources would be the commentaries. > It beats me why people are so quick to prefer modern writers over > the ancient commentators. > > > It means that the person will breathe in and out contemplating > > the impermanence of > > samsara. Samsara would include dhammas and those things that are > > fabricated...and the breath. They are all impermanent. Doing this > > can rid the mind of defilements through non-clinging. > > I agree that all dhammas are said to be impermanent. But I don't > find in the sutta any mention of a specific causal connection between > mindfulness of breathing and seeing the impermanence of all dhammas. > Of course, the whole sutta is a description of how the latter may be > developed while doing the former, but it does not seem to be saying > that one is *due to* the other. > > I think if you read the sutta carefully you'll see that mindfulness > of dhammas, not of breathing per se, is the key. > > (BTW, I'm not sure what you mean by 'those things that are > fabricated'. In the suttas it is said that all dhammas are > 'sankhata', sometimes translated as 'fabricated', but this terms is > applied only to dhammas as far as I know. Likewise the term > 'sankhara', which is sometimes translated as 'fabrications'.) > > Jon 32457 From: Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 4/23/04 8:16:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard (and James) > > Your description reflects the generally accepted 'meditative' > approach to insight;-)) But if you look at it carefully, there are > things you say or imply that are not expressly stated in the suttas, > and which you've filled in yourself (e.g., the purpose or effect of > mindfulness of breathing is to restrict the domain of attention and > hence heighten the level of concentration, and then mindfulness can > come in; paramattha dhammas are not directly experienced until > enlightenment is near). I prefer to do my in filling from the > commentaries ;-)). > > In any event, what you say here doesn't explain the significance of > breathing in particular i.e., why the same insight should not result > with concentration on an object other than breathing. It seems to me > that the progression from concentration to insight as you have > described it here is independent of the nature of the object of > concentration. > > Jon > ============================ I don't claim that the subject need be the breath. Iused that as an example. But as to why it is a good subject, I suppose you'd have to ask the Buddha (were he around), because it was he who taught the Anapanasati Sutta, not m e. ;-) 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) 32458 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 0:04am Subject: Tiika Vis 75 reposted, a note. Hi Larry and all, This was posted around the time there was some Yahoo trouble. Some of you may not have got it. Just in case I post it again. Ignore it if you saw it already. Nina. 32459 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 0:04am Subject: "Tiika Vis. 75 reposted" "Tiika Vis. 75 reposted" (all English of Tiika, see below) "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV, 75 75. According to the kamma-born triad, etc., however, that born from kamma is 'kamma-born'; that born from a condition other than that is 'not-kamma-born'; that not born from anything is 'neither-kamma-born-nor-not-kamma-born' That born from consciousness is 'consciousness-born'; that born from a condition other than consciousness is 'not-consciousness-born'; that not born from anything is 'neither-consciousness- born-nor-not-consciousness-born'. That born from nutriment is 'nutriment-born'; that born from a condition other than that is 'not-nutriment-born'; that not born from anything is 'neither-nutriment-born-nor-not- nutriment-born'. That born from temperature is 'temperature-born'; that born from a condition other than that is 'not-temperature-born'; that not born from anything is 'neither-temperature-born- nor-not-temperature-born'. Pali: 75. kammajaadittikavasena pana kammato jaata.m kammaja.m, tada~n~napaccayajaata.m akammaja.m, nakutocijaata.m neva kammaja.m naakammaja.m. cittato jaata.m cittaja.m, tada~n~napaccayajaata.m acittaja.m, nakutocijaata.m neva cittaja.m naacittaja.m, aahaarato jaata.m aahaaraja.m, tada~n~napaccayajaata.m anaahaaraja.m, nakutocijaata.m neva aahaaraja.m naanaahaaraja.m. ututo jaata.m utuja.m, tada~n~napaccayajaata.m anutuja.m, nakutocijaata.m neva utuja.m naanutujanti eva.m kammajaadittikavasena tividha.m. Intro to Vis 75: This is again a different classification of all rupas. It reminds us that past kamma that has fallen away keeps on producing the sense-bases of eye, etc. which are faculties (leaders in their own field), and the other faculties. Nobody can make them arise, they depend on kamma. We are reminded of the other causes that produce rupas of the body, and only the four characteristics inherent in all rupas are not produced by any of the four causes. We read: what was born, what is born and what will be born, also all that is called kamma-born. Kamma produced rupas of the body in the past, and will do so in the future and it does at this very moment. What U Narada wrote in his Introduction to the translation of Dhåtu-Kathå, an Abhidhamma text (PTS:Discourse on Elements) can be applied to rupas, these are only elements. We read: “The elements are not permanently present. They arise to exhibit their own characteristic natures and perform their own characteristic functions when the proper conditions are satisfied, and they cease after their span of duration. Thus no being has any control over the arising and ceasing of the elements and they are not at his mercy or will however mighty and powerful he may be. In other words, the elements have no regard for anyone, show no favour to anyone and do not accede to the wishes of anyone. They are entirely dependent on conditions.² Tiika, Vis 75: Kammato jaatanti ettha ya.m ekantakammasamu.t.thaana.m a.t.thindriyaani *, As to kamma-born these are here the eight faculties which are solely originated by kamma, hadaya~ncaati navavidha.m ruupa.m, and with the heart(base) they are thus nine kinds of materiality, ya~nca navavidhe catusamu.t.thaane kammasamu.t.thaana.m navavidhameva ruupanti eva.m a.t.thaarasavidhampi kammato uppajjanato kammaja.m. and besides, among the nine kinds of materiality originated by the four causes, there are nine kinds originated by kamma **, and what is kamma-born materiality is thus also eighteen kinds, since they have arisen because of kamma. Ya~nhi jaata~nca ya~nca jaayati ya~nca jaayissati, What was born, what is born and what will be born, ta.m sabbampi ³kammajan²ti vuccati yathaa duddhanti. also all that is called kamma-born... Tada~n~napaccayajaatanti kammato a~n~napaccayato jaata.m utucittaahaaraja.m. As to the expression, born from a condition other than that, this means, born from a condition other than kamma, namely, temperature, consciousness and nutrition. Nakutocijaatanti lakkha.naruupamaaha. As to the expression, not born from anything, he said that these are the material phenomena as characteristics ***. Vi~n~nattidvaya.m, saddo, aakaasadhaatu, lahutaadittaya.m cittasamu.t.thaanaani avinibbhogaruupaaniiti eta.m pa~ncadasavidha.m ruupa.m cittaja.m. The pair of intimation, sound, the element of space **** , the triad of lightness, are originated by citta, and with the inseparable rupas there are thus fifteen kinds born of consciousness. Aakaasadhaatu, lahutaadittaya.m, aahaarasamu.t.thaanaani avinibbhogaruupaaniiti eta.m dvaadasavidha.m ruupa.m aahaaraja.m. The element of space and the triad of lightness etc. are originated by nutrition, and together with the inseparable rupas there are thus twelve kinds originated by nutrition. Ettha sadda.m pakkhipitvaa terasavidha.m ruupa.m ututo samu.t.thita.m utuja.m. Here sound is included and thus thirteen kinds of materiality originated by nutrition are materiality born of nutrition. Sesa.m kammajatike vuttanayaanusaareneva veditabba.m. The remaining part should be understood in accordance with what is said with regard to the triad of kamma *****. ***** English: As to kamma-born these are here the eight faculties which are solely originated by kamma, and with the heart(base) they are thus nine kinds of materiality, and besides, among the nine kinds of materiality originated by the four causes, there are nine kinds originated by kamma **, and what is kamma-born materiality is thus also eighteen kinds, since they have arisen because of kamma. What was born, what is born and what will be born, also all that is called kamma-born... As to the expression, born from a condition other than that, this means, born from a condition other than kamma, namely, temperature, consciousness and nutrition. As to the expression, not born from anything, he said that these are the material phenomena as characteristics ***. The pair of intimation, sound, the element of space **** , the triad of lightness, are originated by citta, and with the inseparable rupas there are thus fifteen kinds born of consciousness. The element of space and the triad of lightness etc. are originated by nutrition, and together with the inseparable rupas there are thus twelve kinds originated by nutrition. Here sound is included and thus thirteen kinds of materiality originated by nutrition are materiality born of nutrition. The remaining part should be understood in accordance with what is said with regard to the triad of kamma *****. _________ * the eight faculties of eyesense, earsense, smelling-sense, tasting-sense, bodysense, life-faculty, femininity, masculinity. ** The four causes of kamma, citta, temperature (utu) and nutrition. The rupas dealt with here are sometimes originated by kamma, sometimes by one of the three other causes. These rupas are: the eight inseparable rupas and space. When originated by kamma the inseparable rupas arise in a group of at least nine rupas, including life-faculty that is solely originated by kamma. As to space: this delimits the groups of rupas originated by the four causes, arising and falling away together with them. Thus, space is reckoned as originated by the four causes. *** The characteristics of origination, continuity, decay and impermanence. This is explained in Vis. XIV, 80. **** åkåsa dhåtu, the word dhåtu is used to show that it is a paramattha dhamma, not a concept. ***** The triad of consciousness-born, not-consciousness born, neither consciousness-born-nor-not-consciousness-born. As to the second one, born from a condition other than consciousness, namely, kamma, temperature, and nutrition. As to the last one of this triad, this is again the four characteristics of all materiality. The same with the triads of temperature and of food. **** Nina. 32460 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 3:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts' Hi Larry and Howard, op 23-04-2004 23:38 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Which is more meaningful to you, the thought "feeling is impermanent" or > simply attending to feeling? the thought "body is not self" or simply > attending to hardness? N: When we read the satipatthanasutta we are reminded of the impermanence of body and feelings in many different ways. For example, we read the corpse in different states of falling apart. This can bring us back to reality now, and that is the purpose of all the four satipatthanas. We have to develop understanding of the different rupas the body consists of, they are only elements, their characteristics exhibit themselves. Hardness appears now, but there is also the nama that experiences it. The arising and falling away of one rupa and one nama at a time can only be realized when insight is developed. As often repeated here, you have to know first rupa as rupa and nama as nama, you have to distinguish their different characteristics. Much patience is needed to develop insight, we cannot realize impermanence immediately. Thinking about how impermanent the body is is quite different from insight, vipassana panna, that realizes the arising and falling away of nama and rupa through the mind-door. As to attending to feeling and body, we have to remember that only when sati and panna, sati-sampajanna, arise, there can be right attention to the nama or rupa that appears. This is not a matter of focussing or concentration. When intellectual understanding is right, there are conditions for sati to be aware precisely of the characteristic that appears, so that understanding of it develops. Howard, the fourth satipatthana will be your subject now. The five khandhas, the hindrances, factors of enlightenment etc. We read about them in the satipatthanasutta, and again the purpose is to bring us back to reality now. The five khandhas, nama and rupa, appear now. The hindrances such as lobha and dosa, they all appear now in our daily life. They can be realized as just dhammas, seeing dhamma in dhamma, not seeing the self in them. Citta, cetasika and rupa, paramattha dhammas, they are in us and everywhere in our surroundings, if we could only see that they appear in daily life at this moment. If we could only let ourselves be reminded of them in whatever circumstances we are. Then we can profit to the full of the Dhamma we learnt. We do not have to be distracted by daily life, on the contrary! Paramattha dhammas, that is Abhidhamma. Satipatthana is the application of Abhidhamma. Wishing you a fruitful retreat, Nina. 32461 From: Eznir Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 3:55am Subject: Re: Video Games? Dear Sukin, Sukin: :-) I just wrote to you that my knowledge of Abhidhamma, i.e. the technical details, is quite low. I don't know the answer to your second question above. :-( But I don't have any urgent need to find out……… eznir: Don't you think it necessary that the Teachings will first have to be read and understood properly (in a conventional manner!) so as to gain a reflective acceptance of the Teachings before taking any approach to The Dhamma? Even the word "approach" in the preceding sentence implies action, let alone the whole of the Tripitaka which is full of words of this nature! Sukin: , because as far as I am concerned, if the perception and mindfulness is not of a paramattha dhamma, then whatever else is perceived is `not real'. eznir: How often do you think that you will get to know when you have the perception and mindfulness of a paramattha dhamma? For example, let's say that there are a billion thought moments that occur for a second at the end of which one comes to know that what one has sighted, say, is an Apple. According to the Abhidhamma, when processing an object from one of the sense doors, the Javana thought moments start from the 9th to the 15th thought moment. Therefore the kind of "perception and mindfulness" of a paramattha dhamma that you refer(since you don't deal with concepts) occurs for only upto the 8th billionth of a second, in this case. Because in the 9th billionth of a second the Javana thought process starts. And this is supposed to happen repeatedly till you come to know what the object is. It is in this javana thought process that you will be processing what your sense- door received. These `ideas' are not my concepts, it is in the Abhidhamma(except the assumption of the thought rate per second as a billion). Now I leave the rest of the analysis upto you. Mind you, the Javana thought process is already karmically effective. So whether you understood your approach or not, non-active or otherwise, you are on "active" mode! The javana thought process is functional only in Arahats. Sukin: I classify this as concept, this may be a wrong term, but I am not sure. eznir: "I classify this as concept, this may be a wrong term, but I am not sure". Don't you think you are groping in the dark, like the blind, when there is the Lord Buddha's Teachings for guidance? The Abhidhamma is a Teaching of Ultimate Truth and only the commentaries in it can be discussed. But the Sutta provides an avenue to understand "Abhidhamma", the higher Dhamma, which is profound and so difficult to see! Sukin: Also if there is any sense experience, by the time I realize it, it is a `thought' about what has just been experienced. eznir: Exactly! This cannot be avoided. And if we are to see the difference between "sense experience" and "`thought' about what has just been experienced" we cannot operate on a "normal" level. We have to "crossover" to a different domain altogether, one that is not subjected to time & space. This is where formal meditational practice becomes useful. Unless of course, if one has lots of paramis to one's credit. We come across in the suttas where just by listening to the Dhamma, Bhikkus attain Noble states! Sukin: So I am dealing with only shadows, even though there may not be any labeling and that other experiences occur before there is any recognition. eznir: Whatever it is that you deal with is karmically effective. Therefore Javana thought moments are involved. Hence you must know whether it is akusala or kusala. If akusala it(shadows) must be abandoned. If kusala you must know what the "shadows" are, for there is no kusala citta with not-knowing! If you are not sure of what the shadow is but think it is some positive sign of progress, then you must repeatedly deal with this "shadow" and get to know its characteristics. Now all that is said here involves concepts, and if you are fighting shy of concepts………………:-/ Sukin: As above, I believe the cittas dart amongst not only realities, but alternately, the signs and details, before any apparent `thing' becomes arammana and this is before recognition and labeling. And those signs and details may not be paramattha dhammas, and most likely informed by akusala cittas. What do you think? eznir: Consciousness(citta) is never without an object(arammana). So your statememt "cittas dart amongst not only realities, but alternately, the signs and details, *BEFORE* any apparent `thing' becomes arammana" is a mis-statement. Consciousness always arises with namarupa(Vinnana paccaya namarupa) according to the Suttas. In the Abhidhamma one may understand it as Consciousness and mental states (cetasikas). Therefore, the "arammana" may be gross, which is when you would have come to know as an object here, when you said "any apparent `thing' becomes arammana". Or it may be subtle, as when "the cittas dart amongst not only realities, but alternately, the signs and details". For the citta to "dart amongst realities and signs and details" their must be subtle forms(colour, shape), perceptions, feelings, intentions involved, until one comes to know the object *proper*. And what are these "realities", "signs and details"? It is said that our eye retains an image in its retina for 1/25th of a second. So perhaps till one comes to the final conclusion that "this is an apple", say, the thought process operate between eye-sense door and mind-door and refers to the past memories of what one has of an apple or a-round-shaped-red-object". Perhaps if one has eaten one before one may even feel the saliva that comes to the mouth at the sight of one. If one is penniless and hungry one may even see the thought to steal the apple. Now these are real "events" that one may experience, if one is mindfull. "And those signs and details may not be paramattha dhammas,". I could give a conditional answer here, Yes & No. Yes, because it is said in the Abhidhamma that the Paramattha Dhammas are Matter, Consciousness, Mental States and Nibbana. Now, Matter, Consciousness and Mental States, these three constitute the *All*, everything that is experienced. In the Suttas it is said that there is nothing outside of the 5 aggregates (matter, feeling, perception, formations and consciousness, the same paramatthas as in Abhiddhamma) that can be experienced. And also says that in brief this 5 aggregates is suffering. Now these are not my ideas but what is stated in the Suttas and Abhidhamma. So if one sees this with the eye of wisdom then the answer is "Yes". But the worldling doesn't see it this way. He sees a self, hence the answer is "No". Perhaps an illustration would help here.(This is just to give a perspective view of things.) Say there is a funnel, one end is wide and the other narrow(obviously :-)). A worldling (puthujjana) sees this funnel from the narrow end. Hence what he sees is the *outside* of the funnel. His views are diversified as his eyes travel towards the wide end of the funnel. He conceives "self" in four different ways with each of the 5- aggregates, ie 20 in all, hence the diversification. A trainee(sekha) sees this funnel from the wide end towards the narrow end. Hence what he sees is the *inside* of the funnel. Therefore the Trainee "funnels" down, so to speak, sees all his experience, converging into the 5-aggregates, as stemming from this 5- aggregates. An Arahat(asekha) has no need of this "funnel", he has got rid of the stem altogether. He "has" Nibbana, the *only* Ultimate Truth. "……and most likely informed by akusala cittas. What do you think?" If you understood what is given above you wouldn't worry about akusala cittas. Because, you see akusala cittas as akusala cittas (refer Bala- pandita Sutta SN XII.19). (Note also in the Satipatthana Sutta even the akusala cittas(hindrances) are taken into account. In fact the whole gamut of experience is included.) Being mindful in this way, you are no more *subjected* to akusala cittas. Then by applying the 4- fold effort one develops the other path factors(easier said than done, though! :-)). Metta eznir --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Dear Eznir, > > Metta, > Sukin 32462 From: Eznir Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 4:26am Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Dear Sarah, S: I understand you to be referring to the sequence of cittas in a mind-door process and the fact that the javana cittas occur just before the tadarammana or registration consciousness at the end of the process. S: As I understand, there are a multitude of mind-door processes occurring before there is any recognizing or naming. eznir: False. There are a multitude of mind-door processes occurring *for the purposes* of cognizing, and not *before* cognizing. *And then* *for the purpose* of naming, and not *before* naming. By which time there is *recognizing*. The point I'm driving at here is that when a discussion gets down to the level of thought moments, precision is required. In fact, in matters of Dhamma, being specific, trains ones mind to see the details in what one reads or sees. S: So as Sukin was suggesting, there are many mind-door processes long before there is any idea of naming or thinking in words when the sense object is just marked and the details attended to. eznir: I reproduce here the relevant potion of the dialogue in question by Sukin to James in post# , "In my own case, by the time there is even any awareness of an experience, be it through the sense or mind door, it is always already concept, long before any recognizing or naming." This is not what you say above. As I understand the proper sequence for the recognition of an object as say, an Apple, would be (1)*cognizing* the object, (2)naming the object, (3)and recognizing the object as a whole as, "this is an apple"(just a simplification!). This would explain why, sometimes, we do remember faces(or the thing) but not the name of the person(or the thing) or vice-versa. Which would mean that the naming and cognizing are two different aspects of the same object.(nama & rupa?) S: In a single mind-door process, the cittas, with the assistance of sa~n~na and other mental factors, will take the same concept as object. I'm not sure we can refer to concepts being `fabricated' by the javana cittas. Remember that only sankhara (i.e conditioned) dhammas are sankhata (formed up), not concepts. eznir: The computer in front of you is fabricated(in both sense of the word, as in assembled and sankharic formations(conditioned thing) or sankhata dhamma)? In fact, long before it came to be there it would have been a mere thought in the mind of the person who invented it, at which time it was a mere concept. Imagine the amount of javana cittas that would have been rolling in his mind then, sleepless nights thinking about it, till finally it materialized. In fact, everything that has been invented would just have been the same, a figment of the imagination of some genius(or idiot :-))! All things are mere sankharas in the mind. S: However, it is true that it is during these javana cittas that the object (in this case a concept) is attended to with various mental states such as attachment, aversion, wrong view or wholesome states. S: in an ultimate sense there is no one in the NAG to do or not do anything;-) eznir: Well said! But how do we realize this without concepts! S: Attaining stream-entry depends on the development of the eightfold path factors led by right understanding. These factors can never be developed by understanding of concepts, but only by understanding the conditioned dhammas, the namas and rupas appearing now as not-self. This is the same for all, regardless of any Group we may be categorized as being in;-). eznir: In the outset, before going further, please let me know what you mean or understand by "concepts" as against "namas and rupas" as given in your statement, "These factors can never be developed by understanding of *concepts*, but only by understanding the conditioned dhammas, the *namas and rupas* appearing now as not-self." "Attaining stream-entry depends on the development of the eightfold path factors led by right understanding." No. There is something even before that stage, ie., attaining stream-entry depends on *listening to the dhamma with **wise attention**.(Refer Anguttara Nikaya, unable to locate the sutta) "These factors can never be developed by understanding of concepts…" I say that there is *nothing*, that one can develop without conceptualizing! Unless one is aspiring to become a Buddha! In which case one is a "trail blazer"! Even then one's objectives are achieved by *trial & error*, and that too over a period of eons! And still the Buddha is only re-discovering what has been discovered before by those before him! The point is that unless one is aspiring to become a Buddha one has to learn through concepts. Coming back to the issue of learning through concepts. Recollect how we learnt our mother tongue.:-/. Perhaps, most of us can't, but we do have children and we do remember how they learnt the mother tongue. How? While saying it with words we *acted out* the meaning of it. Please don't take me literally, but this is the general nature of how we imparted the language to our children. Eventually, an observant healthy child, picks up fast and he becomes proficient in the language, *first-hand*! Hence the notion of the *second-language*! Because we learn the second-language through our mother-tongue(the first-language). Please note that what is significant here is that we are learning the second-language(concept) through a first-language(concept). But we also learnt the mother-tongue(concept) direct from our parents *who behaved in a conventional manner while imparting the language to us*!! Now, at this point, let me proceed in two directions. (1) Imagine Ven. Sariputta was our "mother" and Ven. Moggallana was our "father" (refer MN- )imparting the language of the Dhamma to us. Then, our approach to the Dhamma would, more or less, be the "non- active" way. Why? Because our *parents* "act out" the Dhamma(they are living examples of the dhamma), words are superfluous, we live amongst them. Opportunitites for sati-sampajjana(mindfulness and awareness) to arise are great. We watch and learn. But yet concepts are involved, since *our parents* can still only point the way, it's upto us to understand what is meant and tread on the path shown. (2) Unfortunately we are living in a so called "developed" world. And those like the Ven. Sariputta and Moggallana are few and far between! So we have to learn the Dhamma as a "second-language"! This brings me to the point of "listening to the dhamma with wise attention" raised earlier by me. Let me quote the Abhidhamma here: "By following the sound of speech through the process of auditory consciousness and then by means of *the concept conceived* by mind- door that subsequently arises, *are meanings understood*." Now I do not know how you would understand the *meaning* of this particular section on Concepts in Abhidhamma(Chapter 8 – Pannati) given above *without* using concepts! Now let's come to the issue at hand. You said "These factors(eight- fold path) can never be developed by understanding of concepts". I wonder how one *develops* the eight-fold path without first having understood what the meaning of the eight-fold-path is! And that too without using Concepts!*$# :-( I could go into a theoretical analyses, thought moment by thought moment, and prove that you are mistaken, but please spare me the effort, I am exhausted! Moreover it is impossible to go to the minutest detail over a post! Nevertheless, a non-active approach to the Dhamma is possible, subject to a suitable environment with the limitation given above and lots of *paramis* to your credit! But time is limited! S: On your other post to me about the essence of sankhara, I get your gist All references are to conditioned dhammas only, but we need to be clear on the context, I think. eznir: If you got the gist then you wouldn't conclude by saying "we need to be clear on the context, I think". Because that is the very point that I was addressing in that post! Metta eznir --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Eznir, Jack, Howard & All, > > Metta, > > Sarah > ===== > > > 32463 From: Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 0:51am Subject: Causes & Conditions Versus Rules & Rituals Hi, all - At times, folks here have spoken of silabatta-paramasa (attachment to rules and rituals), citing such a thing as formal meditation as an example of a rule or ritual. Now, there is such a thing as rules and rituals - it can be any activity that is carried out in ignorance of what it is that the activity actually serves as condition for. An activity that trains one for wrestling, would be pretty much a mere rule or ritual if carried out as preparation for a karate competion. An activity that calms the mind would be mere rule or ritual if carried out with the expectation of it alone producing liberation. But if the wrestling training is carried out for the purpose of being a better wrestler, and if samatha meditation is carried out for the purpose of calming and concentrating the mind, then one is not engaging in rule or ritual. Actions, together with cooperating conditions, have specific sorts of consequences, and it is misapplication of actions due to ignorance that constitutes adherence to rules and rituals. What leads me to think about this is the excellent sutta posted on another list that I copy at the end of this post, a sutta which I think nicely distinguishes reliance on rules and rituals from proper recognition of conditionality. (The sutta can be found on ATI at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn42-006.html) With metta, Howard ____________________________________ Samyutta Nikaya XLII.6 Paccha-bhumika Sutta [Brahmans] of the Western Land Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. For free distribution only. On one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Nalanda in the Pavarika Mango Grove. Then Asibandhakaputta the headman 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 brahmans of the Western lands, lord -- those who carry water pots, wear garlands of water plants, purify with water, & worship fire -- can take [the spirit of] a dead person, lift it out, instruct it, & send it to heaven. But the Blessed One, worthy & rightly self-awakened, can arrange it so that all the world, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappears in a good destination, the heavenly world." "Very well, then, headman, I will question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: There is the case where a man is one who takes life, steals, indulges in illicit sex; is a liar, one who speaks divisive speech, harsh speech, & idle chatter; is greedy, bears thoughts of ill-will, & holds to wrong views. Then a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart [saying,] 'May this man, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world!' What do you think: would that man -- because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great crowd of people -- at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world?" "No, lord." "Suppose a man were to throw a large boulder into a deep lake of water, and a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart [saying,] 'Rise up, O boulder! Come floating up, O boulder! Come float to the shore, O boulder!' What do you think: would that boulder -- because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great crowd of people -- rise up, come floating up, or come float to the shore?" "No, lord." "So it is with any man who takes life, steals, indulges in illicit sex; is a liar, one who speaks divisive speech, harsh speech, & idle chatter; is greedy, bears thoughts of ill-will, & holds to wrong views. Even though a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart -- [saying,] 'May this man, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world!' -- still, at the break-up of the body, after death, he would reappear in destitution, a bad destination, the lower realms, hell. "Now what do you think: There is the case where a man is one who refrains from taking life, from stealing, & from indulging in illicit sex; he refrains from lying, from speaking divisive speech, from harsh speech, & from idle chatter; he is not greedy, bears no thoughts of ill-will, & holds to right view. Then a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart [saying,] 'May this man, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in destitution, a bad destination, the lower realms, hell!' What do you think: would that man -- because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great crowd of people -- at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in destitution, a bad destination, the lower realms, hell?" "No, lord." "Suppose a man were to throw a jar of ghee or a jar of oil into a deep lake of water, where it would break. There the shards & jar-fragments would go down, while the ghee or oil would come up. Then a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart [saying,] 'Sink, O ghee/oil! Submerge, O ghee/oil! Go down, O ghee/oil!' What do you think: would that ghee/oil, because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great crowd of people sink, submerge, or go down?" "No, lord." "So it is with any man who refrains from taking life, from stealing, & from indulging in illicit sex; refrains from lying, from speaking divisive speech, from harsh speech, & from idle chatter; is not greedy, bears no thoughts of ill-will, & holds to right view. Even though a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart -- [saying,] 'May this man, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a destitution, a bad destination, the lower realms, hell!' -- still, at the break-up of the body, after death, he would reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world." When this was said, Asibandhakaputta the headman said to the Blessed One: "Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to point out the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has the Blessed One -- through many lines of reasoning -- made the Dhamma clear. I go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, & to the community of monks. May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge from this day forward, for life." /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) 32464 From: Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts' Hi, Nina - In a message dated 4/24/04 6:25:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > Howard, the fourth satipatthana will be your subject now. The five > khandhas, > the hindrances, factors of enlightenment etc. We read about them in the > satipatthanasutta, and again the purpose is to bring us back to reality now. > The five khandhas, nama and rupa, appear now. The hindrances such as lobha > and dosa, they all appear now in our daily life. They can be realized as > just dhammas, seeing dhamma in dhamma, not seeing the self in them. > Citta, cetasika and rupa, paramattha dhammas, they are in us and everywhere > in our surroundings, if we could only see that they appear in daily life at > this moment. If we could only let ourselves be reminded of them in whatever > circumstances we are. Then we can profit to the full of the Dhamma we > learnt. We do not have to be distracted by daily life, on the contrary! > Paramattha dhammas, that is Abhidhamma. Satipatthana is the application of > Abhidhamma. > Wishing you a fruitful retreat, > Nina. > ====================== Thanks very much, Nina. Much appreciated! 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) 32465 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 5:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (was, satipatthanasutta) Jack I agree that it's a good idea to drop a thread when one feels it has gone as far as it usefully can. I won't respond any further at this stage. I've enjoyed talking to you on this. No doubt the subject will come up again later;-)) Jon --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > Jon, > > I think I will bow out of this discussion. I have addressed most of your > points to the best of my ability in previous posts. This sutta to me is deep but > very straightforward. I think you are making something difficult out of > something straightforward. This sutta to me is describing a series of steps that one > can follow in one's practice to reach enlightenment. In other > teachings, the > Buddha described other methods emphasizing other aspects of > practice. If one > believes these two points as I do, your questions aren't relevant. > If one believes as you do, they are. ... 32466 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 5:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > > But what you said in your previous post was, > > "when direct looking is practiced along with clear comprehension of > > what one actually experiences", > > and there you clearly assign to 'direct looking' quite a > different > > role and function. Have you had a change of heart? ;-)). > > > > Jon > > > ======================== > I have no problem with replacing "looking" by "seeing". To look (in > the sense of "to attend"), of course, implies intention, and I'm aware that > makes you uneasy! ;-) > > With metta, > Howard Your concern for my ease of mind is much appreciated, Howard ;-)). However, even if 'looking' is replaced by 'seeing', I would still question the resulting statement, namely, "when direct seeing is practiced along with clear comprehension of what one actually experiences". To my understanding, 'clear comprehension of what is actually experienced' and 'direct seeing (of dhammas)' are one and the same thing, and either one could be used to summarize what the Buddha described in some detail in the Satipatthana Sutta. As to how this clear comprehension occurs, I would say not by 'practising direct seeing', since no matter what you call it such seeing cannot be other than a kind of looking, and there is a problem here in that without understanding in the first place the looking doesn’t know what to look at/for. Dhammas can be seen directly only when they are seen with clear comprehension. This is the conundrum of the 'practice', the developpment of the path. The key to this conundrum as stated by the Buddha on many occasions is association with the right person(s), (with this leading to) hearing the teachings expressed appropriately for us, (with this leading to) reflection on the teachings as they apply to the present moment. These are the catalysts for (initially weak) moments of clear comprehension of what is experienced. Jon PS All the best for your birthday tomorrow and for your day-long retreat. Perhaps you'll find yourself pondering on some of the issues we discuss here;-)). Or perhaps not. As Sukin says, conditions rule! 32467 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 6:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Nina and Lodewijk --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Jonothan, ... > N: He finds it very difficult > when A. Sujin answers with the example of seeing now or dhamma > now. Lodewijk, this is to be expected when we hear things that (a) are beyond our immediate ability to appreciate fully, and (b) don’t provide the kind of 'comfortable' explanation of things we'd like to hear. Actually, 'seeing now' and 'dhammas now' are just the kind of things the Buddha talked about, and for those ready to hear it it was a condition for enlightenment rather than frustration. If it's any comfort to you, most people who hear about seeing now and dhammas now react with dosa of some form or another, and that includes myself. As far as I can tell, very few people who hear this message are able to accept it without resistance. Those of us who are fortunate somehow know that its worth persevering with, and stick around. The majority go for a more comfortable option, i.e., something more in line with their existing view of things (although some of these find their way back again. As I think you know, one of the present regulars at the English discussion is a former colleague of mine from my Bangkok days who came along to a talk about 25 years ago but didn't appreciate what she heard at the time, and followed other practices for 20 years or so until finally realising the value in what she had heard all those years ago). ... > N: We need guidance of the suttas but also of the Abhidhamma. > Otherwise we > do not learn about the fine distinctions between different moments such as > kusala dhammas and akusala dhammas. And if we do not know anything about > processes of cittas (I do not mean all details) we have no idea how and when > there can be awareness of even akusala dhammas. How the > characteristic of > akusala can still appear to the sati and panna when it has just > fallen away. > Kusala cannot arise at the same time as akusala but, cittas succeed one > another so fast, and this makes it understandable that there can be > awareness of akusala. Through the Abhidhamma we learn more about conditions > (I do not mean we have to study all details), and this is of > immense benefit > for the understanding of anatta, no possessor, no self who can > manipulate anything. Nina, I agree with all this. There is much that is left unsaid in the suttas (for example, the teaching on dependent origination is very difficult to unravel), yet all the necessary material to fill the gaps can be found in the Abhidhamma and the commentaries to the suttas. We are doing ourselves no favour by relying on our own intuition or the views of others that are not based on the ancient texts. Of course, we don't need to study the Abhidhamma *as Abhidhamma*, we can just can use it as a source of reference for our study of the suttas. I have been most fortunate in learning so much about the Abhidhamma without realising at the time that I was doing so (thanks mostly to your writings and of course to the way A. Sujin explains things). Jon 32468 From: Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 2:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 4/24/04 8:43:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > PS All the best for your birthday tomorrow and for your day-long > retreat. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Thanks, Jon! ---------------------------------------- Perhaps you'll find yourself pondering on some of the> > issues we discuss here;-)). Or perhaps not. --------------------------------------- Howard: Very probably yes. ---------------------------------------- As Sukin says,> > conditions rule! > --------------------------------------- Howard: And I agree with this, provided one doesn't exclude intention from conditions. ==================== With metta, Howard P.S. I've taken up studying U Narada's "Guide to Conditional Relations" once again. Perversely, I have a far easier time with the material of the Patthana than the Dhammasangani! ;-) Perhaps this is influenced by my inclination towards impersonality (anattata) and insubstantiality (su~n~nata). One happy fact is that in the course of studying relations among phenomena one picks up along the way details of the related phenomena to some extent, and so, for me, the spoonful of conditional-relations sugar makes the analytic medicine go down! ;-)) /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) 32469 From: Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 2:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi again, Jon - In a message dated 4/24/04 9:19:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > All the best for your birthday tomorrow ====================== And to you, the day after! :-) 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) 32470 From: Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 2:40am Subject: Corrected Reply Hi again, Jon - In a message dated 4/24/04 9:19:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, YOU (not I) wrote: > All the best for your birthday tomorrow ====================== And to you, the day after! :-) 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) 32471 From: Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 4:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (was, satipatthanasutta) In a message dated 4/24/04 5:30:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: I agree that it's a good idea to drop a thread when one feels it has gone as far as it usefully can. I won't respond any further at this stage. I've enjoyed talking to you on this. No doubt the subject will come up again later;-)) Jon, And I've enjoyed talking with you. Be well. Jack 32472 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 9:48am Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi Victor, > As far as I see, the "NAGs" fall into the first sectarian guild: > > "There are priests & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold > this view: 'Whatever a person experiences -- pleasant, painful, or > neither pleasant nor painful -- that is all caused by what was done > in the past.' > > For the "NAGs", there is no desire, no effort [at the > thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' Can we say first of all that there *is* `action' all the time regardless of whether or not we believe in deliberate effort and whether or not there is any understanding at the time? That being the case, then the important thing would be to determine if indeed the citta is kusala or akusala, with right understanding or with wrong understanding? Now if we are to some degree familiar with our own citta and have any estimation of the akusala tendencies, then we may know that the "should" that we identify with is from `not knowing', avijja. If there is any understanding at the moment about the conditioned nature of a reality, it is just that. If there is sati, there is sati, if akusala is seen, it is seen. If there is samvegha, this can be followed by any citta, with or without panna. If kusala chanda is conditioned, well and good, if not, then what should be done? Should we be propelled by an `idea'? Such identification with cetana may be with self-view, and this is blind to the present reality. The danger is that if this is not recognized, then akusala will be mistaken for kusala and wrong understanding for right. And this accumulates, and we have adopted a `wrong practice'. When there is any understanding, whether during satipatthana or wise reflection, this is already "right effort" of some level and a kusala kammapattha has already been performed. Is there any need to do more? Would panna seek more of anything if it sees in the moment that nothing can be caused to arise by will?( I know you don't agree with this.) And when there is panna, is there also not a hint of where one is at and the understanding that only through much practice will the goal be reached? Does this not imply that there is much work to be done? But this of course doesn't mean that one should follow one's projections and/or a practice which one believes will take one there. Lobha and avijja may be ruling here. One is seeking more of something and may think that the `intention to do' is consequent of understanding. But is it? On the other hand, not hindered by any ambition for `self', there may be a level of `right effort', which perhaps looks not so to someone who has wrongly identified this factor with `intending' and `doing' something, for e.g. formal practice. Would panna opt `doing' something instead of 'understanding' the present moment, even though that activity promises more understanding as a result? Or is this more likely to be consequent of wrong view? Victor, on the level of stories, while driving Azita back to her hotel today, she told me about how after meeting Phra Dhammadaro (who was a student of K. Sujin) more than 20 years ago, that she remained in Thailand for another year and during that time she went *every* evening to listen to him speak about dhamma. Now is that not some "effort" involved? Only I think in her case, she was not identifying what she was doing with `right practice', but there was some real kusala chanda I think, to seek more understanding. So surely, things are being done with the understanding of what is right and what is wrong. And this is with chanda, viriya and cetana along with the other cetasikas. Only what is perceived as wrong, particularly self-view and wrong effort, happens to be what you see as right effort and right practice. Regarding your quote above: "Whatever a person experiences -- pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful -- that is all caused by what was done in the past." One of the first distinctions any student of Abhidhamma makes is the difference between kamma and vipaka. And this I believe is more productive of `right efforts' than any `deliberate' practice which may or may not take into account this distinction. This has very deep implications I think. > They can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be > done. Is the association of the above with NAG based upon your understanding of what *should* be done? Because I don't think the Buddha would accuse us NAGs of such a thing. ;-) > The very view "The point is that the very idea of `doing it' is > contradictory to my understanding of the conditioned nature of > realities" reflects that. I hope what I wrote above has helped to clarify my position. Metta, Sukin. 32473 From: Larry Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts' Hi Nina, I don't disagree with what you wrote in reply but I'm not sure of what your answer is to my question, "What is more meaningful for you, the thought 'feeling is impermanent' or simply attending to feeling." I wanted you to pick one or the other. Larry 32474 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:54am Subject: Christine: how about? Dear Christine, How is Achaan Jose? We often think of him. How was your dog on your return? I liked the description of his aversion when you went. Typical. What was your impression about the sessions in Bgk? I hope you found them useful. What impressed you most? Nina. 32475 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Dear Rob M, Thank you for your interesting analysis. I just like to add a few remarks. At the end you say: process (from eye-consciousness to feeling) evolved into an active > involvement of the observer (perception to mentally proliferates) and > now the mental proliferation takes control of the observer.> I would say: from the beginning to the end the processes are impersonal, they roll on because of conditions. Passive and active if you like, but we have to be careful lest misunderstandings arise. People may think of an observer before we know! As to sense-door and mind-door in between the mind-door processes there are sense-door processes as well. These fall into the stream. I also think that Ledi S. stresses too much: afterward this and then after that the object is defined. We cannot count, and again, there are sense-door processes again in between. He may define a rose, but again colour impinges, and again! You see, I do not think so much of a specific order. As I understood, during the stages of insight the sense-door processes and mind-door processes are not counted at all. Too fast and too many of them. There is no time. In Cambodia A. Sujin explained that there can also be satipatthana in a sense-door process. Because it is all so fast. Just some loose remarks. Nina. > The object is no longer the initial rupa nor the feeling that arose; > the object is now a concept with layer upon layer being added by > subsequent mind door processes as "thinking about" occurs. 32476 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Robber Guests Dear Connie, This is wonderful, thank you very much, also for the Pali. And the last one about lobha as teacher and as pupil: it never goes away. I was looking for this one for some time but could not find it. thanks very much, Nina. op 23-04-2004 21:06 schreef connie op nichicon@h...: > the Antevasika Sutta (quoted at Nm 362, 469): > Monks, this holy life is lived without students and without a teacher > (anantevasika. ida. bhikkhave brahmacariya. vussati anacariyaka.). A > monk who has students and a teacher dwells in suffering, not in comfort. > A monk who has no students and no teacher dwells happily, in comfort. 32477 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 0:49pm Subject: [dsg] Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > Hi Rob Ep > > What a long letter, its been a long time I have seen you in DSG. Good > to hear from you. Are you still doing Zen meditation? > > > > Ken O Hi Ken! Thanks for saying hello. Actually, to be honest, I haven't been doing a lot of meditation in this period of my life. I have found it difficult to put aside the time. I do try to practice some awareness of breath and the nature of the mind's formations in daily life, which I guess is a bit more in line with some of the practitioners here. Where I differ is that I think that meditation greatly deepens the ability to discern realities, and I look forward to adding it to my informal practice. I would like to read more Sutta as well. At the moment I have carved out a little discipline that relates more to the physical, as my doctor ordered me to get off fats and do 30 minutes exercise a day. So I have been very steady for some months about doing either a 'yoga workout' or a run through the local zoo every morning and I must say I feel physically much better. I also lost 18 pounds and feel a bit like my "old self" again, although that is of course nonexistent! ; ) When I do practice meditation, I have been practicing basic vipassana style meditation for the last decade or two most of the time; that is: following the breath as a central focus and then observing whatever mental or emotional content arises in the mind without either following or rejecting it. I have found it a very congenial, if basic, practice of mindfulness. It is a less exotic practice than some of the zen devices, but since I'm already a kind of exotic thinker, it's good for me to get very basic and just observe simple experiences. I am thinking that at some point I would like to add meditation to my daily routine [just like brushing one's teeth] and maybe work slowly towards the first jhana! I know this goal orientation is not universally approved of, but it sure worked for losing 18 pounds! My other practice is having a child! Having a young child is a powerful exercise in metta, and sometimes a challenge to the continued experience of metta, and it is a wonderful "spiritual" relationship. I hope you are well! Best, Robert Ep 32479 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:05pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? [benefit of conventional "right" effort] --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > Hi RobEp, > The "way"? Right view, right effort, etc. Could it be that the value > of sitting is not that it constitutes "right effort" but that it > provides great opportunities for recognizing all sorts of wrong > effort? Of course, there is plenty wrong effort that arises in the > course of a day even without sitting, but presumably, when sitting, > the task is to contemplate "right" and "wrong". At the beginning of > practice, sitting can bring the benefit of a time set aside for > contemplation. Gradually, the mind may learn to recognize the > occasional moment of right effort -- but perhaps only after it can > recognize the quasi-ubiquity of wrong effort. Sitting has the > potential to really help clarify moments of "wrong effort" because so > much effort is expended in trying to cause "right effort" to arise. > The beginning meditator (i.e., one who does not yet recognize the > overwhelming frequency of micchas relative to the sammas) may > eventually learn to recognize: "This is wrong effort; this also is > wrong effort; this is wrong effort too! And this, and this, and this, > and this..." As the avenues of wrong effort are seen with sufficient > facility, then the moments of right effort might just be recognized > as moments of right effort. But can this happen before a decade or > two of practice with serious sitting and then some substantial non- > sitting contemplation of the "sitting practice" and of the Dhamma in > general? > > Ooooo..... I didn't mean to spend this much time here. Starting > with: "Hmmm... Why don't I look into DSG? I'll only read a post or > two to see what's happening.... Interesting comments from RobEp; > maybe just a sentence or two in reply," I end up biting off more than > I should chew. > > Dan Hi Dan. Thanks for your view on this. I too meant to just "drop in" and say a word or two and instead I wrote an essay. But I'm happy to follow through with a few threads and hopefully not get overwhelmed. I do think that there is value in observing "wrong effort" or just "effort" in general, since right effort is probably in the category of "effortless effort" or allowing discernment to take place in some way. And I do think that the meditation situation can allow one to observe all of the tendencies the mind and egoic forces have towards "owning" the process and forcing mindfulness to happen. But no, I do not think that it would take a decade of confusion to sort this out and get a bit of "right effort" out of the process, because I feel that meditation - if there is *some* understanding of underlying principles - has a salutary effect in its own right. If one relaxes and observes various tendencies and efforts that arise, and continues to "let go" and just observe the nature of the mind, discernment of the nature of the mind will gradually come forth. That is my belief. I don't think that the nature of perception and practice in the human being is so complex and mysterious that one can practice in a congenial and straightforward way and get *all wrong results.* I just don't believe it works that way. I do think that if one forces and bothers themselves and sweats and builds up more negative confusion and emotion and does all the wrong things, that of course meditation, like discernment in general, can be subverted and turned into an obstacle rather than an aid. But the person who does all these weird things would in fact *not be meditating.* They would be doing some other destructive mental activity. I know there has been some dispute about this, but I think it's pretty clear that the monks in Buddha's ocmmunity were sitting around having lectures, sitting around practicing mindfulness and sitting around going into the jhanas when they were in longer periods of monastic life. There is no doubt in my mind that the four foundations of mindfulness and the mindfulness practices around the breath were designed for meditation but I know that can be disputed. Some will say that Buddha mentioned "sitting" here and there because the monks "happened to do sitting practice" as was their habit in that culture, and that Buddha never meant to prescribe meditation as a practice. But I personally think that's stretching it a lot. To go through the four foundations of mindfulness with the thoroughness that the Buddha proposes; to think "I am now having a long inhalation, and now having a long exhalation" etc. etc., while going through daily life, seems like a very tortured reading of what the Buddha says. But I'm sure the dispute will continue. It seems to me that the Buddha prescribed the practice of mindfulness in all activities of life, and also prescribed regular meditation in order to deepen the discernment of the kandhic formations. There is no reason to choose one and reject the other at all in my opinion. I also think the Buddha expressed justified confidence that the regular practice of all these skillful devices would lead to enlightenment if one followed through and continued on the long path set out in this way. There is no reason to think that if we sit and allow mindfulness and discernment to develop, that we will somehow go completely in the wrong direction. Certainly, the Buddha himself didn't warn of this, and I don't think it's a really great concern. The really great concern is that we will not practice, not discern, not become aware and not develop wisdom. So I think a good solid practice, whether it is suttas plus everyday observation, or suttas plus observation plus meditation, is much better than no practice at all. Best, Robert Ep. 32481 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 2:19pm Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Rob Ep, > > Good to see you back. Long time no write. :-) > You have indeed given this topic much thought, and I wish I could > find more points to agree with than disagree, but??:-/ !! > Your post reminds me of the concept of `informal mediation' used > here some time back by some members, which I felt quite > uncomfortable with. To me `formal' or `informal' both are equally > wrong, both being with the idea of `doing'! Dear Sukin, I enjoyed your post! It's nice to be back in this debate. By the way, the "conditions" that led to me being here again can be easily discerned. It was Nina! She wrote me a lovely note, and reminded me of my dsg friends, and here I am! I must have been doing something right to get back here, so consider me to have a bit of right view and pay careful attention to what I say! : ) I guess what it comes down to is whether you believe that conditions that affect the kandhas affect the path. We would agree that right view, dropping the sense of doership and the doer, and the discernment of the reality of the moment as the only existing reality, would all be crucial, and must be developed to the point of wisdom. I would guess though, that you would also say that prescribed activities will lead to the development of satipatthana, and that these activities that help one to develop right understanding leading to satipatthana would include sutta and commentary study, the good companionship of the "spiritual friend" and discernment of realities in daily life. These are all "purposeful activities" that one does to "make progress" beyond the present moment. I think it would be silly to say that they are themselves the appropriate expression of sati and arise all by themselves and that the one who is involved in these activities has no thought that they will "help." Of course he does, and he consciously engages in sutta, lecture, discernment, etc., in order to advance towards enlightenement. Does he then have to drop the idea of doership and making progress in order to apply his understanding to the present moment without a separate doer being misconstrued? Yes, he does. But in what possible way is this different from the "sense of doing" involved in meditation? Simply, there is no difference on that level at all. If one is following the Buddha's proscribed path, or following Abhidhamma, or following Thai Forest Tradition, or following zen, one is doing so in order to attain liberation in nibbana, and that sense of "purpose" is going to be there. One would not engage in any of these things if one did not believe that they would lead to the goal, so the goal is there, and it is outside of the discernment of the moment. Looking at the moment, one might not see any of this. In the moment, "Buddha," "Path," "Abhidhamma," etc. are all concepts. Buddha is not now before us in the flesh, and that's that. Yet we follow his teachings and try to follow his example as we see it. So the inescapable conclusion is that there are "good" concepts and practices, and "bad" concepts and practices. Some lead to the goal and others don't, but the sense of doership will have to be dropped no matter what the practice is, and that will take as long as it takes according to arising conditions. So then the only question is whether meditation supplies an opportunity, or has something inherent about it, that will promote the path, or not. You are inherently saying that sutta study, com study, spending time with knowledgeable teachers who have right view, discernment of realities in life, etc. -- all prescribed by Abhidhamma -- are "good" practices that get you the right result and that meditation -- frowned upon in Abhidhamma because it is a "doing" that strives for a "result" -- is a bad practice that creates conceptual obstacles. I don't see any logical reason why meditation creates more conceptual obstacles or is more of a doing than purposely reading the Suttas to understand the Buddha's teaching. They are both activities, they are both done purposely, and they are both done to get a result in progressing on the path. So there is no difference in terms of approach and pitfalls. So does meditation cause something correct to happen on the path, as sutta study should do [if not totally misconstrued or misunderstood of course] and should it thus be included as a "good" practice or not? Again, the issue comes down to what effect meditation has on these kandhas which much become conditioned in a way that leads to the arising of wisdom. I think it does. I think the Buddha also thought that it does, and that it is obvious why it does. Sitting with an open and relaxed mind and looking at realities as they arise with relatively little distraction, one sorts through the contents of consciousness and begins to see the status of concepts, thoughts, emotions, perceptions and the other kandhas which make up this reality. One can do this with a sense of doership and try to "own" the process, which creates an obstacle but does not totally block the result of meditation, or one can relax the sense of doership and simply observe, just like in daily life, but with less distraction. The idea that this is a contrived situation and thus is ruined as a skillful activity makes no sense to me, any more than sitting down and studying the components of a piano piece somehow should interfere with the eventual playing of the song. Yes, some piano students will get an overly technical consciousness and will never really understand music. But others will learn the skills of music and then set them free to function when the proper time comes. And that is what the meditator must do, as must the Sutta student, and everyone else who seeks liberation. Can one reach enlightenment without meditating under the right conditions? I think so. Certainly if kammic influences are such, seeing the light change from green to red can set off the whole noble eightfold path and cause sudden liberation. But is meditation a great and thus indispensable practice, prescribed by the Buddha as an important part of the path? I think the answer is absolutely yes. Best, Robert Ep. 32483 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 3:00pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Illusion of Control --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Ken - > > In a message dated 4/14/04 3:24:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > kenhowardau@y... writes: > > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > ---------------------- > > H: >Yes, it all can be understood in such a manner. But there is > > understanding, and there is understanding. An intellectual > > translation of the Buddha's suttic teachings into "ultimate form" is > > not the sort of understanding that is liberative, though it can > > certainly be useful. > > ---------------------- > > > > Mere intellectual understanding is liberating in its way. To > > understand that there is no self, only nama and rupa, is to have a > > weight lifted from your shoulders. Don't you get this from your > > own, phenomenalist viewpoint? > > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Correct intellectual understanding - and we can't be too sure when our > understanding *is* correct - is helpful. It is an important factor. In > itself, however, it is only liberating, as you say, "in its way". > ------------------------------------------------ Hi Howard. Maybe you could say that it liberates the mind to the extent that it clarifies thoughts one might have about the nature of "self" and replaces those thoughts to some extent with thoughts that are geared towards the liberative process. If one sees that there are only arising cittas and not a "self" at the center, and sees this only intellectually, then perhaps they will point their awareness towards the process and away from the false concept? This would only be a partial measure though, as you say, without some practice that is liberative, and not only correcting of the conceptual tendency on a conceptual level. More below. > > ---------------------- > > > > Howard: >Yes, all true. However - there are complex relations that > > hold among the momentary actualities, and a concept such as that of > > a process of meditation is a way of (indirectly) grasping not only > > the actualities involved, but also the multi-layered pattern of > > relations among them. > > --------------------- > > > > I agree that we have to know how concepts are created. I am not > > convinced, however, that the concept of a process of meditation > > bears any relation to actual, momentary, meditation. > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > ---------------------------- > > H: >But substituting belief in a intellectual theory of ultimate > > reality is an ineffective alternative to engaging in the > > conventional practices taught by the Buddha that lead to > > purification of mind and to liberation. > > -------------------- > > > > But is that so? Did the Buddha specify conventional practices? > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, indeed. > --------------------------------------------------- > Here > > > at dsg, we are shown a wealth of evidence to the contrary. > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > And in the 45 years of the Buddha's teaching as recorded in the Sutta > Pitaka, we are shown exactly what I claim. If I need to choose between the > two, you can be assured that there is little doubt as to my decision. > -------------------------------------------------- > Why side > > > against it? > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Because I am a *Buddhist* (!), not a DSG-er or even an Abhidhammika. > ----------------------------------------------- > > > Why not stay true to your phenomenalist leanings? > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I most assuredly do. To be a thoroughgoing phenomenalist doesn't > require not communicating. It only requires understanding the difference between > what is merely manner of speaking and what is actuality. Just quoted this to agree with you Howard. There is a still a conceptual chaos around the issue of meditation as a means to understand realities. How do you personally reconcile Abhidhamma principles with your meditation practice? I think an understanding of how they go together would be very helpful. Best, Robert Robert 32487 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 3:05pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Illusion of Control --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I see much in Abhidhamma (but far from all) that fits in perfectly > both with meditation practice and with a phenomenalist "take" on matters. This > coming Sunday I'll be attending a study/meditation workshop on the 4th > foundation of mindfulness taught by a meditator-Abhidhammika. I'll "report back" > afterwards. ;-) Dear Howard, I'll will definitely look forward to that. I'm sure it will be a fruitful and interesting experience. Good to be talking to you too! Best, Rob Ep 32489 From: Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 4:19pm Subject: Vism.XIV 76 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 76. Again, it is of four kinds as seen, etc., as concrete matter, etc., and as the physical basis tetrads, and so on. Herein, the visible-data base is 'seen' because it is the objective field of seeing. The sound base is 'heard' because it is the objective field of hearing. The three, that is to say, odours, flavours, and tangible data, are 'sensed' (lit. contacted) because they are the objective fields of faculties that take contiguous [objective fields]. The rest are 'cognized' because they are the objective field of consciousness (cognition) only. So firstly it is of four kinds according to the seen, etc., tetrad. (32) -------------------- note 32. ' "Sensed (muta)" means apprehendable by sensing (mutvaa), by reaching; hence he said "because they are the objective fields of faculties that take contiguous [objective fields]" (cf. par. 46). But what is it that is called a tangible datum? It is the three elements, earth, heat, and air. But why is the water element not included here? Is not cold apprehended by touching; and that is the water element? Certainly it is apprehended but it is not the water element. What is it then? It is just the fire element. For there is the sensation (buddhi) of cold when heat is sluggish. There is no quality that is called cold; there is only the assumption (abhimaana) of coldness due to the sluggishness of the state of heat. How is it to be known? Because of the unreliability of the sensation of cold, like "beyond and not beyond". For in hot weather, while those who stand in the sun and go into the shade have the sensation of cold, yet those who go to the same place from an underground cave have the sensation of heat. And if coldness were the water element it would be found in a single group (kalaapa) along with heat; but it is not so found. That is why it may be known that coldness is not the water element. And that is conclusive (uttara) for those who agree to the inseparable existence of the primary elements; and it is conclusive too even for those who do not agree because it is disproved by associate existence through seeing the functions of the four primaries in a single group. It is conclusive too for those who say that coldness is the characteristic of the air element; for if coldness were the air element, coldness would be found in a single group along with heat, and it is not so found. That is why it may be known that coldness is not the air element either. But those who hold the opinion that fluidity (dravataa) is the water element and that that is apprehended by touching should be told: "That fluidity is touched is merely the venerable ones' assumption as is the case with shape". For this is said by the Ancients: "Three elements coexisting with fluidity together form what constitutes a tangible; that 'I succeed in touching this fluidity' is a common misconception in the world. And as a man who touches elements, and apprehends a shape then with his mind, fancies 'I really have been touching shape', so too fluidity is recognized" ' (Pm. 459). 32490 From: connie Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 8:10pm Subject: Re: Robber Guests Dear Nina, I'm delighted. Thanks for letting me know. I gave away my Virago motorbike several years ago and was happy about that and also believing I didn't want to ride anymore, but now my mother has given me another called a Rebel and it is the new great love of my life. So fickle - every bike I've had has been my great love! I can't help laughing at myself over the names and not so "latent" tendencies. Nothing subtle there. This new bike even has 'flames' on the tank in case I forget. peace, connie >Dear Connie, This is wonderful, thank you very much, also for the Pali. And the last one about lobha as teacher and as pupil: it never goes away. I was looking for this one for some time but could not find it. thanks very much, Nina. 32491 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 8:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi Rob M and Ken O, I am three days behind in my dsg reading and looking forward to reading more on this thread (and all the others, of course). Rob M wrote, ---------------- > This is interesting. I have the opposite viewpoint. I believe that the kammic impact of sense door processes are very weak. > --------------- I have no strong opinions on the impact of sense-door processes compared with mind-door processes, but it seems plausible that the main action could go on at the paramattha level (as opposed to the conceptual level). Isn't it possible that citta could have intense dosa with rupa (eg visible object) as object? The thinking mind might then translate the intense paramattha reality into a weak, ineffectual, conceptual reality (of a self who has hatred for another self). I don't see why the reverse has to be true but I am ready to be convinced. ----------------------- RM: > How excited can one get over a dot of light - a visible object, as compared to the objects of the mind door - dots of light constructed and recognized as people, flowers, etc.? > ---------------------- Rob, it worries me that you persistently maintain, despite all the protests from dsg, that visible object is a dot of light. A dot of light is a concept. Visible object is a reality. It is the reality that appears at the eye-door. Kind regards, Ken H 32492 From: gazita2002 Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 11:29pm Subject: Re: "Tiika Vis. 75 reposted" --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > "Tiika Vis. 75 reposted" > (all English of Tiika, see below) Dear Nina, You wrote: > ***** > English: > As to kamma-born these are here the eight faculties which are solely > originated by kamma, > and with the heart(base) they are thus nine kinds of materiality, > and besides, among the nine kinds of materiality originated by the four > causes, there are nine kinds originated by kamma **, and what is kamma-born > materiality is thus also eighteen kinds, since they have arisen because of > kamma. I do not understand how it becomes 18 when at first it is stated that it is nine. Could you explain this to me please, patience, courage and good cheer, Azita 32493 From: robmoult Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 11:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > I am three days behind in my dsg reading and looking forward to > reading more on this thread (and all the others, of course). > > Rob M wrote, > ---------------- > > This is interesting. I have the opposite viewpoint. I believe that > the kammic impact of sense door processes are very weak. > > --------------- > > I have no strong opinions on the impact of sense-door processes > compared with mind-door processes, but it seems plausible that the > main action could go on at the paramattha level (as opposed to the > conceptual level). Isn't it possible that citta could have intense > dosa with rupa (eg visible object) as object? The thinking mind > might then translate the intense paramattha reality into a weak, > ineffectual, conceptual reality (of a self who has hatred for > another self). I don't see why the reverse has to be true but I am > ready to be convinced. ===== Let us switch for a minute to the ear door. The rupa that appears at the ear door is sound. Considering the speed of the citta process, a sound rupa that lasts only 17 citta moments cannot have much information in it. Perhaps a note or even a fraction of one note. It seems to me that the reaction of a sound rupa must be very weak as comared to the reaction to the aggregate of many sound rupas (a spoken word, a song, etc.). The aggregate of many sound rupas is a concept and can only be experienced through the mind door. Again, this is why I consider that the serious kamma is created by the mind door process rather than the sense door process. ===== > > ----------------------- > RM: > How excited can one get over a dot of light - a visible > object, as compared to the objects of the mind door - dots of light > constructed and recognized as people, flowers, etc.? > > ---------------------- > > Rob, it worries me that you persistently maintain, despite all the > protests from dsg, that visible object is a dot of light. A dot of > light is a concept. Visible object is a reality. It is the reality > that appears at the eye-door. ===== The simile of the dot of light is based on the ancient simile of the circle of fire caused by a moving point to show the persistency of an image. Ledi Sayadaw used this simile to explain the building up of an image from multiple visible objects. As I recall, I have only once used this simile on DSG and only one person (Rob K as I recall) said that his idea was of a photograph coming into increasing focus as more visible objects are added. At the time, we agreed that the issue was not central to the discussion at hand. As I have mentioned above, the rupa appearing at the ear door (sound) could be described as a "faction of a note". Of course, "fraction of a note" is a concept used to describe the reality, it is not the reality itself. It makes sense to me that the corresponding visible object would be a "fraction of an image" which I have called a "dot of light". Of course "fraction of an image" and "dot of light" are also concepts, but these concepts are used to convey an impression. I would be interested in better understanding your definition of visible object. Clearly the simile of "dot of light" doesn't appeal to you. Are you in the "photograph coming into focus" camp or do you have another simile that makes more sense to you. Metta, Rob M :-) 32494 From: robmoult Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 11:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Rob M, > Thank you for your interesting analysis. I just like to add a few remarks. > At the end you say: > process (from eye-consciousness to feeling) evolved into an active > > involvement of the observer (perception to mentally proliferates) and > > now the mental proliferation takes control of the observer.> > I would say: from the beginning to the end the processes are impersonal, > they roll on because of conditions. Passive and active if you like, but we > have to be careful lest misunderstandings arise. People may think of an > observer before we know! ===== I was struggling with this as I wrote. How to express the ideas without implying a self. I struck upon the idea of considering the underlying conditions at work. I place special importance on pakatupanissaya as this is where accumulations come into play. Perhaps I place too much importance on pakatupanissaya, though when I asked K. Sujin if pakatupanissaya was extremely important, she agreed (I then wondered aloud, "if it is so important, why does it get place 9c among 24 conditions?"). By the way, I also see hetu condition as very important so I understand why it is number one in the list. I noticed that conditions at work for namarupa-paccaya salayatanam and the conditions at work for salayatana-paccaya phasso and most of the conditions at work for phassa-paccaya vedana were the "boring old conditions" of conascence, mutuality, support, nutriment, faculty, etc. and that my "favourite conditon" (pakatupanissaya) only really started to come into play after that point. I understand your concern about trying to introduce an observer in disguse. Earlier today, I was reading the Kathavatthu and I noticed how many ways people had tried to introduce an observer into Buddhism. > As to sense-door and mind-door in between the mind-door processes there are > sense-door processes as well. These fall into the stream. I also think that > Ledi S. stresses too much: afterward this and then after that the object is > defined. We cannot count, and again, there are sense-door processes again in > between. He may define a rose, but again colour impinges, and again! You > see, I do not think so much of a specific order. > As I understood, during the stages of insight the sense-door processes and > mind-door processes are not counted at all. Too fast and too many of them. > There is no time. In Cambodia A. Sujin explained that there can also be > satipatthana in a sense-door process. Because it is all so fast. Nina, I think that Ledi Sayadaw would have made an excellent engineer! :-) :-) I greatly appreciate his analytical approach but I also appreciate that it is not everybody's cup of tea. Metta, Rob M :-) 32495 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 0:07am Subject: Destruction of the Taints Dear Friends, I have a question for this distinguished panel of dhamma experts. I am having some difficulty understanding this passage in MN 77 "The Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin": 36. "Again, Udayin, I have proclaimed to my disciples the way whereby by realizing for themselves with direct knowledge, they here and now enter upon and abide in the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the taints. Just as if there were a lake in a mountain recess, clear, limpid, and undisturbed, so that a man with good sight standing on the bank could see shells, gravel, and pebble, and also shoals of fish swimming about and resting. He might think: `There is this lake, clear, limpid, and undisturbed, and there are these shells, gravel, and pebbles, and also these shoals of fish swimming about and resting.' So too, I have proclaimed to my disciples the way whereby by realizing for themselves with direct knowledge, they here and now enter upon and abide in the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the taints. And thereby many disciples of mine abide having reached the consummation and perfection of direct knowledge." James: I am predominately having difficulty wrapping my mind around the metaphor in this passage. Destruction of the taints is like seeing shells, gravel, pebbles, and fish in a clear, mountain lake??? My first impression is that the lake is supposed to represent the mind (stilled by meditation); the shells, gravel, and pebbles are supposed to represent the three taints (desire, ill- will, and delusion); and the fish swimming about and resting are supposed to represent the derivatives of the three taints. Where I am getting stuck is how simply seeing these things is supposed to `destroy' them. This metaphor, when carried to its logical conclusion, implies that nothing is really `destroyed'; these things would still remain but would then be seen for what they are. After all, simply viewing a mountain lake filled with fish isn't going to make it go away. I have difficulty reconciling this metaphor with other metaphors the Buddha uses which compares destruction of the taints to be like cutting down palm trees. In that case, what was once there isn't there anymore. I feel that I can understand that type of metaphor and yet not this one. However, I do feel that this metaphor has deeper meaning and it is important to more understand. Anyone have any insights into this passage that I am missing? Thanks. Metta, James 32496 From: robmoult Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 0:25am Subject: Re: Causes & Conditions Versus Rules & Rituals Hi Howard and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, all - > > At times, folks here have spoken of silabatta-paramasa (attachment to > rules and rituals), citing such a thing as formal meditation as an example of > a rule or ritual. Now, there is such a thing as rules and rituals - it can be > any activity that is carried out in ignorance of what it is that the activity > actually serves as condition for. An activity that trains one for wrestling, > would be pretty much a mere rule or ritual if carried out as preparation for a > karate competion. An activity that calms the mind would be mere rule or ritual > if carried out with the expectation of it alone producing liberation. But if > the wrestling training is carried out for the purpose of being a better > wrestler, and if samatha meditation is carried out for the purpose of calming and > concentrating the mind, then one is not engaging in rule or ritual. Actions, > together with cooperating conditions, have specific sorts of consequences, and it > is misapplication of actions due to ignorance that constitutes adherence to > rules and rituals. Here is what Bhikkhu Bodhi has to say about silabbatupadana (from his translation of Samyutta Nikaya Vol I, page 726 note 1): The expression silabbatupadana is often translated "clinging to rites and rituals", but neither the canon nor commentaries supports this. I render sila as rules and vata as vows, though the intention is actual modes of behaviour prescribed by rules and vows. The laconic definition at Dhs 1222 reads "Clinging to rules and vows is the view of ascetics and brahmins outside of here (i.e. outside the Buddhist fold) that purification is achieved by rules, by vows, by rules and vows (condensed). The reference is evidently to the various types of austerities that the Buddha's contemporaries adopted in the belief that they led to heaven or to ultimate purification. An example is the "dog rule, dog vow" at MN I. From the Bhumija Sutta (MN 126), it is clear that right practice is the method to achieve results. And now for the $64,000 questions: Does "formal meditation" fit into: - Category A (practice of ascetics and brahmins outside of the Buddhist fold) - Category B (practice in accordance with the noble eightfold path) My vote is for "B", though some members of DSG - NAG may disagree :-) Let us now consider degree of understanding. Meditation is always undertaken with a degree of faith (does that makes it a rite or ritual?). Even when the Ascetic Gotama sat under the Bodhi tree, he did so because of faith that this practice would help to reveal the true path. If a practice is good enough for the Buddha, it is good enough for me :-) Metta, Rob M :-) 32497 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 0:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mundane jhana and Supramundane jhana? Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi all, > > I have some questions regarding jhana: > > What is mundane jhana? > What is supramundane jhana? > > I have not come across any reference regarding mundane jhana and > supramundane in the discourses. > > Metta, > Victor 'Supramundane jhana' is a term that is used to refer to samma-samadhi of the Noble Eightfold Path, that is, the mental factor of samadhi that accompanies the moment of path consciousness/magga-citta/enlightenment. It is 'supramundane' because the magga citta, and so all the accompanying mental factors, are supramundane (lokuttara). It is 'jhana' because the mental factor of samadhi that accompanies the magga citta is said to be have the intensity of one or other of the levels of jhana (see the often-quoted sutta description of samma-samadhi). Supramundane jhana is the outcome of the development of insight (vipassana bhavana) at its highest level of attainment. 'Mundane jhana' is a term that is used to refer to any other form of jhana, in other words, to the more commonly understood meaning of jhana as the outcome of the development of serenity/concentration (samatha bhavana) at its highest level of attainment. Thus both expressions refer to things mentioned frequently in the suttas, although I'm not sure whether the expressions themselves are found in the suttas. Jon 32498 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 1:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana James --- buddhatrue wrote: > Friend Jon, ... > James: But Jon, there isn't any understanding of a presently > arising > dhamma. You don't have ANY real understanding of ANY presently > arising dhammas. Your mind is suffering from the taint of > delusion, > just as mine is, so you don't have any real understanding. > Understanding presently arising dhammas isn't development of the > path- it is completion of the path. The only way to have > understanding of presently arising dhammas is to be enlightened > already. The qualities that when fully developed result in enlightenment must be potentially capable of arising now in some form or other no matter how weak, otherwise there wouldn't be any prospect of developing the path. No doubt they have been accumulated to a certain degree in previous lives, otherwise we wouldn't have any interest in the teachings. To my reading of the suttas, including for example the Satipatthana Sutta and the suttas in the Salayatana vagga of SN, the Buddha encouraged everyone to develop awareness of the presently arising dhammas at whatever level they presently find themselves. The fact that we are at the weak end of the scale, and that it is thus incredibly difficult to grasp what that entails, should not deter us from setting about the task. > James: The object of insight cannot be akusala (unwholesome) unless > it is recognizing unwholesomeness in someone else (like what a > Buddha recognizes). The akusala states in your own mine cannot be > the object of insight because they are the antithesis of insight. > Insight can only arise when the mind is pure and wholesome. As a starting point, we need to acknowledge that kusala and akusala can arise interspersed with each other. As Howard said in his post to you on this thread, 'mindstates go by quickly, and many kusala and akusala states can be rapidly alternating in what seem to us to be but a moment'. I think we can all confirm from personal experience that this is so, that there are instances where there is some akusala among the mainly kusala or vice versa. For example, getting irritated and blaming the other person while at the same time knowing it is just our own irritation; being considerate to another and at the same time having conceit regarding that. Awareness of the presently arising akusala is just another instance of this phenomenon. Indeed, it is specifically mentioned in the suttas, for example in the Satipatthana Sutta, section on Contemplation on Mental Objects, The Five Hindrances (Soma Thera transl): "How, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental objects in the mental objects of the five hindrances? "Here, O bhikkhus, when sensuality is present, a bhikkhu knows with understanding: 'I have sensuality,' ... When anger ... sloth and torpor ... agitation and worry ... doubt is present, he knows with understanding: 'I have anger [... sloth and torpor ... agitation and worry ... doubt]' ..." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The whole idea of the presently arising akusala being capable of being the object of insight is a very important one (and a good instance of the usefulness of a correct intellectual understanding of the development of insight). Having the idea that akusala must be totally absent before the awareness of dhammas can begin to be developed tends to lead to all sorts of ideas about you-know-what;-)) ... > James: Well, I agree with you that one cannot `force' or `choose' to > have insight, but one can take actions to cultivate wholesome > states > of mind so that insight can naturally arise. The most important condition for the natural arising of insight, given that all of us here have the necessary motivation already, is more considering and reflecting on the teachings as a description of awareness of and insight into the true nature of the presently arising dhammas. This is where association with the wise/good friend -- anyone who has a better understanding of this general area than we ourselves do -- is so important. Jon 32499 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 1:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > No problem. Given the sutta reference, it should be clear now that > in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. > > Metta, > Victor Well those are the words of the sutta, but given my reading of the sutta pitaka in general and the rest of the tipitaka (such as it is) I think I'd like to see the commentary on this passage before agreeing or disagreeing with you ;-)) Jon 32500 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 1:17am Subject: Mindfulness of breathing -- Meaning of Victor Thanks for setting out your thoughts. There's a lot to discuss here. I'd like to start by considering the definition you give at the end of your post. Victor: As I see it, anapanasati is being mindful of and with in-&-out breathing. Jon: Well this is a very pithy statement in typical Victor style;-)). I'm not saying I disagree, but I'd like to clarify whether we see it the same way. To my reading, the term 'mindfulness of breathing' as used in the suttas encompasses both of the following: (a) the development of serenity (concentration), the kusala that may lead to the attainment of jhana (also called samatha bhavana), and (b) the development of insight, the kusala that may lead to the attainment of enlightenment (also called satipatthana/vipassana bhavana), However, since these are different types of kusala development, each needs to be understood in its own terms. As regards (a), mindfulness of breathing refers to the development of samatha with breath/in and out breathing as the focus of attention. As regards (b), mindfulness of breathing refers to insight into the true nature of dhammas in one who is developing samatha with breath as object. So going back to your definition, 'being mindful of and with in-&-out breathing', I would agree with that if by it you mean the following: 'being mindful *of* in-&-out breathing' as describing samatha bhavana with breath as object; 'being mindful *with* in-&-out breathing' as describing insight into the true nature of dhammas in one who is developing samatha bhavana with breath as object. Are we on the same page here? Jon --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Commentaries, ancient or modern, on anapanasati may be helpful to > one who develops anapanasati(being mindful with breath). > ... > As I see it, anapanasati is being mindful of and with in-&-out > breathing. > > Metta, > Victor 32501 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 1:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > ============================ > I don't claim that the subject need be the breath. I used that as an > example. But as to why it is a good subject, I suppose you'd have to ask the > Buddha (were he around), because it was he who taught the > Anapanasati Sutta, not me. ;-) > > With metta, > Howard I wonder why no-one asked him at the time ;-)) No, my point was that if breath was such a 'hot' subject for insight development, you think there'd be some mention of the reason for this in the suttas or commentaries. The fact that there isn't should perhaps lead us to question our reading of the suttas. As discussed in my thread with Jack recently, the commentary to the 4th tetrad of the Anapanasati Sutta indicates that this tetrad describes the development of insight with any of the five aggregates (thus, not breath) as object. If on the other hand it is, as you say above, the concentration that is crucial and not concentration with breath as object in particular, why the many special references to mindfulness of breath/breathing? Jon 32502 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 2:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts' Hi Larry, No, I want to be careful here. Not wishing to run into a pitfall! op 24-04-2004 19:20 schreef Larry op LBIDD@w...: > I don't disagree with what you wrote in reply but I'm not sure of > what your answer is to my question, "What is more meaningful for you, > the thought 'feeling is impermanent' or simply attending to feeling." > I wanted you to pick one or the other. N: What kind of attending? If this is a beginning awareness of the feeling right now, good. You heard about it, considered it, and you realize: yes, a characteristic of feeling appears. But... so long as the difference between nama and rupa has not been realized, the mind-door is not known, and feeling (this appears through the mind-door, being nama) cannot yet be realized as just pure nama, different from rupa. It is still . Though you know in theory that there is not my feeling there is an underlying idea of self, all the time. You know what? The thought, feeling is impermanent, can remind us of feeling now. So, it should all amount to the same. We should not forget that there is feeling arising and falling away while we read in the sutta: feeling is impermanent, otherwise we do not get the message of the sutta. I am also neglectful, and then, as Dan said, I do not respect the Buddha, forgetting his teachings. We need Abhidhamma and satipatthana, awareness right now, to understand the sutta. What is the use of just reading sutta after sutta if there is no development of the understanding of the present reality? Thus, the thought, feeling is impermanent, could lead to attending with right awareness and understanding to feeling now. But there is no one who can select any reality, they are elements arising because of their own conditions. So, I do not prefer one of the two options above to the other one. Same, same! I would not even select feeling, because who can direct the dhamma appearing now? It may be sound or thinking. Nina. 32503 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 2:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Dear Jon, I printed this out again for Lodewijk, thank you very much. I think he is getting there. He only thinks that when a newcomer asks what satipatthana is there should be a more clearcut definition. He understands that dhamma now is very important. But he thinks that it may unnecessarily rebuke people. He would like to tell A. Sujin this. This morning we discussed mindfulness of death. I had heard on MP 3 that Kh. Sukol (he lost his brother the late Abbot and his sister) asked Kh Sujin for advice about recollection of death, saying that he had aversion about death. Kh Sujin said that the cause of aversion and sadness is clinging to people and self, and that only panna can support us. We have to listen and consider, and develop panna. Without panna we are nowhere. Only panna can condition non-clinging, that is the task of panna. So, we were discussing why Kh Sujin starts the conversation immediately with the development of understanding of this very moment. Lodewijk understands now why. It also happened when Achan Jose visited her, that she begun with understanding now, is there any understanding, she asked. Life is so short, and we do not know whether someone has an opportunity to listen again. We can get theoretical answers elsewhere, but what about now? It can hit hard, because panna develops so slowly, and meanwhile we are here with our problems of disease and death. No wonder some people become impatient (in Thai:cai ron). But Lodewijk agreed that even a beginning panna is beneficial: we see the cause of our aversion, the clinging to self and persons. Seeing aversion as only a conditioned nama, even seeing this only in theory helps. It arises again and again, and it is only a dhamma, that is all. I remember Kh Sujin's words that we have to be very courageous to develop panna at this moment. I understand that she always speaks about seeing now, hearing now. Lodewijk understands this better now. These arise all the time, and there may be a tendency to select aversion, since it is so troubling. Then again it is , wrong practice (clinging to rites and rituals) around the corner. As Kh Sujin says, panna has to go through all dhammas, all such moments have to be known. Moreover, before aversion is seen as nama, no rupa blended in, the difference between nama and rupa has to be clearly seen. The first stage of insight has to come first. This again takes time. It will be appreciated if you can add something again, and also Sukin. Nina. op 24-04-2004 15:01 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonoabb@y...: > ... >> N: He finds it very difficult >> when A. Sujin answers with the example of seeing now or dhamma >> now. 32504 From: Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 0:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi, Ken and Rob - In a message dated 4/24/04 11:12:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hi Rob M and Ken O, > > I am three days behind in my dsg reading and looking forward to > reading more on this thread (and all the others, of course). > > Rob M wrote, > ---------------- > >This is interesting. I have the opposite viewpoint. I believe that > the kammic impact of sense door processes are very weak. > > --------------- > > I have no strong opinions on the impact of sense-door processes > compared with mind-door processes, but it seems plausible that the > main action could go on at the paramattha level (as opposed to the > conceptual level). Isn't it possible that citta could have intense > dosa with rupa (eg visible object) as object? The thinking mind > might then translate the intense paramattha reality into a weak, > ineffectual, conceptual reality (of a self who has hatred for > another self). I don't see why the reverse has to be true but I am > ready to be convinced. > > ----------------------- > RM: >How excited can one get over a dot of light - a visible > object, as compared to the objects of the mind door - dots of light > constructed and recognized as people, flowers, etc.? > > ---------------------- > > Rob, it worries me that you persistently maintain, despite all the > protests from dsg, that visible object is a dot of light. A dot of > light is a concept. Visible object is a reality. It is the reality > that appears at the eye-door. > > Kind regards, > Ken H > =========================== Concepts - whatever they are, whether individual paramatthic thoughts, or whole sequences and collections of mental paramattha dhamma (as I think) - are not the only kind of mind objects. But aside from that, it seems to me that paramattha dhammas are all that exist, and hence all that we (ultimately) react to (though we identify groupings of these and *think* that we are reacting to them). Actually, what we react to are feelings, which, after the fact, we associate with particular conventional objects. Until feeling occurs, there isn't even recognition of a dhamma. The Buddha stated the process as follows (with eye-door as example): > > > "Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of > the three is contact. With contact as condition there is feeling. What one > feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one thinks about. What one > thinks about, that one mentally proliferates. With what one has mentally > proliferated as the source, perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation > beset a person with respect to past, future, and present forms cognizable > through the eye." It does seem, and here I agree with you, Rob, that it is only after this subsequent mental proliferation that percepts and concepts (mental groupings) elicit the strongest reactive emotions. But I think these stronger reactive emotions amount to magnifications of earlier emotions due to papa~nca, and all these reative emotions grow out of feeling. 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) 32505 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 5:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Howard I've just read my earlier answer to this post of yours and found it rather jumbled. Sorry about that, let me try again. The question I'm trying to pose for consideration is this: In the Anapanasati Sutta, what is the particular significance of breath/breathing as regards the development of insight and the attaining enlightenment, given that: -- the mindfulness described in the sutta refers, as explained in the commentary, to mindfulness of any of the five aggregates, and not of breath per se or of the dhammas that are taken as being breath; breath per se plays no apparent role here; -- as regards concentration/jhana, it would be the level of concentration/jhana that mattered and not the fact of breath as object in particular; and breath is just one of many suitable objects for the person developing jhana. So apart from the fact that the person described in the sutta is a person in whom samatha with breath as object is already highly developed, what other significance does breath play in the sutta? Hoping this makes more sense than my previous attempt. Interested to hear any thoughts you or others may have on this question. Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > ============================ > I don't claim that the subject need be the breath. Iused > that as an > example. But as to why it is a good subject, I suppose you'd have to ask the > Buddha (were he around), because it was he who taught the > Anapanasati Sutta, not me. ;-) > > With metta, > Howard Previous reply: I wonder why no-one asked him at the time ;-)) No, my point was that if breath was such a 'hot' subject for insight development, you think there'd be some mention of the reason for this in the suttas or commentaries. The fact that there isn't should perhaps lead us to question our reading of the suttas. As discussed in my thread with Jack recently, the commentary to the 4th tetrad of the Anapanasati Sutta indicates that this tetrad describes the development of insight with any of the five aggregates (thus, not breath) as object. If on the other hand it is, as you say above, the concentration that is crucial and not concentration with breath as object in particular, why the many special references to mindfulness of breath/breathing? Jon 32506 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 5:59am Subject: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi Jon, What is your reading of the sutta pitaka regarding whether in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications or not? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > > > No problem. Given the sutta reference, it should be clear now that > > in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > Well those are the words of the sutta, but given my reading of the > sutta pitaka in general and the rest of the tipitaka (such as it is) > I think I'd like to see the commentary on this passage before > agreeing or disagreeing with you ;-)) > > Jon 32507 From: Htoo Naing Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:04am Subject: Seeing and seeing of seeing ( 03 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, There are dukkha and we have been facing with dukkha on a daily basis. These dukkha are not without any cause but these is a cause. That cause is craving. When that craving arises and where that craving arises need to be considered. Craving arises when there is a sense like colour. If it was abandoned there, there would not have been any suffering. When there a sound, there arises craving and there also arise craving in cases of smell, taste, touch, and thoughts. If craving was abandoned early enough there or if we did not pick up craving from these 6 objects, we would not have suffered any thing. Craving arises where there is a sense base like eye. If craving was abandoned at eye, we would not have suffered. Craving also arises at ear, nose, tongue,body and mind and if craving was abandoned we would not have suffered. Craving arises when eye-consciousness arises. If craving was abandoned, we would not have suffered. Craving also arises when ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness arise. If craving was abandoned, we would not have suffered. Craving arises when eye-contact arises. It also arises when ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact arises. If craving was abandoned early we would not have suffered. Craving arises when feeling born of eye-contact arises. Craving also arises when feeling born of ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, mind-contact arises. If craving was abandoned early, we would not have suffered and we would be released. Craving arises when perception of eye-consciousness arises and it also arises when other five consciousness are perceived. If craving was abandoned we would not have suffered and we would be released and unbound to craving. Craving arises when volitional actions that arises with eye-consciousness arises and it also arises when volitional actions with other 5 consciousness arise. If craving was abandoned we would not have suffered and we would be released and unbound to craving. Craving arises when initial thought arises in connection with eye-consciousness and it also arises when initial thoughts in connection with other 5 consciousness arise. If craving was abandoned we would not have suffered and we would be released and unbound to craving. Craving arises when sustained thought in connection with eye-consciousness or other 5 consciousness arise. If craving was abandoned we would not have suffered and we would be released and unbound to craving. This craving is the source of suffering and abandoning of it is cessation of suffering. The meditator sees these clearly and he also knows that he knows and understands these as rupa dhamma and nama dhamma are ongoing while he is in mahasatipatthana. May you all see craving the source for all sufferings and abandon it when and where it arises. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htootintnaing@y... 32508 From: Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 5:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Destruction of the Taints In a message dated 4/25/04 12:08:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: My first impression is that the lake is supposed to represent the mind (stilled by meditation); the shells, gravel, and pebbles are supposed to represent the three taints (desire, ill- will, and delusion); and the fish swimming about and resting are supposed to represent the derivatives of the three taints. James, I read it differently than you did. I thought that fish, shells, gravel and pebbles are all objects of attention and not the taints. When our vision is clear (without taints) we see them as they are. But, if our vision is cloudy and distorted by the taints, we can not see them as they are. The Buddha is not suggesting that we destroy the objects of attention, just the taints. jack 32509 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:10am Subject: Re: Mindfulness of breathing -- Meaning of Hi Jon, I think what I wanted to say is that in developing & pursuing anapanasati, in-&-out breathing is more than something just being mindful of. It is like pulling-&-pushing the bow in playing violin. One is surely to develop both tranquillity and insight in anapanasati. Nevertheless, being mindful of in-&-out breathing and being mindful with in-&-out breathing do not necessarily correspond to developing tranquillity and developing insight in an one-to-one fashion. For example, "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. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out." First, in seclusion, withdrawn from sensuality and the unskillful, sitting down with legs crosswise and back erect in a stable and still posture, he set out to be aware and is aware of the in-&-out breathing. "[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. Being mindful of in-&-out breathing, he also discerns whether in-&- out breathing is long or short. "Then, remaining mindful in this way, he examines, analyzes, & comes to a comprehension of that quality with discernment." In this case, that quality is the quality of the in-&-out breathing: This is the investigation of state/quality, in directed thought & evaluation. Now, "In one who examines, analyzes, & comes to a comprehension of that quality with discernment, unflagging persistence is aroused." It is with persistence, he "trains himself breathing in ..." and "train himself breathing out ..." in developing & pursuing anapanasati. So first, [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. In doing so, he enters the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Or, "With the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation -- internal assurance." With rapture and pleasure in the first or second jhana: "[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. I think that in developing & pursuing anapanasati, in-&-out breathing is more than action to be mindful of, but fabrications to work on and work with in developing skillful qualities of tranquillity and insight. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > Thanks for setting out your thoughts. There's a lot to discuss here. > I'd like to start by considering the definition you give at the end > of your post. > > Victor: > As I see it, anapanasati is being mindful of and with in-&-out > breathing. > > Jon: > Well this is a very pithy statement in typical Victor style;-)). I'm > not saying I disagree, but I'd like to clarify whether we see it the > same way. > > To my reading, the term 'mindfulness of breathing' as used in the > suttas encompasses both of the following: > (a) the development of serenity (concentration), the kusala that may > lead to the attainment of jhana (also called samatha bhavana), and > (b) the development of insight, the kusala that may lead to the > attainment of enlightenment (also called satipatthana/vipassana > bhavana), > > However, since these are different types of kusala development, each > needs to be understood in its own terms. > > As regards (a), mindfulness of breathing refers to the development of > samatha with breath/in and out breathing as the focus of attention. > > As regards (b), mindfulness of breathing refers to insight into the > true nature of dhammas in one who is developing samatha with breath > as object. > > So going back to your definition, 'being mindful of and with in-&- out > breathing', I would agree with that if by it you mean the following: > 'being mindful *of* in-&-out breathing' as describing samatha bhavana > with breath as object; > 'being mindful *with* in-&-out breathing' as describing insight into > the true nature of dhammas in one who is developing samatha bhavana > with breath as object. > > Are we on the same page here? > > Jon 32510 From: Larry Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:29am Subject: Re: Destruction of the Taints Hi James, First, some background info. The taints are desire for pleasure, survival instinct, and ignorance. Sometimes "views" is included as a fourth. Here is an interesting note by B. Bodhi on destruction of the taints (in another sutta): note 83. MA: In this passage "mind" and "wisdom" signify, respectively, the concentration and wisdom associated with the fruit of arahantship. Concentration is called "deliverance of mind" (cetovimutti) because it is liberated from lust; wisdom is called "deliverance by wisdom" (pa~n~naavimutti) because it is liberated from ignorance. The former is normally the result of serenity, the latter the result of insight. But when they are coupled and described as taintless (anaasava), they jointly result from the destruction of the taints by the supramundane path of arahantship. L: I was thinking the lake, shells, gravel, and pebbles represented namarupa: lake=body, shells=feeling, gravel=perception, pebbles='responsiveness'; and the shoals of fishes, swimming and resting, represent discursive thoughts. Granted it is a bit of a stretch to think of the body as a clear body of water, but it's kind of interesting. If this analogy holds up, then there are two main differences between an ordinary person and an arahant: First, "responsiveness" is different. By "responsiveness" I mean javana cittas. For an ordinary person these consciousnesses are rooted in greed, hatred, delusion, non-greed, non-hatred, or non-delusion. For an arahant they are rootless "great functionals". They are rootless because they are not rooted in subjectivity (imo); functional because they are not wholesome or unwholesome but nevertheless perform a function; and great because they are superior to "wholesome" (imo). Second, the arahant is completely dis-identified with this process. He is out of the soup, not in it. We can experience this a little by way of mundane satipatthana but we are usually not completely dis-identified with the object; and even if occasionally we are, it is only a glimpse. Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I have a question for this distinguished panel of dhamma experts. I > am having some difficulty understanding this passage in MN 77 "The > Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin": > > 36. "Again, Udayin, I have proclaimed to my disciples the way > whereby by realizing for themselves with direct knowledge, they here > and now enter upon and abide in the deliverance of mind and > deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the > taints. Just as if there were a lake in a mountain recess, clear, > limpid, and undisturbed, so that a man with good sight standing on > the bank could see shells, gravel, and pebble, and also shoals of > fish swimming about and resting. He might think: `There is this > lake, clear, limpid, and undisturbed, and there are these shells, > gravel, and pebbles, and also these shoals of fish swimming about > and resting.' So too, I have proclaimed to my disciples the way > whereby by realizing for themselves with direct knowledge, they here > and now enter upon and abide in the deliverance of mind and > deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the > taints. And thereby many disciples of mine abide having reached the > consummation and perfection of direct knowledge." > > James: I am predominately having difficulty wrapping my mind around > the metaphor in this passage. Destruction of the taints is like > seeing shells, gravel, pebbles, and fish in a clear, mountain > lake??? My first impression is that the lake is supposed to > represent the mind (stilled by meditation); the shells, gravel, and > pebbles are supposed to represent the three taints (desire, ill- > will, and delusion); and the fish swimming about and resting are > supposed to represent the derivatives of the three taints. Where I > am getting stuck is how simply seeing these things is supposed > to `destroy' them. This metaphor, when carried to its logical > conclusion, implies that nothing is really `destroyed'; these things > would still remain but would then be seen for what they are. After > all, simply viewing a mountain lake filled with fish isn't going to > make it go away. I have difficulty reconciling this metaphor with > other metaphors the Buddha uses which compares destruction of the > taints to be like cutting down palm trees. In that case, what was > once there isn't there anymore. I feel that I can understand that > type of metaphor and yet not this one. However, I do feel that this > metaphor has deeper meaning and it is important to more understand. > Anyone have any insights into this passage that I am missing? > Thanks. > > Metta, James 32511 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 0:15pm Subject: good wishes Dear Jonothan, We wish you a happy birthday. Lodewijk joins me in expressing our deep gratitude and respect for everything you do to promote the Dhamma, with our warmest regards, Nina and Lodewijk. 32512 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 0:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Tiika Vis. 75 reposted" Dear Azita, op 25-04-2004 08:29 schreef gazita2002 op gazita2002@y...: >> ***** >> As to kamma-born these are here the eight faculties which are solely >> originated by kamma, >> and with the heart(base) they are thus nine kinds of materiality, >> and besides, among the nine kinds of materiality originated by the four >> causes, there are nine kinds originated by kamma **, and what is > kamma-born >> materiality is thus also eighteen kinds, since they have arisen because > of >> kamma. > A: I do not understand how it becomes 18 when at first it is stated that > it is nine. N: I had put it in the footnote. The first nine are originated solely by kamma. Then nine more: these are rupas that are sometimes originated by kamma, sometimes by one of the three other causes, by citta, temperature (utu) and nutrition. These rupas are: the eight inseparable rupas and space. Also kamma originates the eight inseparable rupas, the four great Elements and colour, odour, flavour and nutrition. However, when originated by kamma they do not arise as pure octads, but in groups that include life-faculty. This last one is never lacking in a group originated by kamma. Thus, they arise in a group of at least nine rupas. As to space: this delimits the groups of rupas originated by the four causes, arising and falling away together with them. Thus, space is reckoned as originated by the four causes and this includes kamma. Therefore, we have 9+9 and that makes 18 rupas originated by kamma. What may be confusing is that the first nine are solely originated by kamma. I hope this makes sense. Another question: I just heard that you have been listening for a year each evening to the late Phra Dhammadaro. Could you make your sa~n~naa work and dig up some things you learnt? Did you make notes? And what did you learn now in Bgk? Nina. 32513 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 0:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Dear Rob Ep, op 24-04-2004 21:52 schreef Robert Epstein op epsteinrob@Y...: > > At the moment I have carved out a little discipline that relates more > to the physical, as my doctor ordered .... > My other practice is having a child! Having a young child is a > powerful exercise in metta, and sometimes a challenge to the continued > experience of metta, and it is a wonderful "spiritual" relationship. N: This is wonderful. Would you share with us more about your spiritual relationship with Emily? Some children, or most of them, are so wise. Does she have wise remarks? Thanks to the Buddha we can have more understanding of the difference between metta and selfish love, and would you speak about the powerful exercise in metta? Kh Sujin always says: follow the stream of life. You would like more time for quiet reflection and meditation, but conditions are not always as we would like them to operate. It shows anattaness. Moments of happiness and sorrow alternate in our life, but we can follow them with more understanding. With understanding of seeing and hearing, and also of the moments of attachment and aversion, or the kusala that follow sense impressions we make the most of life. Then we see that daily life is not distracting. Vipassana can be incorporated in daily life. Also when running through the Zoo. As you write:<... We would agree that right view, dropping the sense of doership and the doer, and the discernment of the reality of the moment as the only existing reality, would all be crucial, and must be developed to the point of wisdom.> This is true, but dropping the sense of a doer takes a long time, does it not? Best wishes from Nina. 32514 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 2:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Destruction of the Taints Friend Jack, Yea, I think this is a better reading. I'm still not sure what all of the different objects are supposed to represent though. I guess I will give it more thought.;-) Metta, James --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jackhat1@a... wrote: > In a message dated 4/25/04 12:08:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > buddhatrue@y... writes: > My first impression is that the lake is supposed to > represent the mind (stilled by meditation); the shells, gravel, and > pebbles are supposed to represent the three taints (desire, ill- > will, and delusion); and the fish swimming about and resting are > supposed to represent the derivatives of the three taints. > James, I read it differently than you did. I thought that fish, shells, > gravel and pebbles are all objects of attention and not the taints. When our vision > is clear (without taints) we see them as they are. But, if our vision is > cloudy and distorted by the taints, we can not see them as they are. The Buddha is > not suggesting that we destroy the objects of attention, just the taints. > > jack > > > 32515 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 2:29pm Subject: Re: Destruction of the Taints Friend Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > Hi James, > > First, some background info. The taints are desire for pleasure, > survival instinct, and ignorance. Sometimes "views" is included as a > fourth. Here is an interesting note by B. Bodhi on destruction of the > taints (in another sutta): James: Oops, yea, you are right. The three main taints are craving for pleasure, craving for being, and ignorance. I don't know why I keep forgetting the 'craving for being' one and substituting 'ill- will' instead? Hmmm...Freudian?? ;-)) > > note 83. MA: In this passage "mind" and "wisdom" signify, > respectively, the concentration and wisdom associated with the fruit > of arahantship. Concentration is called "deliverance of mind" > (cetovimutti) because it is liberated from lust; wisdom is > called "deliverance by wisdom" (pa~n~naavimutti) because it is > liberated from ignorance. The former is normally the result of > serenity, the latter the result of insight. But when they are coupled > and described as taintless (anaasava), they jointly result from the > destruction of the taints by the supramundane path of arahantship. > > L: I was thinking the lake, shells, gravel, and pebbles represented > namarupa: lake=body, shells=feeling, gravel=perception, > pebbles='responsiveness'; and the shoals of fishes, swimming and > resting, represent discursive thoughts. Granted it is a bit of a > stretch to think of the body as a clear body of water, but it's kind > of interesting. James: Hmmm...this interpretation is really different for me. I will have to ponder it more. > > If this analogy holds up, then there are two main differences between > an ordinary person and an arahant: First, "responsiveness" is > different. By "responsiveness" I mean javana cittas. For an ordinary > person these consciousnesses are rooted in greed, hatred, delusion, > non-greed, non-hatred, or non-delusion. For an arahant they are > rootless "great functionals". They are rootless because they are not > rooted in subjectivity (imo); functional because they are not > wholesome or unwholesome but nevertheless perform a function; and > great because they are superior to "wholesome" (imo). Second, the > arahant is completely dis-identified with this process. He is out of > the soup, not in it. We can experience this a little by way of > mundane satipatthana but we are usually not completely dis- identified > with the object; and even if occasionally we are, it is only a > glimpse. James: Thanks for this input. I don't follow most of this Abhidhamma terminology but I think I get what you are saying. Could be. ;-) > > Larry Metta, James 32516 From: Philip Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 3:00pm Subject: Re: Destruction of the Taints Hi James, and all > Just as if there were a lake in a mountain recess, clear, > limpid, and undisturbed, so that a man *with good sigh*t standing on > the bank could see shells, gravel, and pebble, and also shoals of > fish swimming about and resting. He might think: `There is this > lake, clear, limpid, and undisturbed, and there are these shells, > gravel, and pebbles, and also these shoals of fish swimming about > and resting.' For what it's worth, this passage immeditely reminded me of the satipatthana sutta's metaphor for how the monk remains focussed on the body in and of itself: "just as if a sack with openings at both ends were full of various kinds of grain (snip) -- and a man *with good eyesight*, pouring it out, were to reflect "This is wheat. This is rice.. " etc. I would take the passage you quoted as a useful metaphor for the next stage of the satipatthana sutta, when the monk remains focussed on the mind in & of itself. "when the mind is restricted, he discerns that the mind is restricted...when the mind is scattered he discerns that the mind is scattered" etc. The resting fish, or fish rushing about could represent various states of mind in this sense. The body as a sack of various kinds of grain. The mind as - hopefully - a clear mountain pool. Couldn't satipatthana be seen as a supreme method of removing taints by seeing them clearly with *good eyesight*? That's a beginner's take on it. I hear the Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary in that MN anthology is great. For those of us who don't have it, would you please share some of his commentary on this sutta, if there is any? Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I have a question for this distinguished panel of dhamma experts. I > am having some difficulty understanding this passage in MN 77 "The > Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin": > > 36. "Again, Udayin, I have proclaimed to my disciples the way > whereby by realizing for themselves with direct knowledge, they here > and now enter upon and abide in the deliverance of mind and > deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the > taints. And thereby many disciples of mine abide having reached the > consummation and perfection of direct knowledge." > > James: I am predominately having difficulty wrapping my mind around > the metaphor in this passage. Destruction of the taints is like > seeing shells, gravel, pebbles, and fish in a clear, mountain > lake??? My first impression is that the lake is supposed to > represent the mind (stilled by meditation); the shells, gravel, and > pebbles are supposed to represent the three taints (desire, ill- > will, and delusion); and the fish swimming about and resting are > supposed to represent the derivatives of the three taints. Where I > am getting stuck is how simply seeing these things is supposed > to `destroy' them. This metaphor, when carried to its logical > conclusion, implies that nothing is really `destroyed'; these things > would still remain but would then be seen for what they are. After > all, simply viewing a mountain lake filled with fish isn't going to > make it go away. I have difficulty reconciling this metaphor with > other metaphors the Buddha uses which compares destruction of the > taints to be like cutting down palm trees. In that case, what was > once there isn't there anymore. I feel that I can understand that > type of metaphor and yet not this one. However, I do feel that this > metaphor has deeper meaning and it is important to more understand. > Anyone have any insights into this passage that I am missing? > Thanks. > > Metta, James 32517 From: Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 4/25/04 4:40:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > If on the other hand it is, as you say above, the concentration that > is crucial and not concentration with breath as object in particular, > why the many special references to mindfulness of breath/breathing? > ======================= Well, I suppose some benefits of the breath are the following: 1) It's always available. (On hopes! ;-) 2) It's not a mind-created image or internized sound, but a sequene of rupas which can come to be directly observed as attention and other factors heighten. 3) The breath is closely interacting with mental states - its calmness or the opposite affects and is affected by the calmness or opposite of the mind. Emotions are reflected in the breath. So it is a kind of process that links nama with rupa. 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) 32518 From: Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 4:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts' Re: "Which is more meaningful to you, the thought, 'feeling is impermanent' or simply attending to feeling?" Hi Nina, Thanks for your reply. I agree with most of what you said but I have one complaint. You didn't take the question personally, basing your answer on your own experience now. Instead you gave your understanding of what hypothetical people might experience. I wanted to know what is meaningful to you, Nina, in your experience now. My original idea was that simply attending to feeling wasn't particularly meaningful even though it is a reality. However, as I practiced this I became less sure. In the end I came to the same conclusion as you that I couldn't choose between the two alternatives. Larry 32519 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:54pm Subject: Re: good wishes Dear Jon, Mum's computer died and in desperation she has come to read dsg on my laptop. Just wanted to add our best wishes for your birthday - I'm about to leave with Mum, family and a dear friend for a Yum Cha birthday lunch. No doubt about people who have birthdays at this time - a special breed, wouldn't you say? :-) Enjoy the Day!! regards, Sarah F --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Jonothan, > > We wish you a happy birthday. Lodewijk joins me in expressing our deep > gratitude and respect for everything you do to promote the Dhamma, > with our warmest regards, > Nina and Lodewijk. 32520 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] good wishes Nina and Lodewijk, Howard (in another thread) Thanks for your good wishes, and for sharing the Dhamma with me and others. The value of this sharing is inestimable. Jon --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Jonothan, > > We wish you a happy birthday. Lodewijk joins me in expressing our > deep > gratitude and respect for everything you do to promote the Dhamma, > with our warmest regards, > Nina and Lodewijk. 32521 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: good wishes Sarah F (and Chris and Rob) Thanks for telling us about your Mum's computer woes. We were wondering where she'd disappeared to! Missing her usual humourous report on the trip. My Sarah and I just had a lunch too. Hope you enjoy yours as much as we enjoyed ours. Take care, and have a great day! Jon --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Jon, > > Mum's computer died and in desperation she has come to read dsg on > my > laptop. Just wanted to add our best wishes for your birthday - I'm > about to leave with Mum, family and a dear friend for a Yum Cha > birthday lunch. No doubt about people who have birthdays at this > time - a special breed, wouldn't you say? :-) > > Enjoy the Day!! > > regards, > Sarah F > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom > > wrote: > > Dear Jonothan, > > > > We wish you a happy birthday. Lodewijk joins me in expressing our > > deep > > gratitude and respect for everything you do to promote the > Dhamma, > > with our warmest regards, > > Nina and Lodewijk. > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > 32522 From: Sarah Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:42pm Subject: Visuddhimagga -Pali Dear Nina, Larry & All, Jim has kindly put a copy of the entire Visuddhimagga in Pali if the files section for reference in the Velthius scheme: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/zVisuddhimagga/ As you know, the numbering is different from in ~Naanamoli’s translation, so ch 14 has been renumbered for easy reference and he’ll do the same for ch 15 when we get to it. Many thanks for this assistance, Jim. Metta, Sarah ====== 32523 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:53pm Subject: Re: Video Games? Dear Eznir, > eznir: > Don't you think it necessary that the Teachings will first have to be > read and understood properly (in a conventional manner!) so as to > gain a reflective acceptance of the Teachings before taking any > approach to The Dhamma? Even the word "approach" in the preceding > sentence implies action, let alone the whole of the Tripitaka which > is full of words of this nature! Suk: Pariyatti is essential and there is no limit as to how much it can be a condition for more understanding of the Buddha's teachings. Even an ariyan can gain from hearing the correct words at the correct time. So for us, with so many tendencies to wrong view, it is imperative that we get the facts right, and as you say, "understood properly (in a conventional manner!) so as to gain a reflective acceptance of the Teachings". However, as with everything else, even this is anatta and beyond control. And a `self' can't draw a line, not only because it will be a result of projection, hence leading on to further being caught in more and more projections, but also that conditions are so complex, that drawing a line itself denies this fact. In the same way, though the whole of the Tipitaka is about `actions' as in "when this is, that comes to be", it is not about an `actor'. "There is a path, but no one who walks it". > Sukin: > , because as far as I am concerned, if the perception and > mindfulness is not of a paramattha dhamma, then whatever else is > perceived is `not real'. > > eznir: > How often do you think that you will get to know when you have the > perception and mindfulness of a paramattha dhamma? For example, let's > say that there are a billion thought moments that occur for a second > at the end of which one comes to know that what one has sighted, say, > is an Apple. > > According to the Abhidhamma, when processing an object from one of > the sense doors, the Javana thought moments start from the 9th to the > 15th thought moment. Therefore the kind of "perception and > mindfulness" of a paramattha dhamma that you refer(since you don't > deal with concepts) occurs for only upto the 8th billionth of a > second, in this case. Because in the 9th billionth of a second the > Javana thought process starts. And this is supposed to happen > repeatedly till you come to know what the object is. It is in this > javana thought process that you will be processing what your sense- > door received. These `ideas' are not my concepts, it is in the > Abhidhamma(except the assumption of the thought rate per second as a > billion). > > Now I leave the rest of the analysis upto you. Mind you, the Javana > thought process is already karmically effective. So whether you > understood your approach or not, non-active or otherwise, you are > on "active" mode! The javana thought process is functional only in > Arahats. Suk: There is no choice whether to deal with concepts or not, in fact almost all the time the concepts are reacted to as if they were reality. However, they are *not*. But dhammas *are* arising and falling all the time, and one is not particularly concerned about differentiating rupa and concept. Thinking, feeling, perception, aversion, greed and so on can also be known. But even this is not the point, because even if they are not known, and kamma is being conditioned on and on, the idea of "non-action" is related to `View'. Rt. View is productive of kamma and so is Wrong View; however the former is what leads to any lessening of akusala tendencies, while the latter in the long run will lead to more and more of samsara. So even if we see the danger of akusala in the present, if the `action' undertaken to reduce these is with `wrong view', then we have wasted this opportunity of having come in contact with the Dhamma, I think. > Sukin: > I classify this as concept, this may be a wrong term, but I am not > sure. > > eznir: > "I classify this as concept, this may be a wrong term, but I am not > sure". Don't you think you are groping in the dark, like the blind, > when there is the Lord Buddha's Teachings for guidance? The > Abhidhamma is a Teaching of Ultimate Truth and only the commentaries > in it can be discussed. But the Sutta provides an avenue to > understand "Abhidhamma", the higher Dhamma, which is profound and so > difficult to see! Suk: :-) Yes, I was commenting to Ivan and Azita in the car this Saturday, about how the tendency to `assert' is so great and the world in general keeps spilling out non-sense in the name of `wisdom'. And yes, I also realize how much ignorance there is. However, all being anatta (no control ;-)), that `not' thinking or verbalizing and any decision to withhold and seek first to get the facts right, may well involve the same basic akusala which one seeks to avoid. And if we are not careful, "self-view" is at work and any consequent approach to Dhamma will most likely be with wrong view'. Quite a trap isn't it? ;-) > Sukin: > Also if there is any sense experience, by the time I realize it, it > is a `thought' about what has just been experienced. > > eznir: > Exactly! This cannot be avoided. And if we are to see the difference > between "sense experience" and "`thought' about what has just been > experienced" we cannot operate on a "normal" level. We have > to "crossover" to a different domain altogether, one that is not > subjected to time & space. This is where formal meditational practice > becomes useful. Unless of course, if one has lots of paramis to one's > credit. We come across in the suttas where just by listening to the > Dhamma, Bhikkus attain Noble states! Suk: "We have to "crossover" to a different domain altogether, one that is not subjected to time & space". Is this kind of thinking helpful? Is the ariyans perception of `visible object' for example, any different from our own? Is not the deciding factor the "panna" which understands that this and all other conditioned realities including the `thinking' are just elements, conditioned dhammas? But even this is not the main point, the problem is our `wanting to catch realities' and the possible consequence of `illusion of result'? We are in fact inhibiting panna with such ideas, not allowing any limited positive accumulations to do their work as per the appropriate level. The `self' that knows hardness, seeing, taste and so on during normal everyday life and is the basis from which one's `construing' of the world arises, should this same kind of `self' be deliberately encouraged in the name of Dhamma. Aren't we making it more difficult for understanding to arise? > Sukin: > So I am dealing with only shadows, even though there may not be any > labeling and that other experiences occur before there is any > recognition. > > eznir: > Whatever it is that you deal with is karmically effective. Therefore > Javana thought moments are involved. Hence you must know whether it > is akusala or kusala. If akusala it(shadows) must be abandoned. If > kusala you must know what the "shadows" are, for there is no kusala > citta with not-knowing! If you are not sure of what the shadow is but > think it is some positive sign of progress, then you must repeatedly > deal with this "shadow" and get to know its characteristics. Now all > that is said here involves concepts, and if you are fighting shy of > concepts………………:-/ Suk: Concepts are never a problem, but wrong view which seeks to do something positive or negative about it is. The fact that concepts are not real and do not exhibit the characteristic of anicca and dukkha means that they can't be objects of insight, however "thinking" is real and this can be known. But when you say, "If you are not sure of what the shadow is but think it is some positive sign of progress, then you must repeatedly deal with this "shadow" and get to know its characteristics" isn't the `wanting' to `deal with akusala' placing oneself to be further deluded? Thinking, `measuring one's progress' can be known for what it is, but why fall into the trap of the delusion that dhammas can be controlled, which is wrong view? > eznir: > Consciousness(citta) is never without an object(arammana). So your > statememt "cittas dart amongst not only realities, but alternately, > the signs and details, *BEFORE* any apparent `thing' becomes > arammana" is a mis-statement. Suk: What I meant by `thing' is `conceptual objects', as in a `thing' standing against a background and/or other `things'. The process that takes place irrespective of `naming', the kind that perhaps a newly born perceives the world. I am leaving out the remaining part of your post partly because I don't understand your `funnel' analogy :-(, but mainly because I think the above is enough to give you a better idea of my position. I hope I haven't misunderstood any other points of yours though, if so please correct me. Metta, Sukin. > Perhaps an illustration would help here.(This is just to give a > perspective view of things.) Say there is a funnel, one end is wide > and the other narrow(obviously :-)). > > A worldling (puthujjana) sees this funnel from the narrow end. Hence > what he sees is the *outside* of the funnel. His views are > diversified as his eyes travel towards the wide end of the funnel. He > conceives "self" in four different ways with each of the 5- > aggregates, ie 20 in all, hence the diversification. > > A trainee(sekha) sees this funnel from the wide end towards the > narrow end. Hence what he sees is the *inside* of the funnel. > Therefore the Trainee "funnels" down, so to speak, sees all his > experience, converging into the 5-aggregates, as stemming from this 5- > aggregates. > > An Arahat(asekha) has no need of this "funnel", he has got rid of the > stem altogether. He "has" Nibbana, the *only* Ultimate Truth. > > "……and most likely informed by akusala cittas. What do you think?" If > you understood what is given above you wouldn't worry about akusala > cittas. Because, you see akusala cittas as akusala cittas (refer Bala- > pandita Sutta SN XII.19). (Note also in the Satipatthana Sutta even > the akusala cittas(hindrances) are taken into account. In fact the > whole gamut of experience is included.) Being mindful in this way, > you are no more *subjected* to akusala cittas. Then by applying the 4- > fold effort one develops the other path factors(easier said than > done, though! :-)). > > Metta > eznir 32524 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi Jack, Thank you for elaborating further. I find all your explanations very well-considered. --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > Here is what I mean by deconstructing. I'm sitting in the dentist's > office. I > see I am in discomfort. I think (use concepts) to decide to put my > attention > on my physical body sense door. Once my attention is there, I just > observe > with no thought or direction. At times, my training in 4 material > elements > (ultimates) meditation kicks in and my attention goes to the physical > body elements > without the first step of using concepts to decide to do it. It all > happens > with "my" doing anything. ..... S: There is nothing wrong (as I see it) with this kind of practice and I think there are many benefits. My question is how this practice or a Goenka-style practice differs in application and benefit from a similar ‘unblocking of chi’ in say Qi Gong, Tai chi or yoga relaxation when there is also a concentration on the physical sensations, but without necessarily having heard the Buddha’s teachings at all? Even if one has heard about the elements and about namas and rupas, I don’t think that attending to the ‘body elements’ should be taken for awareness which has to be accompanied by detachment and without any selection of object. While these practices have many benefits, if one mistakes such focussing (with or without any idea of ‘my’ doing) for the development of satipatthana, I think it’s incorrect. As for the concepts, the sense and mind door processes follow each other so quickly all the time and so there are bound to be many,many mind door processes in between the many sense door processes at these times with concepts unknowingly as objects. .... J: > Thinking, deciding and using concepts in this situation to me is only > useful > in that it points me toward a state of not thinking, deciding or using > concepts. .... S: We may even cling to a state or idea of not thinking about concepts, but wouldn’t this indicate more attachment? Are you sure there are no mind-door processes with thinking about concepts (not necessarily in words at all)flitting in between the sense doors all the time? A sense door process is so very brief and is always followed unknowingly by one or more mind door processes, usually with concepts as objects without any words of formulations being necessary. .... J:>My meditation practice has benefits to me such as reducing > stress .... S: I think your dentist chair practice may well be very practical and you might be surprised to hear how similar some of my healing practices are, given that I’ve been given a NAG label;-) .... J: >but its > ultimate use to to practice "directly understanding dhammas with > detachment > and without any idea of self." as you say below. "Understanding" in this > sense > means direct, non-conceptual wisdom not book learning. .... S: This is where our ‘methods’ part ways. As I consider "directly understanding dhammas with detachment and without any idea of self", it matters not what the attention is drawn to or not drawn to in the dentist’s chair or whether one is sitting quietly or fidgeting, because any reality can be known at that or any other time. Indeed what is experienced, whether it be for example, restlessness, fear, hardness/softness, sound or thinking, can be known.If there is the idea that another object or some special focus is more suitable for awareness, unknowingly an idea of self starts to creep in as I see it. .... J: > By the way, I am worried that I am coming off as claiming advanced > powers. > Most people who have been meditating for a few years and been on some > vipassana > retreats would probably say the same. I am still very much a beginner. ... S: Not at all. I think all your comments are very modest and reveal a very deep reflection and love of the teachings. I wouldn’t be able to have this conversation with most ‘vipassana meditators’,I know. I’m also only sharing a beginner’s reflections. .... J: >This concentration on the sense doors (guarding the sense doors the > Visud. > calls it) can refer to different steps in the process as taught by the > Buddha. > As its simplest level, it is still part of the process as taught by the > Buddha. > At its highest level it is "directly understanding dhammas with > detachment > and without any idea of self." ..... S: I understand the ‘guading of the sense doors’ to always be referring to awareness and understanding of the objects experienced through them (visible objects, sounds and so on) and to the namas which experience these objects (seeing, hearing and so on)as they arise during the day. This is not by concentrating or selecting objects which have inevitably passed already. Such concentrating or selecting would be more indicative of attachment to ‘guarding’ than actual awareness and understanding which ‘guard’ naturally. The Vism gives these verses in 1,101 which Jon quoted before: ‘Among the visible objects, sounds, and smells, ‘And tastes, and tangibles, guard the faculties; ‘For when these doors are open and unguarded, ‘Then thieves will come and raid as ‘twere a village’ ‘And just as with an ill-roofed house ‘The rain comes leaking in, so too ‘Will lust come leaking in for sure ‘upon an undeveloped mind’ (Dh.13) ..... J:>But, I am thinking and learning about my practice and your views from this dialogue. .... S:Likewise. I find I consider a lot when responding to you, Jack. Metta, Sarah ====== 32525 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana - "Rebirth with genetic Info." Hi Eddie (& Erik), --- Eddie Lou wrote: > Hi, Sarah, > > Thanks. I think the scientific community can do more > research on such kind of phenomena. I believe they did > but never quite heard about real conclusive > hypotheses, whatsoever. > > So I am resorting to our Buddhist community, to find > some kind of an explanation in my jig-saw puzzle. I > had once asked a learned Buddhist, who has no answer > to it. .... S: Only a Buddha could understand all the complexities of kamma which would bring about such particular results at such a time. The more we read about past lives in the teachings, the more we can see how extraordinary was the omniscience of the Buddha. With our scientific knowledge and knowledge of the teachings, we can just give small indications only. Metta, Sarah p.s Erik, good to know you're around;-) ===== 32526 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Recognizing_the_Dhamma_-_7._Persistence_(§_7.2,_§_7.3) Hi Victor, Thank you for being so polite about my verses on solitude. I’ve been meaning to follow up on this next quality: --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > 7. Persistence > § 7.1. > "'This Dhamma is for one whose persistence is aroused, not for one > who is lazy.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? > There is the case where a monk keeps his persistence aroused for > abandoning unskillful mental qualities and taking on skillful mental > qualities. He is steadfast, solid in his effort, not shirking his > duties with regard to skillful mental qualities. 'This Dhamma is for > one whose persistence is aroused, not for one who is lazy.' Thus was > it said. And with reference to this was it said. > > [AN VIII.30] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html#persistence ... S: I notice from the original 8 principles that persistence is a translation for viriya or (right) effort. How are unskilful states abandoned and skilful ones developed if not by understanding these states and other dhammas when they arise as elements or dhammas, not belonging to a self. Whilst looking for Dan’s post on Right Effort, I came across his ‘10 great Dhamma quotes’. This was his note and first quote: .... Dan:(1) Realizing the difference between kusala and akusala is crucial: "There are, bhikkhus, wholesome and unwholesome states, blameable and blameless states, inferior and superior states, dark and bright states with their counterparts: frequently giving careful attention to them is the nutriment for the arising of the unarisen enlightenment factor of discrimination of states and for the fulfillment by development of the arisen enlightenment factor of discrimination of states." (Samyutta Nikaya V, 46:51 --Bojjhangasamyutta [PTS 104]) .... S: So when we consider the meaning of ‘right effort’ it always has to be that quality of viriya cetasika (effort mental factor) accompanying right understanding. Viriya itself arises with almost all cittas and is only wholesome when accompanying wholesome cittas. This is the quote of Dan’s I was looking for from the following post(which is also relevant to other discussions on ‘rules and rituals and right effort): http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m9166.html Dan: >As an example, consider effort/energy/endeavour which is one of the components of each: the right exertions, the bases of power, the five faculties, the five strengths, the seven factors for Awakening, the noble eightfold path. We read from the Dhammasangani (376): Katamam tasmim samaye viriyindriyam hoti? "What at that time is the faculty of effort/energy/endeavor?" "That which is mental endeavor (viriyarhambo), riddance of lethargy, exerting harder and harder, endeavoring higher and higher, striving, painstaking zeal, utmost exertion, steadfastness, resoluteness, unfaltering endeavor, having sustained desire (chanda) to strive, not relinquishing the task, discharging the task well, effort (viriya) as the faculty of effort, power of effort, wrong effort -- this at that time is the faculty of endeavor." >Wrong effort?! Everything sounded pretty good up to that point! This is a description of the viriya cetasika arising with lobha-mula-cittani. It is interesting to read how it differs from the viriya cetasika arising with the sense-sphere kusala cittas: [Dhs. 13] "What at that time is the faculty of effort/energy/endeavor? That which is mental endeavor (viriyarhambo), riddance of lethargy, exerting harder and harder, endeavoring higher and higher, striving, painstaking zeal, utmost exertion, steadfastness, resoluteness, unfaltering endeavor, having sustained desire (chanda) to strive, not relinquishing the task, discharging the task well, effort (viriya) as the faculty of effort, power of effort, right effort -- this at that time is the faculty of endeavor." >The only difference is the word "right" in the second paragraph contrasting with the "wrong" of the first. It's fine and dandy to toss around lists of the five this's and the four that's, but it is critical to be able to discern clearly when they are "right" or "wrong" as they arise. This hinges on development of discernment and understanding. Is this done via ritual? I don't think so. ***** S: Victor, I found the other quotes you gave on this thread to be really excellent reminders, so I’ll repeat them as you gave them some time ago: V: § 7.2. As if struck by a sword, as if his head were on fire, a monk should live the wandering life -- mindful -- for the abandoning of sensual passion. [Thag I.39] § 7.3. "Furthermore, the monk finds pleasure & delight in developing [skillful mental qualities], finds pleasure & delight in abandoning [unskillful mental qualities]. He does not, on account of his pleasure & delight in developing & abandoning, exalt himself or disparage others. In this he is diligent, deft, alert, & mindful. This is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original traditions of the noble ones." [AN IV.28] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html#persistence ***** S: Look forward to your next installments or further comments. Metta, Sarah ====== 32527 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 2:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi Victor (& Howard), --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > The idea > > "all there is (leaving aside nibbana) is eye and visual object, ear > and audible object, nose and olfactory object, tongue and gustatory > object, body and bodily object, and mind and mind object. Everything > there is partakes of only one of these domains." > > is the senior cosmology 'Everything exists' that the Buddha spoke of > in Samyutta Nikaya XII.48, Lokayatika Sutta. > > And that idea has nothing to do with the teaching of dependent > origination. > > Comments are welcome. .... My main comment is to suggest that our limited understanding and particular views lead us astray all the time when reading the suttas, especially if don’t have the assistance of the commentaries and Abhidhamma;-) The ‘All’ in the Sabba sutta (and repeated throughout the Tipitaka) which are to be known at this very moment, refer to the namas and rupas which (apart from Nibbana) are conditioned and have the characterisitcs of anicca, dukkha and anatta. These are the dhammas which temporarily ‘exist’. In the Lokayatika sutta, the first view expressed by the cosmologist was indicating an eternalist belief based on the idea of a permanent self (see the Brahmajala sutta for details on all wrong views about self). I wrote the following before about the Lokayatika Sutta, referring to B.Bodhi’s commentary notes: >The notes give details about lokaayata (the science of debate).The commentary indicates that the first and third views are forms ofeternalist view (sassatadi.t.thi)and the second and fourth views are forms of annihilationist view (ucchedad.t.thi). The first view was the one about whether all exists and the third one to whether there was unity (ekatta.m). According to the comy, he’s asking whether it has a permanent nature (niccasabhaava). Clearly this is not the same as suggesting paramattha dhammas have anicca sabhaava without any suggestion of permanence.< I hope this clarifies, Metta, Sarah ====== 32528 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 3:20am Subject: Re: Video Games? Friend Sarah, Sarah: My question is how this practice or a Goenka-style practice differs in application and benefit from a similar `unblocking of chi' in say Qi Gong, Tai chi or yoga relaxation when there is also a concentration on the physical sensations, but without necessarily having heard the Buddha's teachings at all? James: I have practiced Tai Chi, Qi Gong, and Yoga and I know that they they are different than Buddhist meditation (which I have also practiced). However, I'm not sure that your question is a genuine question of inquiry, or if it is a leading question which implies that they are not different. Do you genuinely not know the differences? I will write a post explaining the differences between these practices, from a personal and scholarly perspective, but only if you have an open mind and want to genuinely learn rather than thinking you know the answer already. Is this a genuine, open question, free of preconceptions? I don't want to spend the effort otherwise. Sarah: without any selection of object. James: Where did the Buddha teach that satipatthana could not involve any selection of object? Metta, James 32529 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 3:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Rob Ep (Howard, Christine & All), Your asked for my comments on your measured masterpiece or massive missive on meditation. Many of your reflections remind me of comments Howard made recently in a post on ‘rites and rituals’ and good questions Christine raised before her trip and whilst in Bangkok along similar lines, I think. You articulated the general sentiment very well . Here’s a brief extract: Robert Epstein wrote: > >The question > is, does formal sitting meditation cause the kind of expectation that > prevents rather than promotes the development of sati, and on the > other hand, is there a process taking place in formal meditation that > promotes rather than prevents the development of sati? And if both > are present, does one outweigh the other in the affect they have on > understanding? A corollary question then is: does sati in fact > develop through ?natural observation? in conjunction with study of > suttas and commentaries, and is there any expectation in *that* > process that would prevent rather than promote the development of > genuine awareness? .... S: I think the answers to these questions very much come down to the present moment. Right view or wrong view, right practice or wrong practice (or adherence to rites and rituals) can arise at anytime, regardless of the activity. Just as it would be meaningless to say that whenever we’re sitting cross-legged with eyes closed there must be right or wrong view, it would be equally meaningless to say the same when we have a sutta (or even an Abhidhamma text!) open in front of us. When we’re talking about ‘formal meditation’ or ‘reading texts’, in fact there are only countless namas and rupas arising and passing away and these are all conditioned. With regard to the development of satipatthana, any moments of wise considering or reflecting on the teachings (not to be measured again by the appearance or amount of book study) are likely to lead to more wise considering, reflecting and thereby to direct understanding of presently arising namas and rupas. Any moments of concentrating on particular objects or conventional awareness with a selection of what should be known are likely to be with attachment, not detachment and will thus likely lead to more attachment or wrong concentration. In the same way, whilst reading that Abhidhamma text, moments with attachment to finding out the answers or any ideas that the memorising of the details or studying of the original text will inevitably bring more awareness are also likely to lead to more attachment, wrong view and conceit as well. So I don’t think we need to set any rules at all about our actions, but can learn to understand the various realities. I like the following quote from the Ganaka-Mogallana sutta, MN107 which Jeff gave recently, transl by I.B. Horner: >When this had been said, the brahman Ganaka-Moggallana spoke thus to the Lord: 15. "Good Gotama, as for those persons who, in want of a way of living, having gone forth from home into homelessness without faith, who are crafty, fraudulent, deceitful, who are unbalanced and puffed up, who are shifty, scurrilous and of loose talk, the doors of whose sense-organs are not guarded, who do not know moderation in eating, who are not intent on vigilance, indifferent to recluseship, not of keen respect for the training, who are ones for abundance, lax, taking the lead in backsliding, shirking the burden of seclusion, who are indolent, of feeble energy, of confused mindfulness, not clearly conscious, not concentrated but of wandering minds, who are weak in wisdom, drivellers -- the good Gotama is not in communion with them. But as for those young men of respectable families who have gone forth from home into homelessness from faith, who are not crafty, fraudulent or deceitful, who are not unbalanced or puffed up, who are not shifty, scurrilous or of loose talk, the doors of whose sense-organs are guarded, who know moderation in eating, who are intent on vigilance, longing for recluseship, of keen respect for the training, who are not ones for abundance, not lax, shirking, backsliding, taking the lead in seclusion, who are of stirred up energy, self-resolute, with mindfulness aroused, clearly conscious, concentrated, their minds one-pointed, who have wisdom, are not drivellers -- the good Gotama is in communion with them. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn107.html **** <...> >To deny the natural benefit for > concentration, insofar as that goes, of sitting still and paying > attention, is to deny common sense. This is true not just of > observing the mind, but of any activity. There is nothing that is not > benefited with increased awareness when it is focused on and paid > attention to. ..... S: Like with the quote I gave from Dan’s post on effort, concentration and paying attention or awareness in this sense can be either kusala or akusala. Most of the time they are akusala. .... <...> > It is like observing a rat in the wild and how it behaves, as opposed > to observing a lab rat under controlled conditions and seeing how it > behaves in a cage with a maze and a food box at the end of the maze. .... S: I loved your analogies, Rob and agreed with much of what you wrote. ... <...> > So let us see if we can break open this impasse between cultures. > Those who are in favor of practicing meditation will say ?this is the > way.? Those who are in favor of naturally arising sati in everyday > life promoted by study and understanding of sutta and commentary will > say ?this is the way.? They will criticize the others? view, although > Buddha would probably say that to do this would harden the mind and > make it more difficult to approach the openness and promote the > letting go of partial views that actually promotes mindfulness and > understanding. .... S: Whilst we continue to think in terms of ‘situations’ or to understand satipatthana to depend on time, place and particular activities (whether that be cushion or commentary time), there is bound to be a continued misunderstanding of what the development entails. This development of satipatthana always comes back to the present moment and the understanding of paramattha dhammas conditioned already. Reflecting on these dhammas right now as we’re doing as we read and write can be a condition for more wise reflection. ..... <....> We don?t > have to be confined to the understandings of one culture or another, > but can be open to all the skillful devices available for the path. .... S: What you write sounds very alluring and tolerant, but I think that when we have an idea of ‘devices’, it indicates an idea of some short-cut techniques or ‘things-to-do’ rather than an understanding of conditioned dhammas. An idea of self is ready to sneak in all the time. .... > Is it *impossible* that formal meditation will enhance the experience > of the development of mindfulness for an Abidhammist? Is it even > *impossible* that some physical culture which opens the body and > nervous system such as yoga, may have some affect on the mind that > allows a greater development of awareness? To say that these things > are impossible closes the door to all of the aspects of the body and > mind that may possibly promote greater development of awareness and > feed the path. I don?t think we should have our cultural doors > limited or closed. The body and the mind are what we carry with us in > this life, the only equipment we?ve been given for the path, and so we > should be open to making the best use of all of this equipment, not > restrict ourselves to one modality. .... S: So who is is going to ‘make the best use of all of this equipment’ and which ‘self’ is it that should be or should not be restricted to ‘one modality’? As you know, I do a lot of yoga myself and I’m glad to hear you’re getting fit again yourself. Awareness and understanding can most certainly arise during our activities, but when we have the idea that the activity itself - certain mental or physical systems or cultures - will of themselves lead to the development of satipatthana and the decrease in self-view or increase in detachment, then I think it’s very wrong and contrary to the Buddha’s teachings. ..... >We may have a main modality that > we think is best, but we should be open, not closed, to other > modalities, just as Abidhamma enjoins us to be open to all the moments > that occur in life, whatever activity we are doing. There are yoga > practices that say, don?t worry about the physical culture so much, > but what happens to your mind in this or that position. Be aware of > the activity of consciousness at all times, and the yoga thus tests > the ability to maintain awareness under shifting conditions. .... S: But there isn’t any understanding of paramattha dhammas, of namas and rupas, the objects of awareness as anatta. If the development of satipatthana were so simple, it wouldn’t need a Buddha to teach us. .... <...> > So there is > really no separation between Abidhamma and meditation, nor between > meditation and Abidhamma. ... S: No, depending on how one understands ‘Abhidhamma’ and ‘meditation’. ... >There is only life and its various events > and practices to be observed and understood at all times. .... S: Sorry, but ‘events’ and ‘practices’ are not realities and cannot be understood. .... >Practices > should not be rejected, but should be included, even if this flies in > the face of ?traditional understandings.? We should use common sense > and skillful practices of all sorts, not fall into prejudices about > what is ?right and wrong.? .... S: What is important as I see it is the understanding of dhammas right now, as anatta. As soon as there is an idea of ‘doing’ or ‘practice’ other than such understanding which can only arise by the appropriate conditions, then it’s wrong practice. .... <....> What is most important is that I keep > my mind open to observe the process of thought, consciousness, > perception, so that I may awaken, and I will engage in the practices I > choose to engage in. Buddha?s principles must apply no matter what I > am doing. Any tradition that substitutes belief for an open mind, > shuts down the development of sati. .... S: When there is an idea of self engaging or following any practice or being open to anything, there is no understanding. .... <...> > And it would be silly of me to say ?Sorry, I?m only open to sitting > meditation? when invited to observe the mind process in everyday life. > I should say ?Wow, let?s see what that is about? and do it, as I do > try to do. A person who only pays attention when meditating and does > not have an interest in the budding apple tree out the window and what > mind process allows the blossoms to look pink, is not much of a > meditator. .... S: So again who is trying to do something? doesn’t this suggest attachment and an idea of self at such times? ... > Anyway, that is all for now. There is more to say but I will perhaps > return to this after hearing any responses. I hope this may generate > a few thoughts or perceptions that are out of the ordinary mold or > predisposition of our given cultures, as it has for me. And thanks > for having me over! : ) .... S: It’s a real treat to have you over. I just hope we don’t spoil the fun too soon;-) Just talk to Nina about Emily if you prefer. On the other hand, I’ll be very glad to hear your further comments or any from Chris and Howard too. Metta, Sarah p.s Chris, hope you get your computer problems solved soon - bad timing as I think you said you're still on holiday. Still, glad that it's nothing more serious. Happy Birthday Sarah F!! (Jon's choice was noodles;-)). ===== 32530 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 3:32am Subject: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana Friend Jon (and Howard at end), Jon: … must be potentially capable of arising now in some form or other no matter how weak,… James: How much about dhammas does a person know with weak insight? You had written that one doesn't need any kind of special practice, concentration practice, because understanding dhammas as they arise are the practice. Now you are saying that this understanding is weak. Which is it? Jon: As a starting point, we need to acknowledge that kusala and akusala can arise interspersed with each other. James: As a starting point for what? What is this knowledge going to change? Jon: Having the idea that akusala must be totally absent before the awareness of dhammas can begin to be developed tends to lead to all sorts of ideas about you-know-what;-)) James: No, I don't know what. Do you mean…eeeekkkkkk… MEDITATION??!! Maybe even JHANA!!??? Say it isn't so!! ;-)) Metta, James Ps. Happy Birthday, whenever it was. To you also, Howard! 32531 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 3:36am Subject: Re: Destruction of the Taints Friend Philip, Philip: The body as a sack of various kinds of grain. The mind as - hopefully - a clear mountain pool. Couldn't satipatthana be seen as a supreme method of removing taints by seeing them clearly with *good eyesight*? That's a beginner's take on it. James: Not so beginner, I think. Good insight. Thanks for the input. Philip: 32532 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 4:38am Subject: Re: Pannatti (Concept) Friend Jon, Jon: I don't think this is a description of just sitting down and doing it in the hope that somehow it will all become clear in time. James: I think so. What else is it a description for? Jon: The advice the Buddha himself gave to others was to listen more, consider more, reflect more on the presently arising dhammas. James: The words `consider' and `reflect' are rather vague, could you be more specific? Also, are you stating that the Buddha didn't teach the practices of Jhana and Bhrama-Viharas? As to my understanding, these practices don't involve any listening (maybe they involve considering and reflecting if you will be more specific?? Not sure what you mean). Jon: In my view the most authentic and reliable of all such sources would be the commentaries. James: I don't have any problems with the commentaries to that sutta. They explain more how one is to use mindfulness of the breath to gain insight. You obviously have a problem with this sutta because it calls for focusing on one object for an extended period and this practice contradicts with your view of Buddhism. Rather than trying to wrangle some contradictory meaning from the commentaries, I think you should just give up and face the reality of what the sutta calls for. Jon: But I don't find in the sutta any mention of a specific causal connection between mindfulness of breathing and seeing the impermanence of all dhammas. James: The Buddha said that the practitioner will breathe in and out contemplating impermanence. How can you say that you don't see impermanence in that sutta when it clearly says `impermanence'? It doesn't matter if the sutta doesn't say anything about the `casual connection', that is why you must practice it to know the connection and the meaning. See my above comments. Jon: I think if you read the sutta carefully you'll see that mindfulness of dhammas, not of breathing per se, is the key. James: I think that if you read the sutta carefully you will see that it says mindfulness of breathing, hence the title "Mindfulness of Breathing". LOL! Metta, James 32533 From: Ken O Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi RobM and Nina and others :-) > Since there is no associated pleasant feeling, there will not be lobha. Since there is no unpleasant feeling, there will be no dosa. The javana cittas of this citta-vithi will be kirya (in the case of an Arahant), maha-kusala (if one sees things as they > truly are) or moha-mula (if one does not see things as they truly > are). Moha-mula cittas create very weak kamma. This is why I say > that the sense door process creates very weak kamma. k: After the determining citta, it does not mean that javana process is moha in the sense process. It can also be akusala and kusala. If the sense process is indifference, then there is a high likelihood that the resulting mind process will also be indifference. However since we are affected by the different vedana, that is why the resultant mind process is also of different vedana. In the patticamuppada, vedana is after the the sense citta but that does not mean this is after the sense process. It can also be in the present sense process where javana is involved. I dont think feeling is an object of a mind-door process. It can be a arise together with a sense door process because vedana is universal citta. Similarly, when one feel, one perceive, can still be in the sense process as perception is sanna and there are universal cittas so they do rise in the javana process. And again, clear aware of the feeling, does not mean it also out of sense process, it can also part of the sense process. > "What one perceives, that one thinks about." (yam sanjanati tam > vitakketi) k: I can say this part can be the mental process, but it also mean that the thinking process already being conditioned prior by the sense door process. As the preception and feeling are already conditioned previously in the sense door process. > My comments: > We can see how pananca feeds upon itself. Papanca (conceptual > proliferation) is clearly the manifestation of many mind-door > processes (only mind-door processes can take concepts as objects). > One can see how the kamma created at this stage can be quite strong > compared to the kamma created at the previous stages of perception. > The sutta now changes direction again. What started as a mechanical > process (from eye-consciousness to feeling) evolved into an active > involvement of the observer (perception to mentally proliferates) > and > now the mental proliferation takes control of the observer. k: The mechanical process is till determining citta, then the javana process is the gist between kusala or akusala in the sense or mind door process. The whole proces is about both door and not just mind door. Concepts do conditioned almost all our mind door process presently and also resulting kamma reactions to the conceptual object. But concepts cannot display the three characteristics, that is why they cannot be objects of satipatthana. Furthermore, if we wish to know paramathas to break the world of concept (esp concepts of self), we cannot use concepts to realise it, we must used a parmattha dhammas. k: Others could help with commentary inputs. What I am doing now are basically logical and intuitive reasoning - that may not be accurate. Glad to be corrected. Ken O 32534 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi Sarah, The idea "Nama and rupa exist" is the first cosmology "All exists." And that idea is a recurring theme in dsg. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor (& Howard), > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > > The idea > > > > "all there is (leaving aside nibbana) is eye and visual object, ear > > and audible object, nose and olfactory object, tongue and gustatory > > object, body and bodily object, and mind and mind object. Everything > > there is partakes of only one of these domains." > > > > is the senior cosmology 'Everything exists' that the Buddha spoke of > > in Samyutta Nikaya XII.48, Lokayatika Sutta. > > > > And that idea has nothing to do with the teaching of dependent > > origination. > > > > Comments are welcome. > .... > My main comment is to suggest that our limited understanding and > particular views lead us astray all the time when reading the suttas, > especially if don't have the assistance of the commentaries and > Abhidhamma;-) > > The `All' in the Sabba sutta (and repeated throughout the Tipitaka) which > are to be known at this very moment, refer to the namas and rupas which > (apart from Nibbana) are conditioned and have the characterisitcs of > anicca, dukkha and anatta. These are the dhammas which temporarily > `exist'. > > In the Lokayatika sutta, the first view expressed by the > cosmologist was indicating an eternalist belief based on the idea of a > permanent self (see the Brahmajala sutta for details on all wrong views > about self). > > I wrote the following before about the Lokayatika Sutta, referring to > B.Bodhi's commentary notes: > > >The notes give details about lokaayata (the science of debate).The > commentary indicates that the first and third views are forms ofeternalist > view (sassatadi.t.thi)and the second and fourth views are forms of > annihilationist view (ucchedad.t.thi). > > The first view was the one about whether all exists and the third one to > whether there was unity (ekatta.m). According to the comy, he's asking > whether it has a permanent nature (niccasabhaava). Clearly this is not the > same as suggesting paramattha dhammas have anicca sabhaava without any > suggestion of permanence.< > > I hope this clarifies, > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== 32535 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:39am Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi Sukin, Could you summarize your position? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor, [snip] > > Can we say first of all that there *is* `action' all the time > regardless of whether or not we believe in deliberate effort and > whether or not there is any understanding at the time? That being > the case, then the important thing would be to determine if indeed > the citta is kusala or akusala, with right understanding or with > wrong understanding? Now if we are to some degree familiar with our > own citta and have any estimation of the akusala tendencies, then we > may know that the "should" that we identify with is from `not > knowing', avijja. If there is any understanding at the moment about > the conditioned nature of a reality, it is just that. If there is > sati, there is sati, if akusala is seen, it is seen. If there is > samvegha, this can be followed by any citta, with or without panna. > If kusala chanda is conditioned, well and good, if not, then what > should be done? Should we be propelled by an `idea'? Such > identification with cetana may be with self-view, and this is blind > to the present reality. The danger is that if this is not > recognized, then akusala will be mistaken for kusala and wrong > understanding for right. And this accumulates, and we have adopted > a `wrong practice'. > > When there is any understanding, whether during satipatthana or wise > reflection, this is already "right effort" of some level and a > kusala kammapattha has already been performed. Is there any need to > do more? Would panna seek more of anything if it sees in the moment > that nothing can be caused to arise by will?( I know you don't agree > with this.) And when there is panna, is there also not a hint of > where one is at and the understanding that only through much > practice will the goal be reached? Does this not imply that there is > much work to be done? But this of course doesn't mean that one > should follow one's projections and/or a practice which one believes > will take one there. Lobha and avijja may be ruling here. One is > seeking more of something and may think that the `intention to do' > is consequent of understanding. But is it? > > On the other hand, not hindered by any ambition for `self', there > may be a level of `right effort', which perhaps looks not so to > someone who has wrongly identified this factor with `intending' > and `doing' something, for e.g. formal practice. Would panna > opt `doing' something instead of 'understanding' the present moment, > even though that activity promises more understanding as a result? > Or is this more likely to be consequent of wrong view? > > Victor, on the level of stories, while driving Azita back to her > hotel today, she told me about how after meeting Phra Dhammadaro > (who was a student of K. Sujin) more than 20 years ago, that she > remained in Thailand for another year and during that time she went > *every* evening to listen to him speak about dhamma. Now is that not > some "effort" involved? Only I think in her case, she was not > identifying what she was doing with `right practice', but there was > some real kusala chanda I think, to seek more understanding. > > So surely, things are being done with the understanding of what is > right and what is wrong. And this is with chanda, viriya and cetana > along with the other cetasikas. Only what is perceived as wrong, > particularly self-view and wrong effort, happens to be what you see > as right effort and right practice. > > Regarding your quote above: > "Whatever a person experiences -- pleasant, painful, or neither > pleasant nor painful -- that is all caused by what was done in the > past." > > One of the first distinctions any student of Abhidhamma makes is the > difference between kamma and vipaka. And this I believe is more > productive of `right efforts' than any `deliberate' practice which > may or may not take into account this distinction. This has very > deep implications I think. > > > They can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't > be > > done. > > Is the association of the above with NAG based upon your > understanding of what *should* be done? Because I don't think the > Buddha would accuse us NAGs of such a thing. ;-) > > > > The very view "The point is that the very idea of `doing it' is > > contradictory to my understanding of the conditioned nature of > > realities" reflects that. > > I hope what I wrote above has helped to clarify my position. > > Metta, > Sukin. 32536 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:45am Subject: Re: Recognizing_the_Dhamma_-_7._Persistence_(§_7.2,_§_7.3) Hi Sarah, Thank you for this message. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Thank you for being so polite about my verses on solitude. I've been > meaning to follow up on this next quality: > [snip] > S: I notice from the original 8 principles that persistence is a > translation for viriya or (right) effort. How are unskilful states > abandoned and skilful ones developed if not by understanding these states > and other dhammas when they arise as elements or dhammas, not belonging to > a self. Yes, one would need to know what is skillful and what is not skillful. [snip] > S: So when we consider the meaning of `right effort' it always has to be > that quality of viriya cetasika (effort mental factor) accompanying right > understanding. Viriya itself arises with almost all cittas and is only > wholesome when accompanying wholesome cittas. > This is how I understand it regarding 'right effort': "And what, monks, is right effort? [i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen. [iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort." -- SN XLV.8 [snip] > S: Victor, I found the other quotes you gave on this thread to be really > excellent reminders, so I'll repeat them as you gave them some time ago: > > V: § 7.2. > As if struck by a sword, > as if his head were on fire, > a monk should live the wandering life > -- mindful -- > for the abandoning of sensual passion. > > [Thag I.39] > > > § 7.3. > "Furthermore, the monk finds pleasure & delight in developing > [skillful mental qualities], finds pleasure & delight in abandoning > [unskillful mental qualities]. He does not, on account of his > pleasure & delight in developing & abandoning, exalt himself or > disparage others. In this he is diligent, deft, alert, & mindful. > This is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original > traditions of the noble ones." > > [AN IV.28] > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html#persistence > ***** > S: Look forward to your next installments or further comments. > > Metta, > > Sarah I appreciate that you took time to respond to this thread. Metta, Victor 32537 From: Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 3:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi, Victor (and Sarah) - In a message dated 4/26/04 9:24:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Sarah, > > The idea "Nama and rupa exist" is the first cosmology "All exists." > And that idea is a recurring theme in dsg. > > Metta, > Victor > ========================= I think that 'exist' is a "dangerous" word - misleading at best. I prefer to say that namas and rupas "arise" or "appear". From my perspective, they are conditioned, dependent (not self-existent), fleeting, and perhaps only momentary *events*. This is the perspective I have come to see throughout the suttas, and I don't think Abhidhamma contradicts that, though some Abhidhammikas and others may tend more towards a static, separate-existence perspective similar to the ancient Sarvastivadin position. BTW, the translation of whatever Pali word it is into "cosmology" is confusing to me. I suppose the idea is "world view" or "weltanshauung". 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) 32538 From: Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 3:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? -- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > Here is what I mean by deconstructing. I'm sitting in the dentist's > office. I > see I am in discomfort. I think (use concepts) to decide to put my > attention > on my physical body sense door. Once my attention is there, I just > observe > with no thought or direction. At times, my training in 4 material > elements > (ultimates) meditation kicks in and my attention goes to the physical > body elements > without the first step of using concepts to decide to do it. It all > happens > with "my" doing anything. ..... S: There is nothing wrong (as I see it) with this kind of practice and I think there are many benefits. My question is how this practice or a Goenka-style practice differs in application and benefit from a similar ‘unblocking of chi’ in say Qi Gong, Tai chi or yoga relaxation when there is also a concentration on the physical sensations, but without necessarily having heard the Buddha’s teachings at all? Even if one has heard about the elements and about namas and rupas, I don’t think that attending to the ‘body elements’ should be taken for awareness which has to be accompanied by detachment and without any selection of object. While these practices have many benefits, if one mistakes such focussing (with or without any idea of ‘my’ doing) for the development of satipatthana, I think it’s incorrect. As for the concepts, the sense and mind door processes follow each other so quickly all the time and so there are bound to be many,many mind door processes in between the many sense door processes at these times with concepts unknowingly as objects. Sarah, Below is an excerpt from DN 22, the Mahasatipatthana Sutta. This is what I model my 4-Element Meditation on and which I applied during my visit to the dentist. You seem to be arguing against the Buddha's words. If you are not arguing with the Buddha's teachings, how am I misapplying his instructions as stated below? "...The Blessed One said this: "This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding -- in other words, the four frames of reference. What four? "There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. [snip] [5] "Furthermore...just as a skilled butcher or his apprentice, having killed a cow, would sit at a crossroads cutting it up into pieces, the monk contemplates this very body -- however it stands, however it is disposed -- in terms of properties: 'In this body there is the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property.' .... J: > Thinking, deciding and using concepts in this situation to me is only > useful > in that it points me toward a state of not thinking, deciding or using > concepts. .... S: We may even cling to a state or idea of not thinking about concepts, but wouldn’t this indicate more attachment? Are you sure there are no mind-door processes with thinking about concepts (not necessarily in words at all)flitting in between the sense doors all the time? A sense door process is so very brief and is always followed unknowingly by one or more mind door processes, usually with concepts as objects without any words of formulations being necessary. Yes, you are right. Clinging to anything indicates attachment.(?) As I said above, I'm just trying to follow the Buddha's teachings. His instructions in the sutta above and in many other suttas didn't seem hung up on what you seem to be hung up on. ( I don't mean "hung up on" as negative. I think you are wrong but I "think" with a smile toward you.) .... J:>My meditation practice has benefits to me such as reducing > stress .... S: I think your dentist chair practice may well be very practical and you might be surprised to hear how similar some of my healing practices are, given that I’ve been given a NAG label;-) .... J: >but its > ultimate use to to practice "directly understanding dhammas with > detachment > and without any idea of self." as you say below. "Understanding" in this > sense > means direct, non-conceptual wisdom not book learning. .... S: This is where our ‘methods’ part ways. As I consider "directly understanding dhammas with detachment and without any idea of self", it matters not what the attention is drawn to or not drawn to in the dentist’s chair or whether one is sitting quietly or fidgeting, because any reality can be known at that or any other time. Indeed what is experienced, whether it be for example, restlessness, fear, hardness/softness, sound or thinking, can be known.If there is the idea that another object or some special focus is more suitable for awareness, unknowingly an idea of self starts to creep in as I see it. jack: I understand that we differ here. I believe I am in line with the Buddha's teachings. I think he was a teacher realizing that his students did not have perfect vision or perfect attention. Some times, he would suggest learning by paying attention to the breath. At other times, he would suggest learning by paying attention to body sensations. Etc. ....[snip] J: >This concentration on the sense doors (guarding the sense doors the > Visud. > calls it) can refer to different steps in the process as taught by the > Buddha. > As its simplest level, it is still part of the process as taught by the > Buddha. > At its highest level it is "directly understanding dhammas with > detachment > and without any idea of self." ..... S: I understand the ‘guading of the sense doors’ to always be referring to awareness and understanding of the objects experienced through them (visible objects, sounds and so on) and to the namas which experience these objects (seeing, hearing and so on)as they arise during the day. This is not by concentrating or selecting objects which have inevitably passed already. Such concentrating or selecting would be more indicative of attachment to ‘guarding’ than actual awareness and understanding which ‘guard’ naturally. jack: As I said above, the Buddha didn't just present examples of perfect understanding and practice. He gave practical instructions on many levels of difficulty on how to learn the dhamma as we go through our day. This meant selecting and concentrating at times. jack 32539 From: robmoult Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:16am Subject: Re: mind-door process Hi Ken O, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Since there is no associated pleasant feeling, there will not be > lobha. Since there is no unpleasant feeling, there will be no dosa. > The javana cittas of this citta-vithi will be kirya (in the case of > an Arahant), maha-kusala (if one sees things as they > > truly are) or moha-mula (if one does not see things as they truly > > are). Moha-mula cittas create very weak kamma. This is why I say > > that the sense door process creates very weak kamma. > > k: After the determining citta, it does not mean that javana process > is moha in the sense process. It can also be akusala and kusala. > If the sense process is indifference, then there is a high likelihood > that the resulting mind process will also be indifference. However > since we are affected by the different vedana, that is why the > resultant mind process is also of different vedana. ===== It is important to note that every citta in a citta process has exactly the same object. In other words, if the ear-consciousness citta has a certain sound as its object then the subsequent receiving citta, the subsequent investigating citta, the subsequent determining citta and all seven subsequent javana cittas will also have the same sound as their object. Let us consider the example of when you hear somebody call your name. During the one second that it took for them to say "Ken", there were billions of ear-door processes at work. Each ear-door process had the function of "taking into the mind" one miniscule part of the overall sound of "Ken". My point is that the amount of lobha or dosa that you may have on the hearing of one miniscule part of the overall sound of "Ken" is incredibly weak. True, there may be attachment to sensual pleasure (you like to listen), but this attachment is quite weak (only at the stage of Anagami is this attachment overcome). Each ear-door process only recognizes a miniscule part of the overall sound of "Ken". It is the subsequent mind-door processes that glue these miniscule parts into a word. It is the mind-door processes that recognize the word as your name. It is the mind-door processes that respond to the calling of your name. My point is that the kamma created by the mind door processes grows increasingly strong as the concept grows from a miniscule part of the overall sound of "Ken" (remember that the first mind-door process after an ear-door process takes the rupa as object), to a word (percieving), to recognizing that word (thinking about), to responding to the meaning of that word (mental proliferation - papanca). As it says in the Sutta, it is the papanca that creates the real problems. ===== > In the > patticamuppada, vedana is after the the sense citta but that does not > mean this is after the sense process. It can also be in the present > sense process where javana is involved. ===== Vedana arises in every citta. It does not come before or after; it arises at the same time. ===== > I dont think feeling is an object of a mind-door process. ===== When we are aware of "feeling" (pleasant, unpleasant or neutral), then it is always the object of a mind-door process. ===== > It can be > a arise together with a sense door process because vedana is > universal citta. Similarly, when one feel, one perceive, can still > be in the sense process as perception is sanna and there are > universal cittas so they do rise in the javana process. And again, > clear aware of the feeling, does not mean it also out of sense > process, it can also part of the sense process. ===== Again, each citta in a sense-door process takes exactly the same object. Feeling will arise with every citta but awareness of a feeling is a separate mind-door process. ===== > > "What one perceives, that one thinks about." (yam sanjanati tam > > vitakketi) > > k: I can say this part can be the mental process, but it also mean > that the thinking process already being conditioned prior by the > sense door process. As the preception and feeling are already > conditioned previously in the sense door process. > > > > My comments: > > We can see how pananca feeds upon itself. Papanca (conceptual > > proliferation) is clearly the manifestation of many mind-door > > processes (only mind-door processes can take concepts as objects). > > One can see how the kamma created at this stage can be quite strong > > compared to the kamma created at the previous stages of perception. > > The sutta now changes direction again. What started as a mechanical > > process (from eye-consciousness to feeling) evolved into an active > > involvement of the observer (perception to mentally proliferates) > > and > now the mental proliferation takes control of the observer. > > k: The mechanical process is till determining citta, then the javana > process is the gist between kusala or akusala in the sense or mind > door process. The whole proces is about both door and not just mind > door. ===== For a long time, I was fascinated by the determining citta. I thought that it was the key part of the citta process because it was functional and it was the point at which the cittas turned from passive (vipaka) to active (javana). The name "determining" implied that a decision was made at this point of the citta process (are we going to go the path of lobha, the path of dosa, the path of moha or the path of kusala?). A comment in Narada's "Manual of Abhidhamma" regarding the determining citta convinced me that this was the key part of the citta process. On p32-33, Narada said, "After this comes that stage of representative cognition termed the determining consciousness (Votthapana). Discrimination is exercised at this stage. Freewill plays its part here." For months, I wrestled with the question, "how can there be free will when there is no self?". Ken, if you are wrestling with a similar question, let me know and let's look at it together (it may be digressing from the point of this exchange or it could be at the heart of this exchange, I am not sure). ===== > Concepts do conditioned almost all our mind door process > presently and also resulting kamma reactions to the conceptual > object. But concepts cannot display the three characteristics, that > is why they cannot be objects of satipatthana. Furthermore, if we > wish to know paramathas to break the world of concept (esp concepts > of self), we cannot use concepts to realise it, we must used a > parmattha dhammas. ===== I agree with all of these sentences, but I am having a problem linking them back to our discussion of the kamma created by sense- door process vs. the kamma created by mind-door process. Interested in your feedback. Metta, Rob M :-) 32540 From: Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:35am Subject: Very Brief Report on Fourth Foundation of Mindfulness Workshop Hi, all - I promised to report back, so I will say a little. The workshop was conducted by Andrew Olendzky, who has a Ph.D. in Buddhist Studies. He is the former executive directory of IMS (International Meditation Society) and is currectly director of BCBS (Barre Center for Buddhist Studies, in Barre, Massachusetts). Programs at BCBS include the Bhavana Program, combining morning pariyatti with rest-of-day meditation), the Buddhist Psychology Program, which includes, in part, Abhidhamma studies, a special interest of Dr. Olendzky, and the Independent Study Program, which affords participants unlimited access to the extensive library at BCBS and secluded accomodations for meditating. BCBS also runs a Dhamma Dana Program for free distribution of Dhamma books. The workshop dealt 95% with the 4th foundation of mindfulness, and Andrew Olendzky did an amazingly thorough presentation in the five hours available. It was a more detailed presentation than I have seen before, and Dr. Olendzky's interest in and knowledge of Abhidhamma was a great support for that. It also happens that he is a *superb* expositor - a wonderful teacher. I was also delighted to see that he and I share much of the same perspective towards the Dhamma. There was a little meditation involved, but very little. It was 90% pariyatti. What I gained mainly from the day was a detailed immersion in the 4th foundation part of the Satipatthana Sutta, resulting in my coming away with an "insight" into the richness of the sutta that I didn't previously grasp, an insight that makes it clear to me that this sutta cannot be studied too much! There also were a couple specific pieces of information I obtained that were new to me - that is, I actually learned some new specifics! Though I have read the sutta many times, still some straightforward aspects of it had not registered. One of these, which I picked up at the workshop, is that 50% of the 3rd foundation of mindfulness is the matter of noting the *roots* of mindstates - of being aware of whether the current state is rooted in ignorance, craving, and aversion or their opposite numbers! Another of these is a better understanding of the part of the 4th foundation which involves minfulness of the six bases. This includes being aware of eye and forms, ear and sounds, etc (as well as awareness of "the fetter arising dependent on both," and also the arising of the currently unarisen fetter, the abandoning of the already arisen fetter, and the future non-arising of it). What I wondered about in regard to this is what it really *means* to be aware of eye or ear etc. (It is easy to see what it means to be aware of sights and sounds etc) Before I even got to ask about that, Dr Olendzky asked the participants to 1) close their eyes, then open them, and then 2) close their eyes, and turn attention to sounds. By switching attention from sights to sounds, not only did we notice the change of object, but also the *mode of experience*. By making the switch, one actually and experientially becomes aware of switching from eye door to ear door, of changing the *mode* of experience. I found that the mix of theory and practice was wonderful! Sometime I hope to take an extended Abhidhamma course with Andrew Olendzky. One sort that I would particularly like is a 5-day Bhavana course that he teaches together with a "meditation teacher," with Dr.olendzky concentrating on the presentation of Abhidhamma theory, and the other leader directing the "experiential aspects" of the retreat. I hope this gives somewhat of an inkling of what this workshop was like. 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) 32541 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 9:42am Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Rob Ep, > I enjoyed your post! It's nice to be back in this debate. By the > way, the "conditions" that led to me being here again can be easily > discerned. It was Nina! She wrote me a lovely note, and reminded me > of my dsg friends, and here I am! I must have been doing something > right to get back here, so consider me to have a bit of right view and > pay careful attention to what I say! : ) :-) I too have such thoughts that those who stick around dsg must have some degree of `right view'. Though I believe there are others who leave the group thinking that most of us have the opposite. I will try to pay extra attention to you. ;-) > I guess what it comes down to is whether you believe that conditions > that affect the kandhas affect the path. We would agree that right > view, dropping the sense of doership and the doer, and the discernment > of the reality of the moment as the only existing reality, would all > be crucial, and must be developed to the point of wisdom. But we all start from where we are, and hopefully that is with the understanding about the importance of pariyatti, intellectual right view. And everything must proceed as it should, very slowly and gradually and with as little `ambition' as possible to hinder the development. ;-) > I would guess though, that you would also say that prescribed > activities will lead to the development of satipatthana, and that > these activities that help one to develop right understanding leading > to satipatthana would include sutta and commentary study, the good > companionship of the "spiritual friend" and discernment of realities > in daily life. These are all "purposeful activities" that one does > to "make progress" beyond the present moment. We could be engaging in all these activities and still make little or no progress, especially if there is any wrong understanding about what pariyatti means. And since we can't *choose* a wise friend, because we will be attracted more or less to the person who agrees with our views, it is useless to claim so. So in the end, it all depends on our own accumulated panna and any good kamma that we may have performed. In the same way, any `discernment of realities in daily life', depends on accumulated panna and not on `purposefulness'. The mental factor chanda accompanying some level of panna may lead us to seek more understanding and this may be followed by and mixed with any number of akusala motives. However in the end there is no sutta or commentaries, just meaningful words made so in part by one's own accumulated understanding. Though we do live in the conventional world, and when going to the library we do make a choice to pick up the Tipitaka instead of a book on `flower arrangement' ;-). > I think it would be > silly to say that they are themselves the appropriate expression of > sati and arise all by themselves and that the one who is involved in > these activities has no thought that they will "help." Sure there are such thoughts, but there are also thoughts `that ultimately nothing is in anyone's control'. ;-) > Of course he does, and he consciously engages in sutta, lecture, discernment, etc., > in order to advance towards enlightenement. Panna recognizes its limitations and seeks to understand more *of theory*, this is living in the conventional world. But in the end whether there is going to be any understanding or not, it is at least not hindered by any wrong view that mistakes `knowledge' for `understanding'. > Does he then have to drop the idea of doership and making progress in order to > apply his understanding to the present moment without a separate doer being > misconstrued? Yes, he does. No he doesn't. Ultimately there is no `doer' anywhere. There may be a sense of a `doer' at anytime, but there is no `assuming' it and hence then deciding to drop it. The involvement in conventional activities does not automatically imply a doer. > But in what possible way is this > different from the "sense of doing" involved in meditation? Simply, > there is no difference on that level at all. There is a difference. I am having difficulty to find the right words and the following may seem like trying to justify my position, hope you do not see it as such though. Conventionally on the one hand, one is seeking `intellectual understanding' which may or may not happen and whatever is gained is still acknowledged as just `intellectual understanding'. FM on the other hand, presupposes in the practice, the arising of dhammas which to the `theorist' happens by conditions other that what the meditator thinks. On one level it seems like arrogance on the part of the meditator who thinks that with `intention' he can make sati arise, whereas the person who seeks to listen or read, it seems he is coming from a position of not-knowing and is receptive to what is being heard, this is not to say that there wont be akusala cittas. The former may admit that the `practice' requires time to bear fruit and may believe that the attention to a neutral object such as breath allows for mindfulness to be developed. This may be on the level of `belief', namely the Buddha taught it. But wouldn't it still come to each person's ability to discernment? Or is there a belief somewhat in the magical power of having breath as object no matter how each individual may understand it? How can wrong understanding lead to right understanding? The Zen people have even gone to the extreme of saying that one is already like a Buddha, when sitting in the lotus posture. Others imply that when they are able note their body and mental activity, that this is "sati". Lobha associated with wrong view is not only around the corner, but it leads and follows us everywhere. And this is what seems like `sati' to most people. > If one is following the > Buddha's proscribed path, or following Abhidhamma, or following Thai > Forest Tradition, or following zen, one is doing so in order to attain > liberation in nibbana, and that sense of "purpose" is going to be > there. One would not engage in any of these things if one did not > believe that they would lead to the goal, so the goal is there, and it > is outside of the discernment of the moment. Looking at the moment, > one might not see any of this. In the moment, "Buddha," "Path," > "Abhidhamma," etc. are all concepts. Buddha is not now before us in > the flesh, and that's that. Yet we follow his teachings and try to > follow his example as we see it. > So the inescapable conclusion is that there are "good" concepts and > practices, and "bad" concepts and practices. Some lead to the goal > and others don't, but the sense of doership will have to be dropped no > matter what the practice is, and that will take as long as it takes > according to arising conditions. Right, but do you really believe that more than one practice will lead to the goal? Is it a question only of `dropping the sense of doership'? What about the right causes leading to the right result and the wrong cause to the wrong result? And when it is wrong, there are not the correct conditions for any `doer' to be dropped, namely there is no panna to even discern `self' at work? On the other hand, if indeed there is panna, it is accompanied by detachment. So this may be a sign, no? ;-) If one must consciously decide to `let go' then it must not be panna, whereas if panna arose, then letting go has already happened. > So then the only question is whether meditation supplies an > opportunity, or has something inherent about it, that will promote the > path, or not. Now you are coming to the point. ;-) > You are inherently saying that sutta study, com study, > spending time with knowledgeable teachers who have right view, > discernment of realities in life, etc. -- all prescribed by Abhidhamma > -- are "good" practices that get you the right result and that > meditation -- frowned upon in Abhidhamma because it is a "doing" that > strives for a "result" -- is a bad practice that creates conceptual > obstacles. I don't see any logical reason why meditation creates more > conceptual obstacles or is more of a doing than purposely reading the > Suttas to understand the Buddha's teaching. They are both activities, > they are both done purposely, and they are both done to get a result > in progressing on the path. So there is no difference in terms of > approach and pitfalls. Refer to my comments at the beginning. First of all it was the Buddha who talked about `association with the wise and so on' as being the conditions for enlightenment. Second, to approach any of these with a `self' directing and making choices would surely be counter productive. Third, all these conditions in the end refer to ultimate realities which reside not in the conventional activity, but are conditions conditioning each other whether or not the person who walks it is aware. > So does meditation cause something correct to happen on the path, as > sutta study should do [if not totally misconstrued or misunderstood of > course] and should it thus be included as a "good" practice or not? Whatever one does and whatever views one has with regard to them, if it does not point to knowing the presently arisen dhamma, it is not the right practice. If it is looking forward to a better time, place or position, then the present will never be, for the wanting has already dictated the illusion of result. If there does arise any genuine satipatthana, it would be in spite of the practice and one would know that. So the practice may then be dropped ;-). > Again, the issue comes down to what effect meditation has on these > kandhas which much become conditioned in a way that leads to the > arising of wisdom. I think it does. I think the Buddha also thought > that it does, and that it is obvious why it does. Sitting with an > open and relaxed mind and looking at realities as they arise with > relatively little distraction, one sorts through the contents of > consciousness and begins to see the status of concepts, thoughts, > emotions, perceptions and the other kandhas which make up this > reality. One can do this with a sense of doership and try to "own" > the process, which creates an obstacle but does not totally block the > result of meditation, or one can relax the sense of doership and > simply observe, just like in daily life, but with less distraction. "They arise with relatively little distraction". Perhaps this statement can give some hint regarding the difference of understanding that comes from real satipatthana and the imagined one (lobha accompanied by wrong view). The former makes absolutely no judgment with regard to time and place, in which case what one normally labels `distraction' is just another dhamma *known*. This is not an idealist view, but a statement of fact. It shows that when one perceives a so called reality with a judgment about any other state as being a distraction or being favorable, then it is comparison at work, therefore very much in the world of conventional reality, and obviously, with a "self". > The idea that this is a contrived situation and thus is ruined as a > skillful activity makes no sense to me, any more than sitting down and > studying the components of a piano piece somehow should interfere with > the eventual playing of the song. Yes, some piano students will get > an overly technical consciousness and will never really understand > music. But others will learn the skills of music and then set them > free to function when the proper time comes. And that is what the > meditator must do, as must the Sutta student, and everyone else who > seeks liberation. The problem is not about contriving but about wrong understanding. Only with avijja and wrong view can there be an idea of a better time and place. Like I said earlier, panna doesn't mind anything. And development does not happen by a prescribed path of practice; the skill that may be developed instead, is that of performing some rite or ritual. I wish it were so easy as your piano example, sati and panna must arise with kusala cittas, whereas a pianist can basically have any kind of wrong view and identified with any religion. > Can one reach enlightenment without meditating under the right > conditions? I think so. Certainly if kammic influences are such, > seeing the light change from green to red can set off the whole noble > eightfold path and cause sudden liberation. But is meditation a great > and thus indispensable practice, prescribed by the Buddha as an > important part of the path? I think the answer is absolutely yes. You have made up your mind about FM being necessary for liberation, and so you speak about exceptions to the rule. I would like to say that the N8FP can be reached only by the practice of satipatthana, so it has no limitation with regard to time, place or activity. However, without intellectual Right View, there can never be the right practice. So sitting down to watch the breath or not, if there is no Rt. View, there is no hope. :-( Metta, Sukin 32542 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 9:52am Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi Victor, > Could you summarize your position? The Four Noble Truths. :-)(this is not part of the answer). Metta, Sukin 32543 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 10:18am Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi Sukin, Given what you wrote in the previous message to me, I did not know that you were talking about the Four Noble Truths. Could you relate what you wrote to the Four Noble Truths? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > > > Could you summarize your position? > > The Four Noble Truths. > > :-)(this is not part of the answer). > > Metta, > Sukin 32544 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 10:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts' Hi Larry and Howard, Larry, you asked me so kindly about my own story, what is meaningful to me as to feeling, and now I shall try to answer. My story also shows that we never have to go far to find dhamma in daily life. op 26-04-2004 01:32 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: .... In the end I came to the same > conclusion as you that I couldn't choose between the two alternatives. > Re: "Which is more meaningful to you, the thought, 'feeling is > impermanent' or simply attending to feeling?" >I agree with most of what you said but I have one > complaint. You didn't take the question personally, basing your answer > on your own experience now. Instead you gave your understanding of what > hypothetical people might experience. I wanted to know what is > meaningful to you, Nina, in your experience now. N: I realize more and more that I know so little about feelings, only that they change so quickly. One moment I cry, the next moment I laugh. Feelings do not obey me, and their changing shows me that they do not last and are beyond control. Thus they remind me of what the Buddha said that feelings are impermanent and non-self. But I only know this from inference, from reasoning. I realize that I take nama and rupa together as a whole. Feelings condition rupa, nama and rupa are together. How unpleasant is that throbbing sensation, and I take also that as a whole of impressions, not just tangible object one at a time, and again aversion about it which is nama. Just a whole mass of impressions. When I hear the word feeling or emotion, I think of this "whole". But we need insight to really understand feeling, to understand it as nama different from rupa. To understand rupa as rupa. Otherwise we become more and more confused. Not by reasoning, observing or focussing, only through the development of insight will panna know precisely nama and rupa. Feeling has an object, it makes sense to me that feeling accompanies citta and shares the same object as the citta. The object may be a very unpleasant story, but actually they are just some words doctor spoke to Lodewijk. In our mind we create the worst scenario. Sa~n~naa remembers the story over and over again, and it is made bigger and bigger, triggering off the most unhappy feelings, they are so overwhelming. Then also the very unhappy feeling arising on account of the objectwhich is a concept is again an object of unhappy feeling. One thing triggers of the next thing and thus life becomes more and more difficult. Here we are in the ocean of concepts, almost drowning. Then A. Sujin says, it is just thinking, and you have clinging to pleasant feeling and to persons. As Sarah quoted: It seems like a cold shower at first, but later on we see the benefit. That is why it is so important that A. Sujin speaks about seeing, visible object, hearing, sound all these daily realities. The Buddha spoke about all these realities. Why? The proliferations, papanca, are not just in mind-door processes, but they are bound to arise also in sense-door processes, after seeing, hearing, etc. We have to get at the root of them. The papa~nca: three ways of clinging to the self: with just attachment without wrong view, with wrong view, and with conceit. There is conceit when we think of my important seeing, or my important feeling. We also find our stories we think of so very important. Thus, instead of crying in a corner I also know what are the right conditions for not being overwhelmed by akusala. The association with good friends and listening that occurred in my life because of conditions, all such moments do operate in my life. As you, Larry, wrote at the end of your post of the dialogue on satipatthana: I can appreciate these words all the more now. This does not mean that I conquer unhappy feelings, I am not an anagami, non-returner. But I see the benefit of listening again and again, considering more, writing on Dhamma, which is for me also clarifying things for myself, having Dhamma talks with Lodewijk. I say to him: better have a Dhamma talk, life is too short. We know each other already almost 59 years and are married almost 52 years, but it all went like a flash. Howard would say: you can do something about it, and that is how it works in concreto. We know that conditions work, and that it is possible to develop the right conditions. I appreciate what Howard writes here, but I like to add something: H: < But I think these stronger reactive emotions amount to magnifications of earlier emotions due to papa~nca, and all these reative emotions grow out of feeling.> I think that the cause of the problems are ignorance and wrong view. We are back at D.O. Nina. 32545 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 10:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Question About Sa~n~na/Nina Hi Howard, op 20-04-2004 18:29 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > In "Cetasikas" I have read the following: > > The proximate cause of sanna is an object, in whatever way that appears. The > object can be a paramattha dhamma, i-e nama or rupa, or a concept (pannatti). > ------------------------------------- > Howard: > One question I have here is exactly what, according to Abhidhamma, is > meant by 'pannatti'/'concept'. N:It is made known (attha pannatti) or it makes known. The latter is a term, nama pannatti. See Manual of Abhidhamma, on pannatti. All such different things (mountain, land) though they do not exist in the ultimate sense, become objects of thought in the form of shadows of (ultimate) things. A term can represent what is real or what is not real. The terms nama and rupa represent what is real. See Co Exposition of the topics of Abh (p. 319) which elaborates. See Ledi Sayadaw, Pictorial Ideas and concept of continuity. This makes people believe in atta. There are many details and differentiations. H: It seems to me that most of the concepts that > arise in the mind are not single mental events, but sequences of mental > events, > and thus their experiencing must also involve a series of mindstates, each > with its own sa~n~na, and possibly a "capping" recognition at the end. (You > seem > to imply something along these lines a little further on.) N: Concepts only seem to arise in the citta, but in fact they do not arise, being not ultimates. The thinking of them arises and falls away. Thinking experiences an object, thus also a concept in a mind-door process. Sanna plays its part, because of sanna we remember different impressions and form them into a whole, a continuity. Pictorial ideas or continuity concepts are formed up. Quote: >When we recognize > someone's voice, this is actually the result of different processes of cittas > which experience objects through the sense-door and through the mind-door. > ------------------------------------- > Howard: > It is this last sentence that I was referring to in my previous > remark. N: Sound is marked by sanna when there is hearing, and then at the moment of receiving-consciousness, and at the moment of each following citta in that process, and also at the moments of citta in the succeeding mind-door process which still experience the sound (no concept yet) that has just fallen away. Afterwards, but we do not count the processes, details are remembered, a voice may be recognized, the voice of a friend who phones. It is all so fast, it seems we know immediately it is so and so's voice. Sanna does its task. The main thing is: we should know it is sanna that remembers, not me. This is more important than trying to find out how sanna works exactly in which process. That does not lead to liberation from the self idea. Nina. 32546 From: Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Question About Sa~n~na/Nina Hi, Nina - In a message dated 4/26/04 1:38:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > Concepts only seem to arise in the citta, but in fact they do not arise, > being not ultimates. The thinking of them arises and falls away. Thinking > experiences an object, thus also a concept in a mind-door process. ======================== I'm not clear on this, Nina. What does it mean for a concept, whatever that is, to not arise and yet be experienced by thinking? How can a concept be an object of consciousness when no concept ever arises? It seems to me that a collection/sequence of mind objects, largely marks produced by sa~n~na arise, and then a sa~n~nic construction produces a "culminating" marking which, when accessed, calls up that entire collection or sequence, so that there is the seeming of a single mental event which can then be thought about further. If the facts are not *something* along such lines, then I find the entire concept of 'concept' to be incoherent. 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) 32547 From: Eddie Lou Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana - "Rebirth with genetic Info." Hi, Sarah, Thanks. Unless someone(s) happen to have a ready explanation, I think, I have voiced my interest in its explanation, I may have to leave it as now for the time being. Metta, Eddie Lou --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Eddie (& Erik), > S: Only a Buddha could understand all the > complexities of kamma which > would bring about such particular results at such a > time. The more we read > about past lives in the teachings, the more we can > see how extraordinary > was the omniscience of the Buddha. With our > scientific knowledge and > knowledge of the teachings, we can just give small > indications only. > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s Erik, good to know you're around;-) > ===== 32548 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 2:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi Howard, The word 'exist' itself is neither dangerous nor misleading. The problem is not the word 'exist' but holding the cosmology "All exists" and mistaking that cosmology as what the Buddha taught. The Buddha abandoned both extremes of "All exists" and "All does not exist" and taught dependent co-arising: "And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering." Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor (and Sarah) - > [snip] > I think that 'exist' is a "dangerous" word - misleading at best. I > prefer to say that namas and rupas "arise" or "appear". From my perspective, they > are conditioned, dependent (not self-existent), fleeting, and perhaps only > momentary *events*. This is the perspective I have come to see throughout the > suttas, and I don't think Abhidhamma contradicts that, though some Abhidhammikas > and others may tend more towards a static, separate-existence perspective > similar to the ancient Sarvastivadin position. > BTW, the translation of whatever Pali word it is into "cosmology" is > confusing to me. I suppose the idea is "world view" or "weltanshauung". > > With metta, > Howard 32549 From: Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 3:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi, Victor - (Sigh) Okay, Victor. I *thought* we were rather in agreement on this one, but now I don't know where we are. I agree that the Buddha replaced "all exists" and "all does not exist" by the middle way of dependent origination. With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/26/2004 5:14:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > The word 'exist' itself is neither dangerous nor misleading. The > problem is not the word 'exist' but holding the cosmology "All > exists" and mistaking that cosmology as what the Buddha taught. > > The Buddha abandoned both extremes of "All exists" and "All does not > exist" and taught dependent co-arising: > > "And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite > condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite > condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite > condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite > condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a > requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite > condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes > craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes > clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite > condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition > comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & > death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into > play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & > suffering." > > Metta, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Victor (and Sarah) - > > > [snip] > > I think that 'exist' is a "dangerous" word - misleading at > best. I > > prefer to say that namas and rupas "arise" or "appear". From my > perspective, they > > are conditioned, dependent (not self-existent), fleeting, and > perhaps only > > momentary *events*. This is the perspective I have come to see > throughout the > > suttas, and I don't think Abhidhamma contradicts that, though some > Abhidhammikas > > and others may tend more towards a static, > separate-existence > perspective > > similar to the ancient Sarvastivadin position. > > BTW, the translation of whatever Pali word it is > into "cosmology" is > > confusing to me. I suppose the idea is "world view" > or "weltanshauung". > > > > With metta, > > Howard 32550 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 4:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi Howard and all, Dependent origination as the Buddha taught will be a common ground. Also, thanks for sharing Report on Fourth Foundation of Mindfulness Workshop. Metta, Victor All, please take some time to check out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhamma_discussion_group/ And you are cordially invited to join. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > (Sigh) Okay, Victor. I *thought* we were rather in agreement on this one, but now I don't know where we are. I agree that the Buddha replaced "all exists" and "all does not exist" by the middle way of dependent origination. > > With metta, > Howard 32551 From: Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 4:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Thanks, Victor! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/26/2004 7:10:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard and all, > > Dependent origination as the Buddha taught will be a common ground. > > Also, thanks for sharing Report on Fourth Foundation of > Mindfulness > Workshop. > > Metta, > Victor 32552 From: Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts' Hi Nina, Thanks for a very moving and personal reply. One thought that occurred: you said feeling has an object. This is what we are taught but the feeling we experience _is_ an object (of consciousness). Every dhamma we experience is only an object of consciousness. Does an object _really_ have an object, or do we just associate an object with it by inference? Also, while I have your ear I may as well ask another question I've been mulling over. Is dukkha a concept or a reality? "Unsatisfactory" doesn't sound like a reality, but if dukkha is a concept how can it have a cause? If dukkha is a reality surely it can only be unpleasant feeling. If it is feeling then it is in the wrong place in Dependent Arising. There feeling conditions desire instead of the other way around. Something is amiss here. Larry 32553 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:47pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Question Still Remains/Cooran Hi Sarah, ---------------- S: We'll be looking forward to hearing about the secrets of your success;-) Remember, no halting, no straining and no standing still when you meet any contrary currents;-) ---------------------- :-) I might regret boasting about the Cooranites' meritorious three- day epic. Won't we look silly if none of us attains? ---------------------- S: KenH, I think we all know that it would be a major upset to the routine if you were to drop the surfboard and get organised;-) ------------ My thoughts exactly, why break the habits of a lifetime? When you mentioned this, I remembered that Andrew had set me a discussion topic: "Zen and the Art of Surfing." Thanks for the reminder, I had better get on with it. So far, all I have is an alternative title: "Metta, and Why I Hate Longboarders." ------------- S: > Talking of surf rage reminds me that we talked about how there may be conditions for a lot or a little of any particular kilesa (defilements) in this lifetime, but we really don't know our accumulations from the past at all and can only know that which is conditioned now. > --------------------- Thank you, that fits in well with the new title. If you have any more gems like that, please send them off-list, double-spaced and with my name at the top. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 32554 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 9:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Very Brief Report on Fourth Foundation of Mindfulness Workshop Hi Howard, Thank you very much for your report. op 26-04-2004 18:35 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: What I gained mainly from the day was a detailed immersion in the > 4th > foundation part of the Satipatthana Sutta, resulting in my coming away with > an "insight" into the richness of the sutta that I didn't previously grasp, an > insight that makes it clear to me that this sutta cannot be studied too much! N: I agree, we studied this with Larry, co and all, but now I have a feeling I would like to go over it again. I really need to. H: the 3rd > foundation of mindfulness is the matter of noting the *roots* of mindstates - > of being aware of whether the current state is rooted in ignorance, craving, > and aversion or their opposite numbers! N: Yes, if we would not know about roots through the Abhidhamma we would know nothing about kusala citta and akusala citta. However, it depends on the sati what dhamma it is aware of. And as I repeat often: we cannot have a precise knowledge of nama, such as a root, if we do not distinguish nama from rupa. But surely, we can begin to study characteristics of lobha and dosa. I am inclined to avoid the word noting. Sati and panna do more than that. H:Another of these is a better > understanding of the part of the 4th foundation which involves minfulness of > the six > bases. This includes being aware of eye and forms, ear and sounds, etc N: The ayatanas or sensefields. They mean: association of eye and visible object so that seeing arises. There is the meeting of these three. And this we get now in our Vis 76 study, be on the look out!! I like this subject very much. So daily. The inner ayatanas and the outer ayatanas. What else is there in our life? H: (as > well as > awareness of "the fetter arising dependent on both," and also the arising of > the currently unarisen fetter, the abandoning of the already arisen fetter, > and the future non-arising of it). N: So this is like the four right efforts. The suttas speak about this also in many different ways. Actually it all comes true through satipatthana. Then the four right efforts reach fulfillment. H: What I wondered about in regard to this is > what it really *means* to be aware of eye or ear etc. (It is easy to see what > it > means to be aware of sights and sounds etc) N: Though eyesense and earsense are coarse rupas, it is difficult to be aware of them. They are necessary conditions for the sense-cognitions, but it depends on the individual of what dhammas he can be aware of. Nobody can direct the objects of awareness. And we cannot say: this is impossible. H: Before I even got to ask about > that, Dr Olendzky asked the participants to 1) close their eyes, then open > them, > and then 2) close their eyes, and turn attention to sounds. By switching > attention from sights to sounds, not only did we notice the change of object, > but > also the *mode of experience*. By making the switch, one actually and > experientially becomes aware of switching from eye door to ear door, of > changing the > *mode* of experience. N: I remember that A. Sujin said: close your eyes, then open them, is there a difference? To let us know what seeing is. Or close your eyes, what appears? Sound may appear. Then no visible object appears. Only one object at a time appears. I really enjoyed reading this and it inspired me to many good thoughts. Thank you. Nina. 32555 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 9:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mind-door process Dear Rob M But it is only one moment and so fast, no time to do anything at all. Conditions rule what follows next: natural strong dependence condition, also contiguity condition and others. But if we are not neglectful now it will add to the good accumulated inclinations and influence javana cittas in the future. Not being neglectful now is also conditioned, by association with the right friends, listening, considering. Nina. op 26-04-2004 17:16 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > On p32-33, Narada said, "After this comes > that stage of representative cognition termed the determining > consciousness (Votthapana). Discrimination is exercised at this > stage. Freewill plays its part here." For months, I wrestled with the > question, "how can there be free will when there is no self?". 32556 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 0:43am Subject: Re: mind-door process Hi Rob M, Ken O, Howard and Nina, If I seem to have dropped out of this thread it is not because I am sulking. I am simply having trouble keeping up. Also, as soon as I put my thoughts into writing, I find reasons to disagree with them. Rob M has said that sense door javana cittas are weak in kamma. I think that is generally accepted. I think it has been explained that cetana, in the form of kamma-patha (courses of action), only occurs in mind-door javana processes and only when there is a concept as object. (Corrections welcome.) Rob M has also suggested that sense door cittas are weak in emotion. I think he goes so far as to say they are rooted in moha or amoha but not in dosa or lobha. This seems an extreme position to take. (Correct me if I've got you wrong, Rob.) Ken O, Howard and I have surmised the opposite: We think that strong emotions (mula) occur mainly at the paramattha level (in cittas with dhammas as object). Even IF, as Rob believes, visible object were a meaningless dot of light, strong dosa (for example) could arise to experience it. Dosa can be conditioned by any of a large number of past (and present) dhammas – I don't think it needs a "meaningful" object. (This gives rise to more questions, which I will skip for now.) As I understand Nina's comments to Rob, she would doubt the usefulness of all our surmising. Many, intermingled, citta processes follow closely upon each other: Sense-door impressions are followed by mind-door concepts but there are more sense impressions and concepts in between. How are we to know which citta has the strongest emotion or what degree of meaning it finds in it's object? I think Nina also said that papanca can occur in sense door processes. That implies that citta can get quite preoccupied with sense objects. And it makes it all the harder to believe that visible object is just a dot of light or that audible object is just a one-billionth part of the sound of a word. Why, for example, would ditthi mistake a dot of light for self? Sorry if I have confused the issues, please continue with your conversation. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 32557 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 1:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi Jack & James, Thank you both for your further comments and questions. --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > -- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > Below is an excerpt from DN 22, the Mahasatipatthana Sutta. This is > what I > model my 4-Element Meditation on and which I applied during my visit to > the > dentist. You seem to be arguing against the Buddha's words. If you are > not > arguing with the Buddha's teachings, how am I misapplying his > instructions as stated > below? ..... S: I think James’s question is also relevant here. He wrote: > James: Where did the Buddha teach that satipatthana could not > involve any selection of object? ..... S: I read the Mahasatipatthana Sutta and all the teachings as emphasising that what we take for a self or a ‘thing’ are merely the various namas and rupas arising as a result of various conditions and not in anyone’s control. "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html “In this body, apart from the above mentioned collection, there is seen no body, man, woman or anything else. Beings engender wrong belief, in many ways, in the bare groups of things mentioned above. Therefore the men of old said: What he sees that is not (properly) seen; What is seen, that he does not (properly) see; Not seeing (properly) he is shackled clean; And he, the shackled fool, cannot get free.” ..... S: The sutta and commentary discuss in detail the development of satipatthana at all times -sitting, walking, putting on the cloak, eating and so on. What we take to be a selection of objects are shown to be a complex combination of conditioned mental and physical phenomena.. For example under ‘clear comprehension in wearing shoulder-cloak and so forth’ in the commentary, we read that ‘within there is nothing called a sould that robes itself.......Mere processes clothe a process-heap...’. So when it seems that we can select an object for the practice of satipatthana or read a sutta as suggesting that we should indeed do this, I believe it’s a misinterpretation. Whilst the various dhammas to be seen by wisdom are divided up in various ways in this and other suttas, this is for the purpose of explanation, not for giving an order for the objects to be known. By the time there is thinking and determining to concentrate or focus on a particular object, present namas and rupas have passed away already without any knowledge. In other words, such ideas of selection are based on the idea that another object would be more suitable than the presently arising one which is contrary to what we read about knowng ‘presently arisen dhammas’. ..... <...> > "There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of > itself -- > ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with > reference to > the world. ..... S: Just to stress the point here, ‘focused on the body’ is being used as a translation for kaayaanupassi which refers to the clear comprehension (sampajaana) with wisdom accompanied by other five-fold or eight-fold path factors which know the various rupas (primary and derived materiality) for what they are when they arise (‘in all circumstances - everywhere in the state of becoming, in every sluggish and unbalanced state of mind, it is desirable’). ... > [snip] > [5] "Furthermore...just as a skilled butcher or his apprentice, having > killed > a cow, would sit at a crossroads cutting it up into pieces, the monk > contemplates this very body -- however it stands, however it is disposed > -- in terms > of properties: 'In this body there is the earth property, the liquid > property, > the fire property, & the wind property.' .... S: Thank you for the quote which I always appreciate. It reminds me of the one Philip gave about the bag full of different kinds of grain referring to the 32 parts of the body. Even conceptually, they are useful metaphors to reflect on in order to appreciate there is no being amongst the rupas making up the body. Gradually, by developing pa~n~na directly, with detachment and without selection, the various elements can be known. ..... > Yes, you are right. Clinging to anything indicates attachment.(?) As I > said > above, I'm just trying to follow the Buddha's teachings. His > instructions in > the sutta above and in many other suttas didn't seem hung up on what you > seem > to be hung up on. ( I don't mean "hung up on" as negative. I think you > are > wrong but I "think" with a smile toward you.) ..... S: ;-) No problem. I think we agree on the value of developing awareness of namas and rupas and the fact that there is no self involved, merely these elements. I see a particular selection for this purpose as indicative of attachment (which of course is so very common) whilst you see it as following the teachings. Even when there is the idea of ‘I am trying’, I believe it’s fair to ask ‘who is trying?’ and whether there is any understanding at that very moment. .... > jack: I understand that we differ here. I believe I am in line with the > Buddha's teachings. I think he was a teacher realizing that his students > did not > have perfect vision or perfect attention. Some times, he would suggest > learning > by paying attention to the breath. At other times, he would suggest > learning > by paying attention to body sensations. Etc. > ....[snip] ... S: I agree that we read different dhammas stressed in different circumstances, just as we do in our discussions here. But whatever we read should be understood in the light of anatta and conditioned dhammas and the fact that only the presently appearing dhamma can ever be known. ‘clearly comprehending - Discerning rightly, entirely and equally [sammaa samantato sama~nca pajaananto].’ I don’t take it to be referring to any particular selection of objects. .... ,> jack: As I said above, the Buddha didn't just present examples of > perfect > understanding and practice. He gave practical instructions on many > levels of > difficulty on how to learn the dhamma as we go through our day. This > meant > selecting and concentrating at times. .... S: Let me ask you whether at this moment it really is possible to select an object - say to experience hardness without thinking or seeing or hearing or attachment or doubt for example. And how would this be more beneficial to the development of satipatthana than the awareness of presently arising thinking or doubt or a wish to focus? James, this post is already longer than intended, so just a couple of quick further comments to your questions too: ..... --- buddhatrue wrote: > James: I have practiced Tai Chi, Qi Gong, and Yoga and I know that > they they are different than Buddhist meditation (which I have also > practiced). However, I'm not sure that your question is a genuine > question of inquiry, or if it is a leading question which implies > that they are not different. Do you genuinely not know the > differences? .... S: It was a genuine question expressed unclearly by me. I’m familiar with these practices and their differences. My question concerned how the selection of sensations or elements and focussing on these is any less concerned with an idea of self in the so-called Buddhist meditation practices. Other teachings can tell us about four elements, awareness of ‘postures’ and so on. .... > James: Where did the Buddha teach that satipatthana could not > involve any selection of object? .... S: I’d like to point you to the section under the 5 Aggregates of Clinging or the 6 Internal and the 6 External Sense-bases or the 4 Noble Truths. Clearly all dhammas are included to be known without any mention of special selection. How can an understanding of anatta and conditions include any idea about selection of an object? Metta, Sarah p.s. thank you James for raising the interesting point from the M.77. I agreed with Jack’s comments on this but also don’t have any commentary notes. Earlier in the sutta it also discusses briefly the Four Foundations of Mindfulness and development of satipatthana to arahantship, ‘having put away covetousness and grief for the world’. I understand the good sight which sees the objects clearly in the lake is a metaphor for the insight and development of satipatthana which clearly sees whatever is appearing at this moment which by its development leads to the ‘deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the taints.’ ===== 32558 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 2:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Dear Eznir, I’m appreciating the detailed consideration in your posts very much. --- Eznir wrote: > eznir: > False. There are a multitude of mind-door processes occurring *for > the purposes* of cognizing, and not *before* cognizing. *And then* > *for the purpose* of naming, and not *before* naming. By which time > there is *recognizing*. .... S: I’m not sure if I’m with you here. Let’s say now that there is the seeing of the visible object as we speak, followed by many more mind-door and eye-door (and other sense-door) processes. There is the experiencing (?cognizing) of the object, whether it be reality or concept at each instant. I’m not sure we can say that this experiencing is necessarily for any purpose of naming or recognizing. All these cittas which experience their objects just arise and cease by conditions, performing their various functions. While sa~n~na marks (or recognizes) its object at each instant, by conditions only some mind-door processes are involved with any naming or recognizing as we think of the term. All processes are preceded by other ones, whether they are involved with any naming or not. .... > eznir: > The computer in front of you is fabricated(in both sense of the word, > as in assembled and sankharic formations(conditioned thing) or > sankhata dhamma)? In fact, long before it came to be there it would > have been a mere thought in the mind of the person who invented it, > at which time it was a mere concept. ... S: The computer is only ever a concept. When we talk about the computer in front of us, it is visible object which is seen, hardness which is touched etc. Just like the body only consists of various rupas - elements, so too the computer. So while the elements are conditioned, the ‘computer’ is merely thought about in the mind. When the texts refer to sankharic formations in D.O., these refer to kusala and akusala kamma (see Nyantiloka dict under sankhara), not to computers or other ‘things’. Or when referrring to sankhara or sankhata dhammas, all conditioned dhammas are included, but again not concepts or computers that don’t arise and fall or have the characteristics of dukkha or anatta either. ...... > Imagine the amount of javana cittas that would have been rolling in > his mind then, sleepless nights thinking about it, till finally it > materialized. In fact, everything that has been invented would just > have been the same, a figment of the imagination of some genius(or > idiot :-))! All things are mere sankharas in the mind. .... S: In fact, even when it ‘materialized’, still only elements in various combinations. The computer remains a concept or figment of his imagination;-). Again, we can’t use ‘sankharas’ to refer to these concepts. I think it’s the translation of fabrications which may lead to confusions. .... > S: in an ultimate sense there is no one in the NAG to do or not do > anything;-) > > eznir: > Well said! But how do we realize this without concepts! .... S: No, there has to be conceptual knowledge in the first place. Clear intellectual understanding is very important as Sukin has been stressing -pariyatti. I agree with all your comments on the importance of listening, wise considering and so on. In fact we have a lot of good posts under the heading of ‘listening, considering.....’ in U.P. with plenty of sutta details. I also agreed with your comments on language. This morning I listened to a tape in which K.Sujin was stressing that just as we have no idea what language we used in our last life, we’ll have no idea what language or terms we used in this life. In other words, in the end, the language, the terms and labels are of no importance. They are mere conduits to help point out the truths to be known. So we need to use concepts, but insight is always of realities, not concepts. Please let me know if there is still any confusion here. I really enjoy your comments. .... > Nevertheless, a non-active approach to the Dhamma is possible, > subject to a suitable environment with the limitation given above and > lots of *paramis* to your credit! But time is limited! ..... S: I think that what is considered ‘active’ or ‘non-active’ approach to Dhamma at this moment is conditioned already. The ‘suitable environment’ or ‘gocara’ (resort) that is suitable for sati-sampaja~n~na (clear comprehension) is the presently appearing nama or rupa. As you say, ‘time is limited’ and any idea of waiting for other objects or conditions is wasting time. Even thinking there have to be lots of paramis first or finding any other limitations suggest an idea that the present object is unsuitable in some way. ... > eznir: > If you got the gist then you wouldn't conclude by saying "we need to > be clear on the context, I think". Because that is the very point > that I was addressing in that post! .... S: OK, let’s put it this way - I followed your gist but I think we understand sankhara in its various contexts differently as indicated in this post too. I look forward to your further comments and hope I haven’t exhausted you this time;-) Metta, Sarah ===== 32559 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] It's so easy ? Dear Lodewijk & Nina, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > As to satipatthana, Lodewijk did not agree that no terms are needed. > When > one explains the terms are necessary, he said. Of course, it depends on > the > person's level of understanding. .... S: As I just wrote to Eznir, we need to use words and terms to clarify our meaning, so I agree with you here. The point being stressed, however, was that it doesn’t matter what words we use if they help point to the understanding of dhammas. When we leave this life, all the words will be forgotten, but the understanding of these dhammas will continue to be ‘accumulated’. With regard to satipatthana, I think that the more understanding there is of the objects to be known (the namas and rupas as distinct from concepts), the more conditions there are for sati and pa~n~naa to develop without any concern about the terms. This is why I think the emphasis has to be on seeing, visible object, mental states and so on from the very beginning. If newcomers don’t hear this, they’ll continue to look at the development of say the paramis or brahma viharas with an idea of self or a subtle attachment to having more kusala states rather than detachment from whatever is conditioned. I agree with Nina that ‘the truth can be brought gently,and adapted to the level of understanding and inclinations of persons. If we don’t do this, many people will take the Abhidhamma amiss. They will not get the message.’ Of course this also depends on our skill and knowledge too. Jon mentioned that sometimes hearing the truth may be a condition for dosa initially, but on reflection the reminders may be very precious. In a sutta Jeff quoted, I found the following passage interesting in this regard: Jeff >Kinti Sutta, MN 103 <..> 4. "While you are training in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, two bhikkhus might make different assertions about the higher dhamma. 5. "Now if you should think thus: 'These venerable ones differ about the meaning (or) the phrasing, then whichever bhikkhu you think is the more reasonable should be approached and addressed thus: 'The venerable ones differ about the meaning (or) the phrasing. The venerable ones should know that it is for this reason that there is a difference about the meaning or phrasing; let them not fall into a dispute'...So what has been wrongly grasped should be borne in mind as wrongly grasped...What is Dhamma and what is Discipline should be expounded. 10. "Now, bhikkhus, you should not hurry to reprove him; rather, the person should be examined thus: 'I shall not be troubled and the other person will not be hurt; for the other person is not given to anger and resentment, he is not firmly attached to his views and he relinquishes easily, and I can make that person emerge from unwholesomeness and establish him in wholesomeness.' If such occurs to you bhikkhus, it is proper to speak. 13. "Then it may occur to you, bhikkhus, 'I shall be troubled and the other person will be hurt; for the other person is given to anger and resentment, and he is firmly attached to his views and he relinquishes with difficulty, yet I can make that person emerge from the unwholesome and establish him in the wholesome. It is a mere trifle that I shall be troubles and the other person hurt, but it is a much greater thing that I can make that person emerge from the unwholesome and establish him in the wholesome.' If such occurs to you, bhikkhus, it is proper to speak. 14. "Then it may occur to you, bhikkhus: 'I shall be troubled and the other person will be hurt; for the other person is given to anger and resentment, and he is firmly attached to his view and he relinquishes with difficulty; and I cannot make that person emerge from the unwholesome and establish him in the wholesome.' One should not underrate equanimity towards such a person. (Majjhima Nikaya trans. Bhikkhus Nanamoli & Bodhi, Wisdom, 1995) ***** Metta, Sarah p.s Nina, unless I use quote marks when referring to discussions with K.Sujin, I’m merely relying on what I recollect (like on the disease comments) and adding my own comments. I have a few others like on the unclassifiable objects, planes, your other qus, but never enough time;-) ================ 32560 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:40am Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi Victor, > Given what you wrote in the previous message to me, I did not know > that you were talking about the Four Noble Truths. Could you relate > what you wrote to the Four Noble Truths? Immediately after sending off the post, I was hoping that you wouldn't ask me this question. ;-) Imagine, I could not even recall clearly at the time, the post of which you asked me to summarize the content! And yet, just so that I can match your own short statements, I made a very *big* statement which I now have to clarify. :-( I have a hard time as it is, understanding the theory of the 4NT, and now I have to relate it to what I said!!? Could I retract my statement and just follow you initial request, even though the reason I reacted the way I did was precisely because I didn't think it was fair to be asked to do such a thing. After all, I did expend some energy in writing that one. :-/ Of course, I do tend to go on and on, so I can't blame you if you can't follow. O.K. since I believe that whatever I state with regard to Dhamma, must in the end have some direct relevance to the 4NT, I will try to do both, but don't blame me if I am quite vague, I can't usually make any clear cut connection between different aspects of the Teachings. You said: > > As far as I see, the "NAGs" fall into the first sectarian guild: > > > > "There are priests & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold > > this view: 'Whatever a person experiences -- pleasant, painful, or > > neither pleasant nor painful -- that is all caused by what was done > > in the past.' > > > > For the "NAGs", there is no desire, no effort [at the > > thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' > > They can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done. My reply was to show you basically, that the NAGs were in the ultimate sense, very much engaged in practices which are motivated by the understanding of the danger in akusala and the benefit of kusala. These practices however did not in principle involve any `deliberate doing'. This is because intellectual understanding of the Buddha's teachings and from personal observation has shown that since all dhammas are conditioned in complex ways, one cannot rely on any apparent `intention' for sati to arise. The `wanting' itself clouds the perception and therefore cannot be said to provide any correct interpretation of experiences. And so when this is understood, then dhammas can be known little by little, without any personal `ambition to understand' coming in the way to distort things. Imagine Victor, can you understand your accumulations if always there is a movement away from this moment into an idealized environment? How can one's kilesas be known, if one is always seeking a `controlled setting'? You may argue that there are plenty of opportunities to observe one's own kilesas even in a controlled setting? Yes it can, as it does under *any* circumstance. But nasty is `self view', this being so much a part of our accumulations, that it is always popping its head and deluding us. When the `doing' is in the name of dhamma, then it is even harder to recognize. It is somewhat like `missionary' feeding on our sense of remorse and guilt. Only in this case, it is also telling us how good and right we are. In the end we may end up observing only so much of our experiences, as wrong view dictate. :-/ Does this sound like a deadlock and so may push certain people further away into their safe environment? Perhaps, but it does not have to be. If one saw that one's doing "now" is conditioned by avijja and tanha, then why would one want to take that path? And this is already `avoiding akusala' isn't it? ;-) So each time we can recognize the self at work and avoid falling prey to its akusala ways, then we are indeed accumulating lots of kusala, no? Now to the 4NT: To acknowledge the danger in akusala is to admit the 2nd Noble Truth, and this includes `wanting' in all its aspects. To recognize the importance of the practice of Satipatthana is to acknowledge that the Eightfold Path is the only way to liberation and this is the 4th Noble Truth. To admitting the limitation in all conditioned dhammas is to be seeing safety only in the unconditioned. So simultaneously one is both admitting to the 1st and the 3rd Truths. Is anything I said in that other post, contradicting this? Hope this is not too long. Metta, Sukin. 32561 From: Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 0:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mind-door process Hi, Ken (and Rob M, and Ken O, and Nina) - In a message dated 4/27/04 3:43:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Rob M has also suggested that sense door cittas are weak in > emotion. I think he goes so far as to say they are rooted in moha > or amoha but not in dosa or lobha. This seems an extreme position > to take. (Correct me if I've got you wrong, Rob.) > > Ken O, Howard and I have surmised the opposite: We think that strong > emotions (mula) occur mainly at the paramattha level (in cittas with > dhammas as object). > > ================================ I'm not certain that this is exactly what I implied. What I said was the following: _______________________ "... it seems to me that paramattha dhammas are all that exist, and hence all that we (ultimately) react to (though we identify groupings of these and *think* that we are reacting to them). Actually, what we react to are feelings, which, after the fact, we associate with particular conventional objects. Until feeling occurs, there isn't even recognition of a dhamma. The Buddha stated the process as follows (with eye-door as example): > "Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of > the three is contact. With contact as condition there is feeling. What one > feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one thinks about. What one > thinks about, that one mentally proliferates. With what one has mentally > proliferated as the source, perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation > beset a person with respect to past, future, and present forms cognizable > through the eye." It does seem, and here I agree with you, Rob, that it is only after this subsequent mental proliferation that percepts and concepts (mental groupings) elicit the strongest reactive emotions. But I think these stronger reactive emotions amount to magnifications of earlier emotions due to papa~nca, and all these reative emotions grow out of feeling. --------------------------------------------- So, my points were the following: 1) The only experiential events are paramattha dhammas. 2) Emotional reactions, reactions of desire or aversion, always arise in response to feelings following upon contact through a sense door - any sense door. The object of such contact is the only sort of actual object there can be, a paramattha dhamma, whether namic or rupic. Every reaction of tanha *always* follows from feeling, which in turn follows from contact with a paramatt hic object. 3) When it seems to us that craving or aversion is directed towards "a concept", what is actually happening is that craving or aversion is building along a sequence of mindstates, a sequence which consists of the repetition of a single subsequence of states (or several closely related subsequences each) capped by a culminating sa~n~nic marking which identifies the entire subsequence as a single mental event. But the only actual objects involved in individual mindstates are paramatthic. 4) I then *agreed* with Rob M that the most powerful cases of emotional reaction occur in "concept sequences" as discussed above in (3), and *especially* in such concept sequences as are involved with mental proliferation (involving mind-door cittas) as in: "What one perceives, that one *thinks about* [emphasis mine]. What one thinks about, that one mentally proliferates. With w hat one has mentally proliferated as the source, perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation beset a person with respect to past, future, and present forms cognizable through the eye [or other sense door]". 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) 32562 From: Htoo Naing Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 8:23am Subject: Seeing and seeing of seeing ( 04 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, When suffering is realised, the source of suffering will be realised. As suffering exists, there does exist cessation of suffering. But there is a bridge between suffering and non-suffering. This bridge is the Path. It is Noble Eightfold Path ( NEP ). When suffering is realised, the source is also realised and cessation is also realised. And the Path leading to cessation is also realised. Understanding that there is suffering, there is cause of suffering, there is cessation of suffering, and there is a path leading to cessation of suffering is right understanding. There are thoughts that direct to liberation from sensual things, thoughts that are free from ill-will, and thoughts that are free from cruelty are right thought. There is right speech. Not telling lie, not telling divisive speech, not telling harsh speech, and not telling non-fruit bearing speech is right speech. There is right action. Not killing any living beings, not stealing, and not doing wrongful indulgence in sensual pleasure are all good actions. This is right action. There is right livelihood. Not living on wrong livelihood is right livelihood. Living on livelihood not result from wrong speech or wrong action is right livelihood. There is right effort. The effort which is produced to prevent unwholesome states which has not yet arisen, which is produced to abandon unwholesome states which have arisen, which is produced to attain wholesome states which has not yet arisen, and which is produced to maintain wholesome states which have arisen, is right effort. There is right mindfulness. Mindfulness which takes body again and again, which takes feelings again and again, which takes mind states again and again, and which takes dhamma again and again is right mindfulness. There is right concentration. When well concentrated, there is a state that is being detached from sensual thoughts, cruel thoughts or aversive thoughts, wandering thoughts and repenting thoughts, sluggish inactive thoughts, and suspicious thoughts and illusive thoughts or delusive thoughts. This is right concentration. This concentration is driven by initial application and sustained application. When these two are left, there is a good concentration with rapture and tranquility. When rapture is released, there is tranquility left. When tranquility is released there is only equanimity. This is right concentration. This is the right Path leading to cessation of suffering. This is dhamma and the meditator perceives it again and again and realised that this dhamma is not of him or his. There is nothing to be attached. This is anatta. May all beings be free from suffering and be on the right Path. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htootintnaing@y... 32563 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 10:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: to old_dead_wood, present moment, no 3 Dear Dhamma friend old_dead_wood, My conversation with Lodewijk was meant as an illustration that there is a different type of citta at each moment, and that it falls away to be succeeded by the next one. Seeing does not last, it falls away and shortly afterwards hearing arises, and this does not last either. But there has to be a citta at each moment, otherwise you would not stay alive. Our whole life is a long series of different cittas and nobody can stop this series of cittas, they go on and on. Each citta that falls away is a condition for the arising of the following citta. Thus, there is momentary death of each citta, and so long as there are conditions it is succeeded by the next citta. This happens also at the last moment of this life. The last citta, the dying-consciousness, falls away to be succeeded by the next citta, which is the rebirth-consciousness of the following life. We may reason about this, and it may not be very convincing. However, when insight is developed the present citta is understood more and more precisely, and also its arising and falling away. Then there will not be any doubt that the dying-consciousness will be succeeded by the rebirth-consciousness of the next life. It will be clear that this is in fact not different from what occurs at this moment. Nina. 32564 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 10:17am Subject: dialogue with Lodewijk, no 1 Dear All, I shall relate now the Dhamma conversations I had with Lodewijk during our hiking days. We went through the satipatthana sutta, the four applications of mindfulness. I did not bring any books (too heavy to carry), thus, this is not a thorough study of the text with commentaries. I only highlighted some points in order to make them relevant to daily life and to solve some problems Lodewijk had with the four appications of mindfulness. In the evening I talked my head off on the loathsomeness of the body while we are eating the finest food in the hotel. Nothing in daily life needs to distract us. Mindfulness of the Body begins with mindfulness of breathing. Lodewijk asked me whether this does not show that calm with this subject is necessary. I explained that those who have accumulations for samatha can develop it up to the stage of jhana, but that they have to penetrate with insight the jhana-factors and the jhanacittas. The whole sutta points to insight. It is repeated that the person who develops mindfulness of breath has to contemplate origination dhammas and dissolution dhammas in the body. This points to insight. He has to realize conditions, both with regard to the present moment and also with regard to the Dependent Origination. We talked about it that generally people think of breathing while sitting and concentrating, but that also now we are breathing in and out. We are forgetful of this. Rupas may appear that are tangible object: hardness, softness, heat, cold, motion and pressure. We cling to breath, we cannot live without it, and we take it for granted that we are breathing day in day out. Reading about mindfulness of breath can bring us back to this very moment. We spoke about the postures of going, standing, sitting and lying down, about clear comprehension in all one's actions. It does not mean that this is knowing what one is doing, but we should realize that there are only elements, nama and rupa, arising because of conditions. When mindfulness of the body is applied, it does not mean that there is no awareness of nama. Nama and rupa are together all the time and their difference should be discerned by panna. All the sections in the satipatthanasutta give us examples of different situations that can remind us of dhamma now. Everything that appears is dhamma now. While we were talking about this, we were eating, but this is not distracting. The monks had to be aware while eating, chewing, talking we read in the sutta. We also spoke about the cemetery contemplations, and this reminds us of recollection of death. I said to Lodewijk that there are four meditations for every occasion as explained in the subcommentary: mindfulness of death, mindfulness of the loathsomeness of the body, metta and recollection of the Buddha. These subjects can be contemplated often. Recollection of death can bring us back to this very moment when there is momentary death of citta, the citta that arises has to fall away. The loathsomeness of the body is not difficult to contemplate, it is with us all the time. We read about hairs of the head, of the body, nails, teeth, skin etc. In fact these are only rupa elements and they do not belong to us. We found that these four meditations are connected with the four applications of mindfulness all the time. Metta is a cetasika accompanying kusala citta. It is understanding of the citta that should be stressed, otherwise we may take attachment for pure metta. Thus, this falls under contemplation of citta, the third application of mindfulness. We see that this is very necessary. Respect for the Buddha's excellent qualities can pervade all our contemplations. This repect can arise when talking on Dhamma and when being mindful of realities, that is the highest respect we can pay him. As Lodewijk said: "This is Abhidhamma, knowing oneself truthfully." He also said: "The Abhidhamma brings everything down to basic everyday life. Without the Abhidhamma do cannot understabnd the suttas." Nina. 32565 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 10:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Recognizing_the_Dhamma_-_7._Persistence_( §_7.2,_§_7.3) Dear Sarah, This is an inspiring Dhs text quoted by Dan. When it accompanies right understanding of the eightfold Path it is amazing what it can do. These are the qualities of a hero. Good to be reminded. Nina. op 26-04-2004 10:51 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > It is > interesting to read how it differs from the viriya cetasika arising with > the sense-sphere kusala cittas: [Dhs. 13] "What at that time is the > faculty of effort/energy/endeavor? That which is mental endeavor > (viriyarhambo), riddance of lethargy, exerting harder and harder, > endeavoring higher and higher, striving, painstaking zeal, utmost > exertion, steadfastness, resoluteness, unfaltering endeavor, having > sustained desire (chanda) to strive, not relinquishing the task, > discharging the task well, effort (viriya) as the faculty of effort, power > of effort, right effort -- this at that time is the faculty of endeavor." 32566 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 10:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Question About Sa~n~na/Nina Hi, Howard, op 26-04-2004 21:32 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > >> Concepts only seem to arise in the citta, but in fact they do not arise, >> being not ultimates. The thinking of them arises and falls away. Thinking >> experiences an object, thus also a concept in a mind-door process. > ======================== > I'm not clear on this, Nina. What does it mean for a concept, whatever > that is, to not arise and yet be experienced by thinking? How can a concept > be an object of consciousness when no concept ever arises? N: It can. Sanna can dig up an image of the past, say your childhood, the house where you grew up, etc. The thinking citta arises, not this image, but it constructs such an image. Citta is very clever, a magician as you said. There are many types of concepts and different approaches can be used. I use another one today. Take the Conditional Relations by U Narada. He has many helpful explanations. He uses material from commentaries, but does not always mention the sources. First p. 10: under object-condition; about the conditioning dhammas Thus, for concept there is no past, present or future, it cannot arise and fall away, like the five khandhas. Now about presence-condiiton, first p. 240: 'Presence' here means 'presence after having arisen." Now to p. 74. N: Because of wrong view, not seeing paramattha dhammas as they are, as impermanent, dukkha and anatta, we have a wrong interpretation of what is real. We take mere stories we are spinning out, illusions, for real. A distorted view, and it is dangerous if we do not know that it is distorted. I continue: He then uses a simile of images of a story projected on a screen, He explains that nama and rupa of presence condition are collectively taken as a unit for the purpose of communication: I, self, being, person, etc. Repeated use of these words H: It seems to me that a collection/sequence of mind objects, largely > marks produced by sa~n~na arise, and then a sa~n~nic construction produces a > "culminating" marking which, when accessed, calls up that entire collection or > sequence, so that there is the seeming of a single mental event which can then > be > thought about further. N: I think that there are many cittas which sanna occurring, which arise and fall away, not the concept that can be their object. Thus, in a sense we can say that concepts are derived from these many moments of spinning out stories or viewing images, shape and form. If concept is seen as arising and falling away, it would be the same as paramattha dhamma, and then awareness of paramattha dhammas loses its sense. Satipatthana becomes meaningless. I do not know whether you find U Narada helpful here. Perhaps we should talk more on concepts and the objects of satipatthana. Nina. 32567 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 10:17am Subject: Vis. XIV, 76 and Tiika Intro to Vis. 76. Also in some of the sutta texts we read about sense-cognitions as fourfold: what is seen, heard, sensed (muta) and cognized through the mind-door. Sensed includes the experience of odour, of flavour and of tangible object. The Vis gives the reason, stating: Contiguous, in Pali sampatta, means: reached. The Atthasalini (II, 314, p. 411) explains: It is a different matter in the case of odours, flavours, and tangible object. That is why their experience is taken separately by using the term muta, sensed. It reminds us of the direct contact of these objects with the relevant sense-organs. Thus, this is a fourfold classification of the experience of objects through the six doors, of the aayatanas. The Vis. stresses that the different elements are coming together at the right time so that there can be the experience of objects. We read about a classification of what occurs now, all the time. They exhibit their own characteristics and are gone before one can do anything about them. The word objective field is a translation of the Pali: visaya. This means sphere or field, and it is another term for object, aaramma.na. Vis. 76. Again, it is of four kinds as seen, etc., as concrete matter, etc., and as the physical basis tetrads, and so on. Herein, the visible-data base is 'seen' because it is the objective field of seeing. The sound base is 'heard' because it is the objective field of hearing. The three, that is to say, odours, flavours, and tangible data, are 'sensed' (lit. contacted) because they are the objective fields of faculties that take contiguous [objective fields]. The rest are 'cognized' because they are the objective field of consciousness (cognition) only. So firstly it is of four kinds according to the seen, etc., tetrad. (32) Pali: 76. puna di.t.thaadiruuparuupaadivatthaadicatukkavasena catubbidha.m. tattha ruupaayatana.m di.t.tha.m naama dassanavisayattaa, saddaayatana.m suta.m naama savanavisayattaa, gandharasapho.t.thabbattaya.m muta.m naama sampattagaahakaindriyavisayattaa, sesa.m vi~n~naata.m naama vi~n~naa.nasseva visayattaati eva.m taava di.t.thaadicatukkavasena catubbidha.m. *** Tiika (all English below): 76. Di.t.thaadicatukkavasena, ruuparuupaadicatukkavasena, vatthaadicatukkavasenaati paa.tekka.m catukkasaddo yojetabbo. The word fourfold should be applied severally with regard to the seen etc., with regard to concrete matter (rupa-rupa) etc., and with regard to the physical bases *. .. Dassanavisayattaati cakkhuvi~n~naa.navi~n~neyyattaa. As to the expression, the objective field of seeing, this means it is to be seen by seeing-consciousness. Savanavisayattaati sotavi~n~naa.navi~n~neyyattaa. As to the expression, the objective field of hearing, this means it is to be heard by hearing-consciousness. Gandharasapho.t.thabbattayanti gandho raso pho.t.thabbanti eta.m taya.m. As to the expression, the three, that is to say, odours, flavours, and tangible data, these are these three (that are sensed). Muta.m naama mutvaa patvaa gahetabbato. Tenaaha ³sampattaggaahaka-indriyavisayattaa²ti. They are called sensed, because they are apprehended after they have been sensed and reached (the sensebase). Therefore he said, ³because they are the objective fields of faculties that take contiguous [objective fields]² ** **** English: The word fourfold should be applied severally with regard to the seen etc., with regard to concrete matter (rupa-rupa) etc., and with regard to the physical bases *. ... As to the expression, the objective field of seeing, this means, it is to be seen by seeing-consciousness. As to the expression, the objective field of hearing, this means, it is to be heard by hearing-consciousness. As to the expression, the three, that is to say, odours, flavours, and tangible data, these are these three (that are sensed). They are called sensed, because they are apprehended after they have been sensed and reached (the sensebase). Therefore he said, ³because they are the objective fields of faculties that take contiguous [objective fields]² ** ________ * There is a grouping of four tetrads: The first is: what is seen, heard, sensed and cognized. The second, third and fourth tetrads are explained in the following paragraphs. ** See the explanation above, in the Intro. The Tiika text contiues in footnote 32: note 32. ' "Sensed (muta)" means apprehendable by sensing (mutvaa), by reaching; hence he said "because they are the objective fields of faculties that take contiguous [objective fields]" . But what is it that is called a tangible datum? It is the three elements, earth, heat, and air. But why is the water element not included here? Is not cold apprehended by touching; and that is the water element? Certainly it is apprehended but it is not the water element. What is it then? It is just the fire element. For there is the sensation (buddhi) of cold when heat is sluggish. N: The translation of sensation is wrong. We have to read vuddhi for buddhi, b and v are interchangeble. Vuddhi means increase. The text has: siitabuddhi, an increase of cold, when heat is sluggish or slight (manda). Text: There is no quality that is called cold; there is only the assumption (abhimaana) of coldness due to the sluggishness of the state of heat. How is it to be known? Because of the unreliability of the sensation of cold, like "beyond and not beyond". For in hot weather, while those who stand in the sun and go into the shade have the sensation of cold, yet those who go to the same place from an underground cave have the sensation of heat. N: Cold and heat are relative notions as is demonstrated. They are still the element of heat or fire. Text: And if coldness were the water element it would be found in a single group (kalaapa) along with heat; but it is not so found. That is why it may be known that coldness is not the water element. N: Cold is not taken as an additional great Element. There are only four great Elements. In the following sentences different contrarious opinions at that time are refuted. Text: And that is conclusive (uttara) for those who agree to the inseparable existence of the primary elements; and it is conclusive too even for those who do not agree because it is disproved by associate existence through seeing the functions of the four primaries in a single group. N: The element of Earth is a foundation four the other elements, the element of Water has the function of cohesion, holding the other elements together, the function of the Element of Fire is maturing or maintaining, the function of the Element of Wind or motion is to causing motion, oscillation or propelling. There is no place for an additional great Element such as cold. Text: It is conclusive too for those who say that coldness is the characteristic of the air element; for if coldness were the air element, coldness would be found in a single group along with heat, and it is not so found. That is why it may be known that coldness is not the air element either. But those who hold the opinion that fluidity (dravataa) is the water element and that that is apprehended by touching should be told: "That fluidity is touched is merely the venerable ones' assumption as is the case with shape". For this is said by the Ancients: "Three elements coexisting with fluidity together form what constitutes a tangible; that 'I succeed in touching this fluidity' is a common misconception in the world. And as a man who touches elements, and apprehends a shape then with his mind, fancies 'I really have been touching shape', so too fluidity is recognized" ' (Pm. 459). N: Only three elements are tangible object. Even as one does not touch visible object, in the same way one does not touch fluidity or the element of water. Someone who believes that he can touch water is only thinking of a concept. We should verify this in touching water without thinking about it. **** At the end of this Tiika text (English below): Sesanti yathaavutta.m ruupaadisattavidha.m ruupa.m .thapetvaa avasi.t.tha.m ekaviisatividha.m ruupa.m. As is said, he declares visible object and so on as sevenfold *, and the remaining materiality are twentyone kinds of materiality. Vi~n~naa.nassevaati manovi~n~naa.nasseva. As to the expression, (they are the objective field ) of consciousness only, this means, only of mind-consciousness **. Avadhaara.nena ruupaayatanaadiinampi manovi~n~naa.navi~n~neyyatte niyamaabhaavato na vi~n~naataruupataati sa"nkaraabhaava.m dasseti. By stressing this, although colour etc. are to be known by mind-consciousness too, he keeps the rupas that are not experienced exclusively through the mind-door separate (not mixing them with the others). ***** English: As is said, he declares visible object and so on as sevenfold *, and the remaining materiality are twentyone kinds of materiality. As to the expression, (they are the objective field ) of consciousness only, this means, only of mind-consciousness **. By stressing this, although colour etc. are to be known by mind-consciousness too, he keeps the rupas that are not experienced exclusively through the mind-door separate (not mixing them with the others). _______ * The seven rupas that appear all the time: the three that are tangible object, and colour, sound, odour and flavour. They are experienced through their relevant sense-doors. Together with the twentyone remaining rupas, there are twentyeight rupas in all. ** The twentyone remaining rupas are experienced only through the mind-door. The seven rupas mentioned above are experienced each through the relevant sense-door and in the succeeding mind-door process through the mind-door. **** Nina. 32568 From: Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 6:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Question About Sa~n~na/Nina Hi, Nina - In a message dated 4/27/04 1:18:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > Hi, Howard, > op 26-04-2004 21:32 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > > > >>Concepts only seem to arise in the citta, but in fact they do not arise, > >>being not ultimates. The thinking of them arises and falls away. Thinking > >>experiences an object, thus also a concept in a mind-door process. > >======================== > >I'm not clear on this, Nina. What does it mean for a concept, whatever > >that is, to not arise and yet be experienced by thinking? How can a concept > >be an object of consciousness when no concept ever arises? > N: It can. Sanna can dig up an image of the past, say your childhood, the > house where you grew up, etc. The thinking citta arises, not this image, but > it constructs such an image. Citta is very clever, a magician as you said. > There are many types of concepts and different approaches can be used. I use > another one today. Take the Conditional Relations by U Narada. He has many > helpful explanations. He uses material from commentaries, but does not > always mention the sources. > First p. 10: under object-condition; about the conditioning dhammas these latter objects, materiality, consciousness and mental factors are > either of the past, present or future but Nibbaana and concept are > time-freed.> > Thus, for concept there is no past, present or future, it cannot arise and > fall away, like the five khandhas. > Now about presence-condiiton, first p. 240: 'Presence' here means 'presence > after having arisen." > Now to p. 74. to carry out their respective functions and are present at every moment, are > related to one another by presence condition. But these states are not > permanent for they cease soon after they have arisen. However, the > successive arisings and ceasings take place so rapidly that they appear to > be present all the time. Thus they give rise to the concepts of continuity, > collection, form and action in the mind. As a consquence, various forms, > images and the drama of life are visualised in the mind..> > N: Because of wrong view, not seeing paramattha dhammas as they are, as > impermanent, dukkha and anatta, we have a wrong interpretation of what is > real. We take mere stories we are spinning out, illusions, for real. A > distorted view, and it is dangerous if we do not know that it is distorted. > I continue: > not independent of or outside the mind as are the momentary material and > mental states from which they are derived. > > He then uses a simile of images of a story projected on a screen, watches the momentarily present shadows that are projected in rapid > succession on that screen.> > He explains that nama and rupa of presence condition are collectively taken > as a unit for the purpose of communication: I, self, being, person, etc. > Repeated use of these words brought about deep attachment to that view.> > > H: It seems to me that a collection/sequence of mind objects, largely > >marks produced by sa~n~na arise, and then a sa~n~nic construction produces > a > >"culminating" marking which, when accessed, calls up that entire collection > or > >sequence, so that there is the seeming of a single mental event which can > then > >be > >thought about further. > N: I think that there are many cittas which sanna occurring, which arise and > fall away, not the concept that can be their object. Thus, in a sense we can > say that concepts are derived from these many moments of spinning out > stories or viewing images, shape and form. > If concept is seen as arising and falling away, it would be the same as > paramattha dhamma, and then awareness of paramattha dhammas loses its sense. > Satipatthana becomes meaningless. > I do not know whether you find U Narada helpful here. > Perhaps we should talk more on concepts and the objects of satipatthana. > Nina. > > ======================== Thank you for the foregoing. I'm not, however, certain whether we view this matter in the same way or differently. I do not think that concepts ever arise. Only paramathha dhammas arise (such as the recalled childhood image), whole sequences of them, including sa~n~nic markings (which would be mind objects), and we *say* that a concept arose. 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) 32569 From: Philip Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 0:30pm Subject: Re: dialogue with Lodewijk, no 1 Hello Nina, and all This is one of the aspects I love about the way this group practices- these reports of conversations, from meetings in Thailand, or wherever. They remind me of the value of conversation, and encourage me to pay more attention to the conversations I have with Naomi. (We've had some very good ones recently, working through our anxieties about the future that I shared some time back, and through our very sad and angry feelings about the cold-hearted way the freed hostages were treated when they returned to Japan, which you may have heard about if you follow the news.) Nina: > We went through the satipatthana sutta, the four applications > of mindfulness. I did not bring any books (too heavy to carry), thus, this > is not a thorough study of the text with commentaries. Ph: This is very timely for me. Responding to James' post the other day about the taints led me back to the satipatthana sutta. Now, I've had this sutta available for study for close to a year now, and have looked through it several times, but I always get caught up in fresh study and never apply myself. I have been intending to start a thread asking everybody how they "use" the satipatthana sutta, which is clearly so important. I will start that thread one of these days. N: >We cling to breath, we cannot > live without it, and we take it for granted that we are breathing day in day > out. Reading about mindfulness of breath can bring us back to this very > moment. Ph: LIke many who come to DSG, I was surprised to read that attention on the breath was not an accepted practice by all, the reason being - if I recall correctly - that it is mistaken to think that it is something that can be done easily, and that the practice indicated in various sutta is actually a very advanced technique. I still practice seated meditation, and I still watch the breath, but I am now aware that it is may not the mindfulness of breath indicated in the satipatthana sutta. In any case, I believe it is an important and helpful thing to do for beginners, at least. When I sit, I sense how the breath is holding everything together. All my aspirations, fears, desires, irritations, stories, fantasies, senses of pain, of pleasure, all the indifferent feelings as well - they are all hinging on a single breath, and if the next one didn't come, they would fall away forever (?) So the breath helps me to understand annica, annata and dukkha in a beginner's way. It helps me to establish a connection, if you will, to upekkha every morning. And I go out into the world and quite often if I catch my mind rushing around, if mindfulness of the mental churning arises, it's returning to the breath for a few moments that brings me back to right understanding. So the "take ten deep breaths" kind of thing that calms people in a physiological way when they are stressed becomes "take 3 mindful breahs" for psychological calming and right understanding, in my case. N: > We spoke about the postures of going, standing, sitting and lying down, > about clear comprehension in all one's actions. It does not mean that this > is knowing what one is doing, but we should realize that there are only > elements, nama and rupa, arising because of conditions. When mindfulness of > the body is applied, it does not mean that there is no awareness of nama. > Nama and rupa are together all the time and their difference should be > discerned by panna. Ph: I don't know if this is relevant here, but I have found that sitting up straight when I'm teaching (I usually sit at a small table with 3 or 4 students) rather than slouching like I sometimes do comes along with being fully present for the student rather than lost in thinking about what I'll be eating for lunch etc. Even now, writing that, I sat up straight, and I felt a respectful feeling rising for Nina and the group as a whole. So sitting up straight and being aware of my posture seems to be associated with some wholesome mental factors. It's interesting. My wife points out that I slouch forward when I walk. Perhaps my walking posture can be transformed through mindfulness as well, gradually. Maybe to make it easier for brahma- viharas to arise as I walk to work, etc... N:> We also spoke about the cemetery contemplations, and this reminds us of > recollection of death. > I said to Lodewijk that there are four meditations for every occasion as > explained in the subcommentary: mindfulness of death, mindfulness of the > loathsomeness of the body, metta and recollection of the Buddha. These > subjects can be contemplated often. Recollection of death can bring us back > to this very moment when there is momentary death of citta, the citta that > arises has to fall away. Ph: I'm happy to be reminded of this. I'd read about it, and forgot. When I am aware of everything hinging on one breath like I wrote about above, I have a recollection of death, but I don't extend it to a cemetery contemplation. If I remember correctly, the cemetery contemplation or loathsomeness of the body contemplation are recommended as antidotes for lust or greed, aren't they? Do you think it is necessary to do them often, or only as antidotes in response to unwholesome states of mind taking hold and becoming dominant as they do on some days? N:> Metta is a cetasika accompanying > kusala citta. It is understanding of the citta that should be stressed, > otherwise we may take attachment for pure metta. Ph: I'm still learning about this. This reminds me to return to K Sujin's article on Metta, which I read though once but need to reread several more times. I have so much to read, but am feeling patient about it, fortunately. That patience is something that was stressed to me by quite a few people when I joined DSG and their advice has been staying with me nicely. Thank you for sharing your conversation, Nina. I really enjoyed it and look forward to reading more! :) Metta, Phil 32570 From: robmoult Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 2:43pm Subject: Re: mind-door process Hi Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Rob M has said that sense door javana cittas are weak in kamma. I > think that is generally accepted. I think it has been explained > that cetana, in the form of kamma-patha (courses of action), only > occurs in mind-door javana processes and only when there is a > concept as object. (Corrections welcome.) ===== Agreed. ===== > > Rob M has also suggested that sense door cittas are weak in > emotion. I think he goes so far as to say they are rooted in moha > or amoha but not in dosa or lobha. This seems an extreme position > to take. (Correct me if I've got you wrong, Rob.) ===== You are correct that I claimed that the javana cittas in an eye-door citta process would be moha-mula. However, I later contradicted myself by mentioning that there was an extremely subtle attachment to sensous gratification that could arise in the sense door citta process as well (this is only uprooted in an Anagami). I also neglected to discuss the sense door citta process when the sense consciousness has pleasant or unpleasant feeling (only arises in body- door). All in all, I would say that I was wrong to claim that the javana cittas in an eye-door citta process would always be moha-mula. However, even though they may be lobha-mula or dosa-mula, they create very weak kamma (as you noted above). ===== > > Ken O, Howard and I have surmised the opposite: We think that strong > emotions (mula) occur mainly at the paramattha level (in cittas with > dhammas as object). ===== You may be contradicting yourself now. When you say "strong" emotions, what makes them "strong"? Is it not the intensity of the associated volition (i.e. that which makes strong kamma)? At the beginning, you agreed that there was very weak volition in the javana cittas in a sense-door citta process; are you now saying that there is very strong volition in the javana cittas in a sense-door citta process? ===== > > Even IF, as Rob believes, visible object were a meaningless dot of > light, strong dosa (for example) could arise to experience it. Dosa > can be conditioned by any of a large number of past (and present) > dhammas – I don't think it needs a "meaningful" object. (This gives > rise to more questions, which I will skip for now.) ===== Since you have concern with my "dot of light" simile for visible object, let's switch to the ear door. The sound rupa appearing at the ear door is a miniscule fraction of a word (word being a concept). My contention is that the emotional reaction (strength of cetana) to a miniscule fraction of a word is very weak compared to the emotional reaction (strength of cetana) to the concept of a word that has been grasped and thought about. In brief, I believe that the intensity of the associated cetana grows as the object becomes more "meaningful". ===== > > As I understand Nina's comments to Rob, she would doubt the > usefulness of all our surmising. Many, intermingled, citta > processes follow closely upon each other: Sense-door impressions > are followed by mind-door concepts but there are more sense > impressions and concepts in between. How are we to know which citta > has the strongest emotion or what degree of meaning it finds in it's > object? ===== This is also my understanding of Nina's comment; with compassion, she is trying to bring us back into the present moment. ===== > > I think Nina also said that papanca can occur in sense door > processes. That implies that citta can get quite preoccupied with > sense objects. And it makes it all the harder to believe that > visible object is just a dot of light or that audible object is just > a one-billionth part of the sound of a word. Why, for example, > would ditthi mistake a dot of light for self? ===== Papanca (mental proliferation) is a grouping together of mind door citta-processes. It doesn't make sense to say that it arises inside a sense-door process. ===== > > Sorry if I have confused the issues, please continue with your > conversation. :-) Ken H, thanks for giving me the chance to recant my earlier statement regarding javana cittas in a sense door citta process always being moha-mula. Hopefully, your summary will bring focus to the discussion. Metta, Rob M :-) 32571 From: Philip Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 9:08pm Subject: Cittas and cetasikas (basic question!) Hello all I went back to the beginning of Abhidhamma in Daily Life to try to sort out my understanding and I soon came across a basic point that I will need to get clear. I guess I could find the answer by reading through the Useful Posts and reading on in ADL, but asking here might be helpful for other beginners. How should I put my question? Well, I guess it seems to me that there are so many references to kusala and akusala citta, but from what I read about the definition of citta, and from thinking logically, it seems to me that it is the cetasikas rather than the cittas that are wholesome or unwholesome. Aren't cittas pure consciousness, and the cetasikas the mental factors such as attachment and aversion that would seem the more likely candidates for conditioning more-of-the-same in the future? As an example, I start with this description of the citta of seeing- consciousness from ADL, chapter 1: "For example, when seeing- consciousness arises, feeling (vedana) arises together with the citta. The citta which sees perceives only visible object; there is not yet like or dislike. The feeling which accompanies this type of citta is indifferent feeling. After seeing-consciousness has fallen away, other cittas arise and there may be cittas which dislike the object." But isn't the khanda that "dislikes the object" lohba (aversion) which is a cetasika, rather than the citta which "perceives only visible object"? It seems to this beginner that citta refers to consciousness of object, whether it's visible object, hearing object or even mental object (?) but the wholesome or unwholesome factors come with the cetasikas. But there are so many references to wholseome or unwholesome citta. I know this is a basic point, but thanks in advance for your clarification. Oh, one more thing. When I first started reading about Buddhism, I came across reference to Bodhicitta (sp?) which I guess is like "the Buddha mind" and is not a concept we find in Theravada. (Or is it?) Nevertheless, it surely refers to beautiful cetasikas such as compassion and loving-kindness. I wonder why it isn't called bodhicetasika? I'm kind of itching to read Nina's "Cetasikas" because it seems to me that cetasikas is where all the hot khamma gets created! ;) And that cittas is more related to sense organ-consciousness. But I've clearly got that wrong. Help! :) Metta, Phil 32572 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 9:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mind-door process Dear Ken H, Visible object is not a dot of light. It is colour or just what appears through the eyes, without defining. You can see in the Dhammasangani many examples. They seem images, but they are not. Just examples that anything that appears through eyes is visible object. We should not delimitate it. This makes it very natural. I remember A. Sujin asking: do you define all the colours in this room? But we see them all. She also said (like Howard's teacher) close your eyes and open them, and what appears? I do not see dots, I see all that naturally appears through eyes before I think or define. We should not stare and try to see little dots moving or so. Dhammasangani, p. 167: All these things are seen before you pay attention to shape and form and define. And we do not count sense-processes. Because of accumulated conditions there can be ditthi before we know more about the object. I would not say that kamma is performed only when the object is a concept. As said before: sense-door processes arising in between are all part of such moments of committing kamma. I can illustrate this point. The last javana cittas before dying are conditioned by the kamma that will produce result in the form of the next rebirth-consciousness. These javana cittas are accordingly kusala or akusala. Now, the object they take can be colour, sound etc. Also an image of the next realm, or a symbol of kamma that one performed. Thus, it can be an object experienced through six doors, not just through the mind-door. Also, I do not believe that with each akusala javana citta the akusala has the intensity of kamma that can bring result. Would there be already akusala kamma when I yawn without awareness of nama and rupa? Nina. We should not forget op 27-04-2004 09:43 schreef kenhowardau op kenhowardau@y...: > I think Nina also said that papanca can occur in sense door > processes. That implies that citta can get quite preoccupied with > sense objects. And it makes it all the harder to believe that > visible object is just a dot of light or that audible object is just > a one-billionth part of the sound of a word. Why, for example, > would ditthi mistake a dot of light for self? 32573 From: Christopher Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 9:51pm Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana (and my intro) Hi, Thanks for the replies on my question. Many times I think that maybe it would be most 'natural' just to live with full understanding of dukkha, but not to advance to the point where the stream is entered and the cycle of dependant origination will inevitably one day be broken. I mostly wonder about this as to what is in accordance with the truth, no doubt my ego has much influence on this idea. Sara asked me to introduce myself a few replies back. I actually joined this group a year ago, my name on here was 'christhedis' (some default) until I finally got around to fixing it. I was born in the UK, grew up in Canada, and now wander around, currently have been in Thailand for approaching 1 year. I've been interested in Buddhism for 10 years, but only seriously in past year and a half, when I started Buddhist meditation. Have done Goenka and Mahasi meditation courses, and spent time in forest monasteries here in Thailand (actually staying at one now). Been using anapanasati lately and getting interesting results. Hope that's ok. Last name starts with H, so it's Chris H. or Christopher, whichever works best. Thanks, hope to hear any comments or opinion about my living with dukkha thought. Christopher. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rikpa21" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher" > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > This (rather strange) question is actually about Mahayana > Buddhism. > > Please forgive me for asking it here, I have often received lots > of friendly > > help in here, and I'm not sure where else I might find an answer. > So > > any help is appreciated.. > > > > When meditating as a Mahayanist, one aims to avoid entering the > > stream so as to stay in the round of rebirths in order to help > other > > beings. I am wondering if there is a certain way that a meditator > does > > this, and if so, how? Would there come a point in meditation where > it is > > obvious that entering the stream is possible, and a person can > simply > > choose not to advance? Or is it possible to 'accidentally' enter > the > > stream, only realizing afterwards what has happened? If so, what > does > > a Mahayanist do about this? > > From the Mahayana Vajracchedika Sutra (Diamdond Cutter): > > "Subhuti, it is the same concerning bodhisattvas. If a bodhisattva > thinks that she has to liberate all living beings, then she is not > yet a bodhisattva. Why? Subhuti, there is no independently existing > object of mind called bodhisattva. Therefore, the Buddha has said > that all dharmas are without a self, a person, a living being, or a > life span. Subhuti, if a bodhisattva thinks, 'I have to create a > serene and beautiful Buddha field', that person is not yet a > bodhisattva. Why? What the Tathagata calls a serene and beautiful > Buddha field is not in fact a serene and beautiful Buddha field. And > that is why it is called a serene and beautiful Buddha field. > Subhuti, any bodhisattva who thoroughly understands the principle of > non-self and non-dharma is called by the Tathagata an authentic > bodhisattva." 32574 From: Philip Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 11:01pm Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana (and my intro) Hello Christopher. Nice to meet you. >Many times I think that maybe it would be most 'natural' just to >live with >full understanding of dukkha, but not to advance to the point where >the >stream is entered and the cycle of dependant origination will >inevitably >one day be broken. I mostly wonder about this as to what is in >accordance with the truth, no doubt my ego has much influence on this > idea. I've wanted to say something about this as well. I *like* people, and I've learned to see through certain kinds of self-induced suffering, so I would like to have a human rebirth, I thought. I don't yet understand the desire to see the cycle broken, I thought. I read this from Nina's Abhidhamma in Daily Life : "One is glad to be born if one does not realize that birth is the result of kamma and that one will go forth in the cycle of birth and death as long as there is kamma. Not seeing the dangers of birth is ignorance. At this moment we are in the human plane of existence but as long as we have not attained any stge of enlightenment we cannot be sure that there will not be rebirth in one of the woeful planes. We have all performed both akusala kamma and kusala kamma in different lives. Who knows which of those deeds will produce the patisandhi-citta of the next life, even if we continue doing good deeds." Before reading this, I'd assumed that with a decent intellecutal understanding of annata, annica and dukkha I could maintain a decent human existence, and be free from the worst extremes of dukkha that arise from unbridled ignorance. But that was a mistake, I see now. I cannot have any control over the way akusala kamma from past lives will play out in my next patisandhia-citta (rebirth citta?) so I had best be more diligent in seeking an end to liberation. Human rebirth cannot be guaranteed by one decent human life. There should be a motivation to achieve the first stage of enlightenment. (I still haven't found that motivation, but hopefully the kind of thinking I'm doing here is getting me closer to being more motivated.) I don't know if that addresses your question, but it was something that I wanted to share. Metta, Phil 32575 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 11:17pm Subject: [dsg] Re: mind-door process Hi Howard (Rob M and Nina), ------------------- KH: > > Ken O, Howard and I have surmised the opposite: We think that strong > emotions (mula) occur mainly at the paramattha level (in cittas with > dhammas as object). > > H: > I'm not certain that this is exactly what I implied. What I said was the following: ------------------- Thanks for the recap, Howard, and my apologies for misrepresenting you. As I admitted in my previous messages, I don't have a clear understanding, or even a firm opinion :-) on the relative strengths of reactions to dhammas v's reactions to concepts. Normally, I would wait for an Abhidhammika, preferably of the NAG persuasion, to venture an opinion and then blithely claim it as my own :-) But in this case, I'm not sure who has what opinion. Some parts of your recap, for example, still have me scratching my head. Just as I am about to post this, I see that Rob M and Nina have also recapped. I look forward to reading it all very carefully. I will ask more questions when I at least know what we're talking about. (Don't hold your breath.) Kind regards, Ken H 32576 From: robmoult Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 11:35pm Subject: Re: Cittas and cetasikas (basic question!) Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Philip" wrote: > I went back to the beginning of Abhidhamma in Daily Life to try to > sort out my understanding and I soon came across a basic point that I > will need to get clear. I guess I could find the answer by reading > through the Useful Posts and reading on in ADL, but asking here might > be helpful for other beginners. > > How should I put my question? Well, I guess it seems to me that > there are so many references to kusala and akusala citta, but from > what I read about the definition of citta, and from thinking > logically, it seems to me that it is the cetasikas rather than the > cittas that are wholesome or unwholesome. > > Aren't cittas pure consciousness, and the cetasikas the mental > factors such as attachment and aversion that would seem the more > likely candidates for conditioning more-of-the-same in the future? Even though the Abhidhamma is extremely precise in its approach, the term "citta" is used to mean two different things: - Pure awareness (this is a paramattha dhamma) - Mental state (pure awareness + a collection of cetasikas) In other words, Citta (defn 2) = Citta (defn 1) + Cetasika Does this factoid help your understanding? Metta, Rob M :-) 32577 From: Ken O Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 0:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mind-door process Hi RobM Its me Ken O again > ===== > > It is important to note that every citta in a citta process has > exactly the same object. In other words, if the ear-consciousness > citta has a certain sound as its object then the subsequent > receiving citta, the subsequent investigating citta, the subsequent > determining citta and all seven subsequent javana cittas will also have the same sound as their object. k: I have discussed with RobK over this matter before since the object in the begining is indifference, the subsequent javana process should be indifference. I remember he said that is not true. I agree with him. Let me quote you this text given to me by RobK <> k: We can see that what is vipaka is different what is javana. We cannot based on what is felt in vipaka as the determining aspect of what is javana. > ===== > > When we are aware of "feeling" (pleasant, unpleasant or neutral), > then it is always the object of a mind-door process. > > ===== k: Sorry, IMHO (no offense meant) I think you are mixing your conventional way of thinking with those of paramatthas. When we feel aversion or greed it can be in the javana process on the object. Citta coginze the object but it is feeling that give the taste. Feeling can be an object in the mind door process but feeling is also a taste of the object in the sense door process. There are two different things and that does not mean that feelings must be an object in order for one to know. It can be a conditioning mindstate that arise with the citta on the object - and that feeling can be experience or taste. Freewill plays its part here." For months, I wrestled with > the question, "how can there be free will when there is no self?". Ken, > if you are wrestling with a similar question, let me know and let's > look at it together (it may be digressing from the point of this exchange or it could be at the heart of this exchange, I am not > sure). > k: Thanks RobM - knowing you has been very beneficial to me ;-). I dont think I am wrestling with any kind of thought of free will. In my personal perception as all is anatta where is there a free will (in western way of thinking). In Abdhidhamma in my personal opinion free will is panna. Only panna is free will because only when panna arise then we will know what is the danger of akusala and actions will then be kusala. Panna is anatta too ;-) Call it the Panna Action Group. Ken O 32578 From: Philip Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 0:29am Subject: Re: Cittas and cetasikas (basic question!) Hi Rob, and all Rob: > Even though the Abhidhamma is extremely precise in its approach, >the >term "citta" is used to mean two different things: >- Pure awareness (this is a paramattha dhamma) >- Mental state (pure awareness + a collection of cetasikas) >In other words, Citta (defn 2) = Citta (defn 1) + Cetasika >Does this factoid help your understanding? Ph: Thanks. That helps a lot Rob. But I think I still don't understand completely because in ADL I see, for example, "Citta only experiences an object" and then a bit later "Sobhana cetasikas accompanying wholesome cittas are, for example alodha adosa, panna..." It would seem to me from this that the citta in the latter sentence refers to defn 1, since it is accompanied by cetasikas. ( i.e defn 1 plus cetasika) And yet, if "citta only experiences an object" how can it be "wholesome?" How can pure awareness be wholesome? Is it called wholesome because it is a kusala vipakacitta, the result of a wholesome deed in the past? A past wholesome deed conditions the sense-consciousness citta through vipaka, making it "a wholesome citta", which in turn gives rise to sobhana cetasikas. Is that right? Metta, Phil 32579 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 1:01am Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Friend Sarah, Sarah: So when it seems that we can select an object for the practice of satipatthana or read a sutta as suggesting that we should indeed do this, I believe it's a misinterpretation. Whilst the various dhammas to be seen by wisdom are divided up in various ways in this and other suttas, this is for the purpose of explanation, not for giving an order for the objects to be known. By the time there is thinking and determining to concentrate or focus on a particular object, present namas and rupas have passed away already without any knowledge. In other words, such ideas of selection are based on the idea that another object would be more suitable than the presently arising one which is contrary to what we read about knowng `presently arisen dhammas'. James: Okay, now I think I understand your position better. I was beginning to wonder why no matter how many different suttas I quote to explain my position, it is like you don't read them. After all, you are obviously an intelligent person; I was beginning to wonder what the problem was! ;-)) Now I see that you have this underlying belief that the suttas don't really mean what they are saying. They have a deeper meaning which must be wrangled out of them. Well, I don't blame you for thinking this, and I don't blame A. Sukin either, I blame Buddhaghosa for this faulty view. If you would stop reading Buddhaghosa you would stop getting this idea that suttas contain a `secret meaning' that only those with `enough panna' can get. I think and sense that this type of view breeds conceit. Hmmm…well, now I am faced with a quandary. Obviously, I can't quote suttas to explain my position…so I'll try some logic. First, let me focus on this last part you write, "contrary to what we read about knowing `presently arisen dhammas'." Sarah, the goal of Buddhism isn't to `know presently arisen dhammas', who cares about `presently arisen dhammas'? The goal of Buddhism is to know Nibbana, which does not arise and does not cease. Concepts, dhammas, nama, rupa… they are all unsatisfactory and not really worth `knowing'. Throw them out the window! They are rubbish and trash! ;-)) The only think worth knowing is nibbana…the sweet release. Nibbana is not a part of `the present moment' either. Who cares about `the present moment'? Throw that out the window also! ;-) Nibbana is beyond time and moments and everything. So, knowing namas and rupas is like wallowing in filth and thinking it is heaven. The mind must penetrate to the nibbana element to have true release. The only way to do this is to practice mindfulness and concentration. Okay, nuff said. ;-)) Metta, James 32580 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:37am Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hello James and Sarah, Suttas don't contain 'secret' meanings - but,as I understand it, the suttas are teaching vehicles whose meanings are densely packed layer on layer. This condensed form was necessary in order that the Teachings would not be lost in the years before they were finally put into writing. It allowed them to be memorised by the large groups of bhikkhus (banakas) assigned to each portion of the Tipitaka. They are not verbatim reports of chats and conversations. "Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata -- deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness -- are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves." (Ari sutta). Metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > > James: Okay, now I think I understand your position better. I was > beginning to wonder why no matter how many different suttas I quote > to explain my position, it is like you don't read them. After all, > you are obviously an intelligent person; I was beginning to wonder > what the problem was! ;-)) Now I see that you have this underlying > belief that the suttas don't really mean what they are saying. They > have a deeper meaning which must be wrangled out of them. Well, I > don't blame you for thinking this, and I don't blame A. Sukin > either, I blame Buddhaghosa for this faulty view. If you would stop > reading Buddhaghosa you would stop getting this idea that suttas > contain a `secret meaning' that only those with `enough panna' can > get. 32581 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:53am Subject: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Dear Friends, The D.O. corner seems to have had a long break. We discussed avijjaa (ignorance) at length and how it is a condition for sankhaara (formations). Perhaps we can continue to discuss how sankhaara in this context are a cause of vi~n~naa.na (consciousness)and the meaning of vi~n~naa.na here. To get started, I’d like to give the details on these links in two posts, quoting: ‘THE DISCOURSE ON RIGHT VIEW’,The Sammaditthi Sutta and its Commentary, Translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Nanamoli, Edited and Revised by Bhikkhu Bodhi. >(Formations) 60. Saying, "Good friend," the bhikkhus delighted and rejoiced in the Venerable Sariputta's words. Then they asked him a further question: "But, friend, might there be another way in which a noble disciple is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma?" -- "There might be, friends. 61. "When, friends, a noble disciple understands formations, the origin of formations, the cessation of formations, and the way leading to the cessation of formations, in that way he is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma. 62. "And what are formations, what is the origin of formations, what is the cessation of formations, what is the way leading to the cessation of formations? There are these three kinds of formations: the bodily formation, the verbal formation, the mental formation. With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of formations. With the cessation of ignorance there is the cessation of formations. The way leading to the cessation of formations is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration. 63. "When a noble disciple has thus understood formations, the origin of formations, the cessation of formations, and the way leading to the cessation of formations... he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma." < ****** Commentary: >Formations ~~~~~~~~~~ 62. In the section on formations, a formation (//sankhara//) has the characteristic of forming (//abhisankharanalakkhana//). But in the detailed section, the bodily formation (//kayasankhara//) is a formation that proceeds from the body. This is a designation for the twenty kinds of bodily volition -- **the eight sense-sphere wholesome and twelve unwholesome** -- that occur by way of activation in the bodily door.[57] The verbal formation(//vacisankhara//) is a formation that proceeds from speech. This is a designation for the (same) twenty kinds of verbal volition that occur by way of breaking into speech in the door of speech. The mental formation(//cittasankhara//) is a formation that proceeds from the mind. This is a designation for the twenty-nine kinds of mental volition -- **the mundane wholesome and unwholesome** -- that occur in one sitting alone in thought, and which do not cause activation of the bodily and verbal doors.[58] With the arising of ignorance (//avijjasamudaya//): But here ignorance should be understood as a condition for the wholesome by way of decisive support and for the unwholesome by way of conascence as well. The rest by the method stated.< ***** S: I added the asterisks above to emphasise that the formations here refer to the kusala and akusala volitions (cetana as kamma) capable of bringing about results through body, speech or mind in the forms of consciousnes (vipaka cittas or vi~n~naa.na in the d.o.context). Whilst not all kinds of volition included in the possible kinds given (20 kinds of bodily volition, 20 kinds of verbal volition, 29 kinds of mental volition) will produce results by way of kamma condition, these are the total number of possible volitions which can perform this function as I understand. Further comments or quotes welcome. Metta, Sarah ====== 32582 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:56am Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Friend Christine, Christine: Suttas don't contain 'secret' meanings - but,as I understand it, the suttas are teaching vehicles whose meanings are densely packed layer on layer. James: Christine, this is basically saying the same thing, that suttas contain secret meanings `under' `all those densely packed layers'. Why do you think that suttas are `condensed'? The suttas are the direct words of the Buddha and his monks. They aren't especially `condensed' for ease of memorization, they are the direct words. The Buddha said that the meaning is subtle and difficult to comprehend, but he didn't say it was hidden and required it's `unveiling' by someone else (i.e. Buddhaghosa). Metta, James 32583 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 3:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Back to D.O. - vi~n~naa.na (consciousness) Dear Friends, Sankhaara(formations)are a cause of vi~n~naa.na (consciousness) Again quoting from: ‘THE DISCOURSE ON RIGHT VIEW’,The Sammaditthi Sutta and its Commentary, Translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Nanamoli,Edited and Revised by Bhikkhu Bodhi: ***** >(Consciousness) 56. Saying, "Good, friend," the bhikkhus delighted and rejoiced in the Venerable Sariputta's words. Then they asked him a further question: "But, friend, might there be another way in which a noble disciple is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma?" -- "There might be, friends. 57. "When, friends, a noble disciple understands consciousness, the origin of consciousness, the cessation of consciousness, and the way leading to the cessation of consciousness, in that way he is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma. 58. "And what is consciousness, what is the origin of consciousness, what is the cessation of consciousness, what is the way leading to the cessation of consciousness? There are these six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness. With the arising of formations there is the arising of consciousness. With the cessation of formations there is the cessation of consciousness. The way leading to the cessation of consciousness is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration. 59. "When a noble disciple has thus understood consciousness, the origin of consciousness, the cessation of consciousness, and the way leading to the cessation of consciousness... he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma." < ***** From the commentary >Consciousness ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 58. In the section on consciousness, eye-consciousness (//cakkhuvinnana//) is consciousness in the eye or consciousness born from the eye. So also with ear-, nose-, tongue- and body-consciousness. But with the other one, i.e. mind-consciousness (//manovinnana//), mind itself is consciousness. This is a designation for the **resultant consciousness of the three (mundane) planes of existence** except for the two groups of fivefold consciousness.[56] With the arising of formations (//sankharasamudaya//): But here the arising of consciousness should be understood to occur with the arising of formations according to the method stated in the Visuddhimagga, as to which formation is a condition for which consciousness (XVII, 175-185). **** S: So to stress, in this context of D.O., consciousness is referring to vipaka cittas only, resulting from kamma in the form of the 5-fold sense consciousness and all other kinds of mundane vipaka cittas, starting with patisandhi (rebirth) consciousness. Further comments or quotes very welcome. Metta, Sarah ====== 32584 From: Philip Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? HI James, and all > So, knowing namas and rupas is like wallowing in filth and thinking > it is heaven. The mind must penetrate to the nibbana element to > have true release. The only way to do this is to practice > mindfulness and concentration. Okay, nuff said. ;-)) Friend James, don't let frustration with NAG drive you away from appreciating the importance of nama and rupa. From what I can see, so far, giving up an interest in rupa and nama is paramount to giving up an interest in understanding annata, annica and dukkha. Check out this passage, from "Walking Meditation" by Sayadaw U Silananda (Buddhisp Publication Bodhi Leaves #137) For me, it gets at the why Ive been able to better understand the three characteristics since beginning to try to become aware of rupa and nama: "Before yogis begin practicing walking meditation, they may have thought that a step is just one movement. After meditation on that movement, they observe that there are at least four movements, and if they go deeper, they will understand that even one of these four movements consists of millions of tiny movements. They see nama and rupa, mind and matter, arising and disappearing, as impermanent. By our ordinary perception, we are not able to see the impermanence of things because impermanence is hidden by the illusion of continuity. We think that we see only one continuous movement, but if we look closely we will see that the illusion of continuity can be broken. It can be broken by the direct observation of physical phenomena bit by bit, segment by segment, as they originate and disintegrate. The value of meditation lies in our ability to remove the cloak of continuity in order to discover the real nature of impermanence. Yogis can discover the nature of impermanence directly through their own effort. (SNIP) We must comprehend that all things are just mind and matter arising and disappearing, that things are insubstantial. Once we realize this, we will be able to remove attachment to things. As long as we do not realize this, however much we read books or attend talks or talk about removing attachment, we will not be able to get rid of attachment. It is necessary to have the direct experience that all conditioned things are marked by the three characteristics." This is not wallowing, my friend. This is understanding of the three characteristics, in my opinion. And in my opinion talk of nibbana without understanding the three characteristics is misguided. Well, duh! :) Of course you have your own way of understanding them. Just bear in mind, though, that an appreciation of Rupa and Nama does not following the NAG way. Rupa and nama are not concepts created by or maintained by K Sujin and the people who follow in her tradition. They are taught by da Buddha, bud! :) Metta, Phil 32585 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:36am Subject: Re: Video Games? Friend Philip, Philip: Friend James, don't let frustration with NAG drive you away from appreciating the importance of nama and rupa. James: Philip, frustration with NAG is not driving me away from anything and I am not speaking from frustration with anything. I am quite calm and relaxed and radiating loving kindness your way ;-)). Anyway, Nama and Rupa are not `important' in any way. They are transient phenomena that are not worth clinging to. "Knowing" nama and rupa doesn't lead to understanding anatta either. Anatta can only be understood when Nibbana is understood. The Buddha entered Jhana, went all the way to the fourth level, recalled his and others past lives, and destroyed the taints, all without `knowing' nama and rupa…at least he didn't mention anything about that. If it was important I'm sure he would have mentioned it. Philip: Rupa and nama are not concepts created by or maintained by K Sujin and the people who follow in her tradition. They are taught by da Buddha, bud! :) James: LOL! Philip, believe it or not, it is quite possible to be a genuine Buddhist and to know absolutely nothing about nama and rupa. The Buddha didn't teach the Abhidhamma. Metta, James 32586 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 5:10am Subject: Re: mind-door process Hi Rob M and Nina, Rob, while we are on the subject of visible object: Suppose I have, in a previous lifetime, performed a particularly heinous crime and I am about to experience the fruit of my evil kamma. What is it that appears at the eye-door, a dot of light? Where's the big deal in that? I could be wrong, of course, but wouldn't any rupa, experienced because of grossly akusala kamma, be something horrific? When the Buddha's foot was crushed by a rock, there was great physical pain (but no mental anguish, of course.) That suggests to me that the tactile rupas concerned were of a particularly unpleasant nature. So, perhaps the visible rupas, conceptualised as blood and splintered bones, were also unmistakeably unpleasant. Even though visual contact can never cause physical pain, I think visible object can be experienced by unenlightened beings with strong dosa and, therefore, with strong mental pain. -------------------- KH: > > We think that strong > emotions (mula) occur mainly at the paramattha level (in cittas with > dhammas as object). > > ===== RM: > You may be contradicting yourself now. When you say "strong" emotions, what makes them "strong"? Is it not the intensity of the associated volition (i.e. that which makes strong kamma)? At the beginning, you agreed that there was very weak volition in the javana cittas in a sense-door citta process; are you now saying that there is very strong volition in the javana cittas in a sense-door citta process? ------------------ I'm not sure I am contradicting myself on this occasion. Does strong dosa require strong cetana? And even if it does, is it necessarily the same as the cetana that produces vipaka? If a rock crushes my foot and I suffer mental anguish, without ill will for any living being, will that generate unpleasant vipaka? (I'm not saying it won't: I am genuinely ignorant in these matters.) ----------------------- RM: > In brief, I believe that the intensity of the associated cetana grows as the object becomes more "meaningful". > ------------------- The way you describe audible object is, to me, the same as the way you describe visible object. Again, I may be on the wrong track but, logically, the vipaka of akusala kamma must be dramatically different from the vipaka of kusala kamma. The objects experienced can't be meaningless dots and bits of sounds. Nina, also, is trying to help me understand visible object. I am too slow-witted to see how the description, "colour," clarifies, but I am helped by, "just what appears through the eyes without defining." That is much more satisfactory than "a dot of light," don't you think? Before there can be mindfulness at the level of satipatthana, panna has to know what to look for (if I may put it so simplistically). If panna has been told to look for a dot of light, I think it will miss visible object every time – just as certainly as it will if it has been told to look for a tree or any other concept. -------------------- RM: > Papanca (mental proliferation) is a grouping together of mind door citta-processes. It doesn't make sense to say that it arises inside a sense-door process. > -------------------- You will have to take that up with Nina :-) I see she also disagrees with us on another matter: She says that kamma-patha is not purely a matter for cittas with concept as object. That's good enough for me (aspiring to be teacher's pet). :-) Thinking about it, I do get a sense of all those different citta processes following so closely on one another. Strong dosa (directed by cetana) in one citta could condition the killing of a person conceptualised in another citta, could it not? This is getting too hard for me :-) Nina, thank you for your help in all this confusion. Your example of 'the last javana cittas before dying' was especially convincing. Kind regards, Ken H 32587 From: Philip Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 6:13am Subject: Re: Video Games? Hi James, and all. > James: Philip, frustration with NAG is not driving me away from > anything and I am not speaking from frustration with anything. I am > quite calm and relaxed and radiating loving kindness your way ;- )). Ph: Right back at you. :) I guess I mentionned that about NAG because I couldn't imagine any other reason you would want to deny the importance of rupa and nama. How about if they are referred to the Five Aggregates (khandas) instead? I'm sure there's a reason that they are different but it seems to me that ruppa/citta/cetasikas = khandas, more or less. Surely you don't deny the importance of understanding the Aggregates in order to understand annata? James: > "Knowing" nama > and rupa doesn't lead to understanding anatta either. Anatta can > only be understood when Nibbana is understood. Ph: Really? So we have to go along trapped in self, driven by self, a slave of self until we understand Nibbana? I think Theravada offers a progressive route to enlightenment. I think I understand annata. It's common sense in the light of the Buddha's teaching - see the Five Aggregates. But I don't pretend to understand Nibbana. You'll say that I *don't* understand annata but I say say I do. So nyah! ;) James: >The Buddha entered > Jhana, went all the way to the fourth level, recalled his and others > past lives, and destroyed the taints, all without `knowing' nama and > rupa?Et least he didn't mention anything about that. Ph: Ok, I guess some dispute that 1/3 of the Triple Basket was not in fact taught by the Buddha. I'm new to this dispute so I can't comment but it seems unlikely to me that the Buddha's teaching doesn't enter one of the three baskets. Of course, I don't know much at all about the history and development of Buddhism. > James: LOL! Philip, believe it or not, it is quite possible to be a > genuine Buddhist and to know absolutely nothing about nama and > rupa. Ph:. But it's also possible to be a genuine Buddhist and be interested in rupa and nama, so why try to deny people their rupa and nama? If folks in the NAG posit that it is impossible to follow the way without understanding nupa and nama, then I'd understand why you feel the need to debate them. Actually, that's a good question. Is anyone at DSG saying that it is impossible to become enlightened without studying Abhidhamma? Well, it's been stated that suttas can't be understood without understanding Abhidhamma first. I can understand why you want to question that. James: > The Buddha didn't teach the Abhidhamma. Ph: I've heard of the mythical sounding version that has the Buddha teaching it in one of the heavenly (?) realms. I struggle with doubts about the existence of different realms. You too? The Buddha does teach about the existence of different realms, right? If you believe in the realms, why can't you believe in the Buddha teaching in them? Don't bother answering that unless you really want to. I'm taking it on faith that the Buddha did teach the Abhidhamma. Taking things on faith because there is reasonable evidence. (ie The fact that the Abhidhamma is in the Triple Basket is good enough for me.) In any case, I've enjoying discussing this with you and appreciate your lending me an ear, friend James. Metta, Phil 32588 From: Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cittas and cetasikas (basic question!) Hi, Phil - As I understand it, a citta (or mindstate) is a mental state consisting of the presence of (or awareness of) an object, which could be "physical" or "mental", co-occuring with a number of other mental events dealing with that same object in differing ways. It is these accompanying mental events (the cetasikas) that may be kusala or akusala. A mindstate that can produce kammic results has kusala or akusala roots, and it is the nature of the roots, kusala or akusala, that derivatively characterize the mindstate as kusala or akusala. And a mindstate that doesn't produce kammic fruit but is, itself, kammic fruit, is derivatively "kusala" or "akusala" depending on the nature of the kammically productive states that led to it. So, for example, a state of seeing would be "kusala" or "akusala" not in the sense that the state, itself, is wholesome or unwholesome, but merely in its being the *result* of wholesome or unwholesome conditions. The foregoing is my understanding. It may be off in several respects. It is definitely weak at points. In particular, I'm not clear on whether or not an akusala citta, one with akusala roots, must have *all* its cetasikas akusala, or wherther there could be a "mix". 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) 32589 From: Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 3:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? In a message dated 4/28/04 4:05:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, plnao@j... writes: > So, knowing namas and rupas is like wallowing in filth and thinking > it is heaven. The mind must penetrate to the nibbana element to > have true release. The only way to do this is to practice > mindfulness and concentration. Okay, nuff said. ;-)) James, Here is what Narada, the translator of _A Manual of Abhidhammattha Sangaha_, a work often referenced in posts here, has to say about this issue in his preface. I would think you would agree with his thoughts. "Undoubtedly Abhidhamma is extremly helpful to comprehend fully the word of the Buddha and realise Nibbana, as it presents a key to open the door of reality. It deals with realities and a practical way of noble living, based on the experience of those who have understood and realized. Without a knowledge of the Abhidhamma one at times finds it diffficult to understand the real significance of some profound teachings of the Buddha. To develop Insight Abhidhamma is certainly very useful. But one cannot positively assert that Abhidhamma is absolutely necessary to gain one's Deliverance. Understanding or realisation is purely personal (sanditthika). The Four Noble Truths that form the foundation of the Buddha's teaching are dependent on this one-fathom body. The Dhamma is not apart from oneself. Look within. Seek thyself. Lo, the truth will unfold itself. Did not sorrow-afflicted Patacara, who lost her dear and near ones, realize Nibbana, reflecting on the disappearnce of water that washed her feet? Did not Culapanthaka, who could not memorize a verse even for four months, attain Arahantship, by comprehending the impermanent nature of a clean hankerchief which he was handling, gazing at the sun. Did not Upatissa, later Ven. Sariputta Thera, realize Nibbana on hearing half a stanza relating to cause and efffect? To some a fallen withered leaf had alone been sufficient to attain Pacceka Buddhahood. It was mindfulness on respiration (anapanasati) that acted as the basis for the Bodhisatta to attain Buddhahood." jack 32590 From: Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? In a message dated 4/28/04 1:04:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: S: By the time there is thinking and determining to concentrate or focus on a particular object, present namas and rupas have passed away already without any knowledge. In other words, such ideas of selection are based on the idea that another object would be more suitable than the presently arising one which is contrary to what we read about knowng `presently arisen dhammas'. .... >>S: Let me ask you whether at this moment it really is possible to select an object - say to experience hardness without thinking or seeing or hearing or attachment or doubt for example. And how would this be more beneficial to the development of satipatthana than the awareness of presently arising thinking or doubt or a wish to focus?<< Sarah, As I said in a previous post, I practice by deliberately selecting a particular material ultimate such as hardness or coldness as object. In my 4-Material Element meditation, I practice by selecting, one by one, 13-16 different types of sensations in my body. This is practice, artificial, and choosing one object over another one. Then after doing this, I just sit there and watch whatever comes up. I think I do this later phase with no agenda or attachment. Sometimes I don't have time to do the second phase. But, after doing this practice for a year or so, I find myself being aware of ultimates as I just sit, say, in a dentist's office. To me (and I think to the Buddha), this practice phase is essential. Here is what I said in my last post. >> Here is what I mean by deconstructing. I'm sitting in the dentist's office. I see I am in discomfort. I think (use concepts) to decide to put my attention on my physical body sense door. Once my attention is there, I just observe with no thought or direction. At times, my training in 4 material elements (ultimates) meditation kicks in and my attention goes to the physical body elements without the first step of using concepts to decide to do it. It all happens with "my" doing anything. Thinking, deciding and using concepts in this situation to me is only useful in that it points me toward a state of not thinking, deciding or using concepts. My meditation practice has benefits to me such as reducing stress but its ultimate use to to practice "directly understanding dhammas with detachment and without any idea of self." as you say below. "Understanding" in this sense means direct, non-conceptual wisdom not book learning.<< I'm finding myself repeating myself so I think its maybe time to go off on another subject. Thanks. jack 32591 From: Htoo Naing Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 8:55am Subject: Dhamma in a place Dear Dhamma Friends, Paramattha dhamma are being delineated under the pages in the following link. Paramattha dhamma are the basis and if they are understood, patthana dhamma will be understood with some effort. When dhamma are understood, seeing dhamma with real senses will not much difficult if they are properly learned. www.geocities.com/htootintnaing/patthana24.html www.geocities.com/htootintnaing/patthana1.html From page 1 through page 24, it is easy to manage and everything is written as simple as possible. If there is any query, please do not hesitate to ask any question and i will be more than happy to answer not that I know everything but that my willingness makes me producing effort is Dhamma discussion. I wrote from page 1 to page 24 and there are still coming. I do have a good facility to do edition and I do not have close references near me. If there is any wrong point please let me know. The messages are not lengthy but they can easily be managed. I do hope you all enjoy reading all these pages and any comment is welcome. With Metta, Htoo Naing htootintnaing@y... 32592 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cittas and cetasikas (basic question!) Dear Philip, op 28-04-2004 06:08 schreef Philip op plnao@j...: Well, I guess it seems to me that > there are so many references to kusala and akusala citta, but from > what I read about the definition of citta, and from thinking > logically, it seems to me that it is the cetasikas rather than the > cittas that are wholesome or unwholesome. > > Aren't cittas pure consciousness, and the cetasikas the mental > factors such as attachment and aversion that would seem the more > likely candidates for conditioning more-of-the-same in the future? N: The cetasikas such as attachment and aversion and ignorance are roots, foundation of the akusala citta, that is right. Citta's task is cognizing an object, that is right. But cetasikas arise with the citta and condition it. They are very closely connected with it. They are the helpers, advisers, so that citta can perform its task of cognizing an object. In the Patthana it is said that they condition one another by way of conascence condition and reciproxity condition, association-condition and others. We can verify this. Take pleasant feeling with kusala citta and pleasant feeling with attachment, they still have different qualities. The pleasant feeling with attachment has restlessness, and the one with kusala citta is more of a calm nature. The first words of the Matika of the first Book of the Abhidhamma, the Dhammasangani are: kusala dhamma, akusala dhamma, indeterminate dhamma. Kusala citta and beautiful cetasikas are kusala dhamma. The same for akusala dhamma. Indeterminate dhamma: this includes vipakacitta. When we say vipakacitta also vipaka cetasikas that accompany citta are included. It is always implied, but for convenience we say vipakacitta. Ph:The citta which sees perceives only visible object; there is > not yet like or dislike. The feeling which accompanies this type of > citta is indifferent feeling. After seeing-consciousness has fallen > away, other cittas arise and there may be cittas which dislike the > object." > > But isn't the khanda that "dislikes the object" dosa (aversion) > which is a cetasika, rather than the citta which "perceives only > visible object"? N: The akusala citta is contaminated by the accompanying dosa (not lobha, I corrected), it also finds the object unwelcome. Here there is no question of seeing, but this is after the seeing has fallen away. Citta and all the accompanying cetasikas are affected by dosa and the feeling is unhappy. Ph: It seems to this beginner that citta refers to consciousness of > object, whether it's visible object, hearing object or even mental > object (?) but the wholesome or unwholesome factors come with the > cetasikas. N: the wholesome or unwholesome factors are the akusala cetasikas. But as said, they contaminate citta, make it sick. Akusala citta is ill-adviced by them and everything goes wrong. Also the universals that accompany each citta are doing everything the wrong way: sanna remembers in the unwholesome way, there is wrong concentration, unwise attention to the object. > Ph: , I > came across reference to Bodhicitta (sp?) which I guess is like "the > Buddha mind" and is not a concept we find in Theravada. (Or is it?) > Nevertheless, it surely refers to beautiful cetasikas such as > compassion and loving-kindness. I wonder why it isn't called > bodhicetasika? N: Cetasikas are always implied whenever we speak about citta, citta cannot arise without cetasikas. Ph: I'm kind of itching to read Nina's "Cetasikas" because it seems to > me that cetasikas is where all the hot khamma gets created! ;) N: Kamma is cetana cetasika. When citta is kusala, cetana is kusala and it wills, intends kusala I learnt that mostly kusala citta has the intensity of kusala kamma, unless it is very weak. As to akusala kamma, certain factors make it into a completed action. Not every akusala citta is akusala kamma. Ph: And > that cittas is more related to sense organ-consciousness. But I've > clearly got that wrong. N: Some cittas are sense-cognitions and these are vipakacittas. Many, many other types, and not only of the sensesphere. You will learn about them in due time. Nina. > 32593 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts', feeling Hi Larry, op 27-04-2004 02:04 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > you said feeling has an object. N: Yes, it shares the same object with the citta it accompanies. Thus, the object can be an object experienced through the sense-doors or through the mind-door, a reality or a concept, pleasant or unpleasant. Feeling feels about the object, it savours the taste of the object. L:This is what we are taught but the > feeling we experience _is_ an object (of consciousness). N: Citta cannot experience itself, and evenso feeling cannot experience itself right at the moment they occur. Example: seeing only sees colour, and it does not know its own characteristic of seeing, it just sees and does not know anything else. Evenso the indifferent feeling, it just feels about colour, it does not know its own nature of indifferent feeling. But nama can know another nama, namely that which has just fallen away. Kusala citta with awareness can be aware of the akusala citta that has just fallen away, or of the unhappy feeling that has just fallen away. It seems that we know unhappy feeling right at that moment, but cittas arise and fall away so fast. In reality it is not so. It is already a following citta that knows. L: Every dhamma we experience is only an object of consciousness. N: Yes, not we, but citta experiences the dhamma which is thus object of citta. L:Does an object _really_ have an object, or do we just associate an object with it by inference? N: Citta really has an object, (I think you mean this), and only by insight this is known very clearly. Not by inference, or because of what we learnt by theoretical knowledge. But we can begin to realize the truth now, beginning to know seeing that experiences colour, has colour as its object. This is the way to know the meaning of object-condition we find in the Patthana. I do not know whether this is clear enough? L: Is dukkha a concept or a reality? "Unsatisfactory" doesn't > sound like a reality, N: As you remember we studied rupa as characteristic: the four lakkhana rupas are realities, in the list of rupas, but they are asabhava rupas, not rupa-rupa (term at last explained in Tiika Vis 77!) or concrete matter. I just recently found something interesting: Vis. XXI, 5-8, and footnote 4. < And here the following differences should be understood: the impermanent, and the characteristic of impermanence...> etc for the other two. Here are very good quotes from S. III 22 about the three characteristics. The five khandhas are impermanent. further on: About the characteristic of non-self: Note the word mode. the footnote: (from the Tiika). Maybe this clarifies. L: but if dukkha is a concept how can it have a > cause? If dukkha is a reality surely it can only be unpleasant feeling. N: Dukkha has many meanings, the Truth of dukkha encompasses much more than unpleasant feeling: the unsatisfactoriness or continuous oppression of the five khandhas. And it has a cause: desire. L: If it is feeling then it is in the wrong place in Dependent Arising. > There feeling conditions desire instead of the other way around. > Something is amiss here. N: It could not be, they are the Buddha's teachings! In the D.O. we should not take dukkha as just unpleasant feeling, more meanings. And indeed further on in the D.O.: feeling conditions desire: here we have to consider pleasant, unpleasant and indifferent feeling, and all of these condition desire. Pleasant feeling, you want more, indifferent feeling, very desirable (so calm), and also unpleasant feeling: you want to be freed from it. What do you think about this Vis. passage? Nina. 32594 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Question About Sa~n~na/Nina Hi Howard, op 27-04-2004 19:34 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > Thank you for the foregoing. I'm not, however, certain whether we view > this matter in the same way or differently. I do not think that concepts ever > arise. Only paramathha dhammas arise (such as the recalled childhood image), whole sequences of them, including sa~n~nic markings (which would be mind objects), and we *say* that a concept arose. N: you wrote before: There are some misunderstanding here, I think. At this moment there is no childhood, long gone. Only citta may think of it for a moment, and it is due to sanna that it can be remembered. We do not know exactly how this works, but all experiences of the past are accumulated from citta to citta and when there are conditions the past can be remembered. And true, what one felt strongly about is more easily remembered, pleasant or unpleasant. I like to recall what is said in the Abhidhamma: citta, cetasika and rupa (I do not speak on nibbana now) are paramattha dhammas, concepts are not. Concepts are time-freed: they do not arise and fall away. I find these matters very important for the development of satipatthana and for solving my problems in life. Important to know what is only, only a story we can think of and what is only, only thinking and then gone. There are happy memories and unhappy memories. Past worries are gone and then there are new ones but these go also in an instant. What is real now: seeing, colour, hearing, sound, thinking, the five khandhas. They are elements. I want to have more understanding of the elements of this moment, that is my lifelong task. What are these elements? Dhammas devoid of self. Paramattha dhammas are different from this image or story and that one. I do not want to take the unreal for the real, I want to learn, and not just in theory, what is a paramattha dhamma and what is not. Otherwise I would drown in the ocean of concepts. Getting lost in misery and despair. What is satipatthana? Nothing else but the development of understanding of paramattha dhammas, ephemeral realities that are not self. And we should not cling to words and definitions. Even a beginning of understanding of paramattha dhammas does help. As Larry said: Nina. 32595 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dialogue with Lodewijk, no 1 Dear Philip, op 27-04-2004 21:30 schreef Philip op plnao@j...: They remind me of the value of conversation, and > encourage me to pay more attention to the conversations I have with > Naomi. (We've had some very good ones recently, N: Make always notes, otherwise you forget. > Ph: I have been intending to start a thread > asking everybody how they "use" the satipatthana sutta, which is > clearly so important. I will start that thread one of these days. N: Very good. Ph: LIke many who come to DSG, I was surprised to read that > attention on the breath was not an accepted practice by all All my aspirations, > fears, desires, irritations, stories, fantasies, senses of pain, of > pleasure, all the indifferent feelings as well - they are all hinging > on a single breath, and if the next one didn't come, they would fall > away forever N: a very good observation. >Ph: N:> We also spoke about the cemetery contemplations, and this > reminds us of >> recollection of death. > > Ph: I'm happy to be reminded of this. I'd read about it, and > forgot. When I am aware of everything hinging on one breath like I > wrote about above, I have a recollection of death, but I don't extend > it to a cemetery contemplation. If I remember correctly, the cemetery > contemplation or loathsomeness of the body contemplation are > recommended as antidotes for lust or greed, aren't they? N: We do not only have to think of lust or greed. It is very valuable to be brought to reality now: only elements, nama and rupa, so that there will be less clinging to my body, my feelings, my citta. All these elements are there very shortly and then gone. That is recollection of momentray death. Loathsomeness of the body is the same. When eating such fine food I mentioned to Lodeiwjk that nobody pushes your food down with a ladle, nor pushes it further down in the body. Just elements. I had my notes on the table and liked having this conversation, making notes at the dining table (waiters bustling around us, which is not distracting) and working them out until late at night. Just like I always do in India. I felt very happy having such conversations, just had a great time. Ph: Do you think > it is necessary to do them often, or only as antidotes in response to > unwholesome states of mind taking hold and becoming dominant as they > do on some days? N: No rules. I do not think of antidotes. If we see the value, it can occur to us naturally, spontaneously. Antidotes has for me a forced connotation. Should we not know also our akusala? These can be excellent reminders of satipatthana, they are in the third satipatthana and in the fourth one, the hindrances. First thing is not taking them for self. They are also just elements. Ph: I have so much to read, but am feeling > patient about it, fortunately. That patience is something that was > stressed to me by quite a few people when I joined DSG and their > advice has been staying with me nicely. N: This was also our subject as you will see. Ph: Thank you for sharing your conversation, Nina. I really enjoyed it > and look forward to reading more! :) N: You really encouraged me to continue writing, Philip. Thank you, Nina. 32596 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:59am Subject: dialogue with Lodewijk, no 2 Dear all, When sitting in the restaurant we did not only talk on the satipatthanasutta but also on the perfections which are always connected with the development of satipatthana. We had to wait a long, long time in between the courses that were served. We should accumulate patience also with regard to very insignificant matters of daily life. If we do not accumulate patience little by little how can we be patient enough to develop satipatthana? We can develop patience for example when we drop things on the floor, during the little contrarieties in daily life. We talked about the problems with regard to my very old father. He talks with difficulty, and one day he is very brilliant, but another day he is greatly disturbed, far away from reality. When we have more patience, compassion can arise naturally and spontaneously, it can arise more often. It takes patience to know our own akusala. We need patience not only when an object is unpleasant but also when an object is pleasant. When we have patience the citta is kusala instead of akusala citta rooted in attachment or aversion. We also discussed that some people who develop satipatthana are in a hurry to see any result of their development. When sitting down on a bench for a picnic we talked more about the perfections. Lodewijk thinks that the study of the Abhidhamma does not lead to intellectualizing all our experiences, but that it helps us with the perfection of truthfulness. The different dhammas we learn about through the Abhidhamma appear and they exhibit their own characteristics so that these can be known as they are. We should truly know our cittas as they are, kusala cittas and akusala cittas. We need truthfulness with all the perfections. The perfections are: liberality (dåna), morality (síla), renunciation (nekkhamma), wisdom (paññå), energy (viriya), patience (khanti), truthfulness (sacca), determination (aditthåna), lovingkindness (mettå) and equanimity (upekkhå). We should be sincere in our determination to develop all perfections without expecting any gain for ourselves. When we are generous, when we try to help someone, we should have no preferences for specific people and not expect any kindness, any recognition in return. This means that we need equanimity and renunciation or detachment all the time. We should develop truthfulness in speech, and that is sila. We need truthfulness when we extend metta to someone else, and not confuse metta with attachment. But it is natural that there are metta and attachment alternately in our relationship with others. Through satipatthana we learn the difference. Lodewijk finds it helpful to just know that they are different. I also talked about energy, viriya. In the development of satipatthana we have to be heroic, no matter what obstacles there are in our life: within us or outside us. Nina. 32597 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:59am Subject: my vacation Dear Larry, Jon and all, I am closing off my Email, Friday night April 30 until My 8, a vacation in Belgium. Taking my Pali Vis and Tiika with me, Larry. We have almost reached the khandha of consciousness. Jon, I admired your Vis in small booklets for on a journey. What is its ISBN, I like to order from my bookshop, not by internet. I try to answer some very good Emails from Larry, Howard and Philip, otherwise after my return. Nina. 32598 From: Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 9:09am Subject: Do or not do something Anyone, Am I correct in the following? In the Abhidhamma, a deliberately chosen consciousness (sasankharika) can be just as skillful as one that just arises without inducement (asasankharika). I can have a consciousness that is deliberately chosen that is still associated with knowledge. To quote from Narada's Abhidhammattha Sangaha, "If, for instance, one does an act, induced by another of after much deliberation or premeditation on one's part, then it is sasankharika. If, on the contrary, one does it instantly without any external or internal inducement, or any premeditation, then it is asankharika." jack 32599 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:58pm Subject: Re: Video Games? Friend Philip, Philip: Surely you don't deny the importance of understanding the Aggregates in order to understand annata? James: Well, this depends on what you mean by `understand' the Aggregates. Do you mean understand what they are? If so, I don't believe that this is so important. Okay, let's try this experiment, I will define the five aggregates for you and we'll see if it makes you enlightened: The five aggregates are a continually changing psycho-physical process which are interconnected and dependently arisen. Okay, are you enlightened yet? No? Why not? You now `understand' what the five aggregates are. The reason you are not enlightened is because there still exists clinging to the five aggregates. Clinging is something which cannot be eliminated with mere `understanding', it must be eliminated with penetrative insight. Philip: Really? So we have to go along trapped in self, driven by self, a slave of self until we understand Nibbana? James: Yes. Until we 'realize' Nibbana, that is. Philip: I think I understand annata. It's common sense in the light of the Buddha's teaching - see the Five Aggregates. James: Well, here we have that word `understand' again. You may have an intellectual understanding of anatta but that isn't a direct knowledge of anatta. If you had a direct knowledge of anatta, you would be enlightened. Philip: But I don't pretend to understand Nibbana. You'll say that I *don't* understand annata but I say say I do. So nyah! ;) James: LOL! Well, this group has had very long discussions and threads on this subject before. You missed all the fun! I think I am relatively alone in this group in my thinking that anatta is just as hard to comprehend as nibbana (I don't feel like I really know either one!). Many feel that they can intellectually comprehend anatta but not nibbana. I think it is impossible to `intellectually comprehend' either one. The `understanding' would be at such a basic and surface level that it shouldn't even be counted as true knowledge, more `just a finger pointing at the moon.' Philip: Ok, I guess some dispute that 1/3 of the Triple Basket was not in fact taught by the Buddha. I'm new to this dispute so I can't comment but it seems unlikely to me that the Buddha's teaching doesn't enter one of the three baskets. Of course, I don't know much at all about the history and development of Buddhism. James: Well, you can go on the Internet and do the research and find out. I wrote some posts about this, where I summarized this type of research, but you won't find them in the `Useful Posts' section. (I had a little spat with Sarah over that one too! ;-)) I think both sides of the issue should be presented in the Useful Posts section and let newcomers, like you, decide for themselves.) Anyway, I don't have a problem with the Abhidhamma until people start claiming that the Buddha taught it and that it is superior to the suttas. Both of those claims do irritate me, I have to admit, because I highly value the truth. Philip: so why try to deny people their rupa and nama? James: LOL! I am not denying anyone their rupa and nama! I am just saying that knowing nama and rupa isn't completion of the Buddhist path, as it is sometimes presented in this group. Philip: If folks in the NAG posit that it is impossible to follow the way without understanding nupa and nama, then I'd understand why you feel the need to debate them. James: Then you understand why I debate them because they posit just such a position. (BTW, I'm not quite sure of the membership in this hypothetical `NAG'. I predominately think of certain individuals, not nebulous group memberships.) Philip: Is anyone at DSG saying that it is impossible to become enlightened without studying Abhidhamma? James: I don't think that this has been stated outright. After all, this is a scholarly group and it would be possible to provide various examples of those who were enlightened without studying the Abhidhamma…after all, Pacceka Buddhas (Silent Buddhas) become enlightened without the Abhidhamma. However, this type of position is implied quite often. Philip: I struggle with doubts about the existence of different realms. You too? James: I had the same doubts when I first became a Buddhist, my freshman year at college, but since then I have lost all doubts. Just give it time. ;-)) Philip: The Buddha does teach about the existence of different realms, right? If you believe in the realms, why can't you believe in the Buddha teaching in them? James: The Buddha and other monks would visit the various deva realms but they didn't do a whole lot of dhamma teaching in them… they just made cordial visits and brief dhamma instruction. Devas are not very attentive to the dhamma because they are too engrossed in sensual pleasures. This is one of the reasons why I don't believe the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma for months, continually to a large assembly of devas. They wouldn't have sat still for it!! (Heck, they probably wouldn't have stopped having sex for that long!! ;-)) See Devatasamyutta "Connected Discourses with Devatas" and Devaputtasamyutta "Connected Discourses with Young Devas" in the Samyutta Nikaya for background information. Philip: Don't bother answering that unless you really want to. James: Don't know if I `really wanted to', but I answered it anyway. ;-) Philip: In any case, I've enjoying discussing this with you and appreciate your lending me an ear, friend James. James: The enjoyment is mutual, friend Philip. Metta, James 32600 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 3:01pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Friend Jack, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jackhat1@a... wrote: > In a message dated 4/28/04 4:05:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > plnao@j... writes: > > So, knowing namas and rupas is like wallowing in filth and thinking > > it is heaven. The mind must penetrate to the nibbana element to > > have true release. The only way to do this is to practice > > mindfulness and concentration. Okay, nuff said. ;-)) > James, > > Here is what Narada, the translator of _A Manual of Abhidhammattha Sangaha_, > a work often referenced in posts here, has to say about this issue in his > preface. I would think you would agree with his thoughts. > > "Undoubtedly Abhidhamma is extremly helpful to comprehend fully the word of > the Buddha and realise Nibbana, Yes, I do agree with his words and appreciate the fact that he doesn't say that the Abhidhamma is the Word of the Buddha. Metta, James 32601 From: Andrew Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 3:20pm Subject: Sabhava ... again! Greetings all, In an effort to convince you all that I am badly "behind the times", I now want to contribute something on a long-dead thread. Sabhava. Remember that one? The fact is I have been reading Prof. Peter Harvey's "Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices" (Cambridge Uni Press, 11th reprint 2002)and have found the following interesting snippet on page 87: "Buddhaghosa, the fifth century AD commentator, explains dhammas thus: 'They are dhammas because they uphold their own-nature. They are dhammas because they are upheld by conditions or they are upheld according to their own-nature' (Asl.39). Here, 'own-nature' would appear to mean a characteristic nature, which is not something inherent in a dhamma as a separate ultimate reality, but arises due to the supporting conditions both of other dhammas and previous occurences of that dhamma. This is of significance as it makes the Mahayana critique of the Sarastivadin's notion of own-nature largely irrelevant to the Theravada." Thus, Harvey seems to concur with Jon, Sarah and others that Nagarjuna's criticisms of sabhava have little relevance to Theravada. Best wishes Andrew 32602 From: Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 3:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts', feeling Nina: "What do you think about this Vis. passage?" Hi Nina, Not very enlightening. If dukkha is an asabhava dhamma how can it have a cause? Is "cause of suffering" just conventional language? As for the dhammas we experience, they don't have objects. We can easily observe this. When I stub my toe, the throbbing painful sensation has nothing to do with hardness. I couldn't tell if that is your position or not. Aversion to painful feeling is just aversion. We link it to painful feeling by inference. This has nothing to do with insight. Larry 32603 From: Andrew Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 3:46pm Subject: The Practical View of Anatta Hello everyone and especially Victor In his book, "An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, history and practices" (Cambridge Uni Press, 11th reprint 2002), Prof Peter Harvey writes that "the not-self teaching is not in *itself* a denial of the existence of a permanent self; it is primarily a practical teaching aimed at the overcoming of attachment." I'm sure Victor will agree with this. Harvey goes on to explain that the practical exercise of examining phenomena and seeing that none of them can be taken as a permanent self results in the idea of self withering away "as it is seen that no actual instance of such a thing can be found anywhere." I would have thought that if no instance of something can be found anywhere, we are to conclude that it doesn't exist. If we don't embrace that conclusion, are we not reinforcing self-view in a subtle way? It seems that there WERE early Buddhists who believed in the existence of a self: the Puggalavadins or "Personalists". They argued that the self was as real as the khandhas. In the 7th century AD, a quarter of all Buddhist monks were Puggalavadins. All the other schools argued they were wrong. Surely there is a fine line between refusing to state "there is no self" and being a Puggalavadin? Victor in particular seems to walk that line quite confidently. I'm not sure I can keep up with him, though. Am I missing something important? Does anyone have any thoughts on how one can refuse to deny "self" and not be a believer in self like the Puggalavadins? Best wishes Andrew 32604 From: Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 3:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sabhava ... again! Andrew: "Thus, Harvey seems to concur with Jon, Sarah and others that Nagarjuna's criticisms of sabhava have little relevance to Theravada." Hi Andrew, I agree. It seems as though India, Tibet, and China never even heard of Theravada until very recently. Very surprising! The Vimuttimagga was translated into Chinese but I don't know of anything else. Also, ancient Theravada doesn't seem to be aware of any living traditions or current issues outside of Ceylon. Larry 32605 From: Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sabhava ... again! Hi, Andrew - In a message dated 4/28/2004 6:20:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, athel60@t... writes: > > Greetings all, > In an effort to convince you all that I am badly "behind the times", > I now want to contribute something on a long-dead thread. Sabhava. > Remember that one? The fact is I have been reading Prof. Peter > Harvey's "Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices" > (Cambridge Uni Press, 11th reprint 2002)and have found the following > interesting snippet on page 87: > "Buddhaghosa, the fifth century AD commentator, explains dhammas > thus: 'They are dhammas because they uphold their own-nature. They > are dhammas because they are upheld by conditions or they are upheld > according to their own-nature' (Asl.39). Here, 'own-nature' would > appear to mean a characteristic nature, which is not something > inherent in a dhamma as a separate ultimate reality, but arises due > to the supporting conditions both of other dhammas and previous > occurences of that dhamma. This is of significance as it makes the > Mahayana critique of the Sarastivadin's notion of own-nature largely > irrelevant to the Theravada." > Thus, Harvey seems to concur with Jon, Sarah and others that > Nagarjuna's criticisms of sabhava have little relevance to > Theravada. > Best wishes > Andrew ================================ That's completely true - except when a Theravadin makes the mistake of thinking and acting like a Sarvastivadin! ;-)) With metta, Howard 32606 From: Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Practical View of Anatta Hi, Andrew - In a message dated 4/28/2004 6:46:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, athel60@t... writes: > Hello everyone and especially Victor > In his book, "An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, history and > practices" (Cambridge Uni Press, 11th reprint 2002), Prof Peter > Harvey writes that "the not-self teaching is not in *itself* a denial > of the existence of a permanent self; it is primarily a practical > teaching aimed at the overcoming of attachment." I'm sure Victor > will agree with this. Harvey goes on to explain that the practical > exercise of examining phenomena and seeing that none of them can be > taken as a permanent self results in the idea of self withering > away "as it is seen that no actual instance of such a thing can be > found anywhere." > I would have thought that if no instance of something can be found > anywhere, we are to conclude that it doesn't exist. If we don't > embrace that conclusion, are we not reinforcing self-view in a subtle > way? > It seems that there WERE early Buddhists who believed in the > existence of a self: the Puggalavadins or "Personalists". They > argued that the self was as real as the khandhas. In the 7th century > AD, a quarter of all Buddhist monks were Puggalavadins. All the > other schools argued they were wrong. > Surely there is a fine line between refusing to state "there is no > self" and being a Puggalavadin? Victor in particular seems to walk > that line quite confidently. I'm not sure I can keep up with him, > though. Am I missing something important? Does anyone have any > thoughts on how one can refuse to deny "self" and not be a > believer > in self like the Puggalavadins? > Best wishes > Andrew ========================= If one takes the phenomenalist and pragmatic assumption that all there is are the "experientials" - that is, that all there is are the five khandhas, and adds that assumption to the fact that none of these are self, then one can logically infer the conclusion that there is no self. However, such a logical inference is not liberating. What is liberating is no longer grasping onto anything as me or mine, and that is not a matter of inference. With metta, Howard 32607 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:32pm Subject: OT - Cooran, May long weekend (Re: Sabhava ... again!) Hello Andrew, You know the old adage - better late than never (smile). Sorry to use your post for an off-topic message, but my old computer is presently refusing to handover anything to my new computer. There is a faint hope that a PC Rescue Virtuoso will be able to extract years of carefully saved important posts, including email addresses. Don't be in despair about KenH's disgracefully cavalier attitude about preparing properly for this week-end's Dhamma Discussions - SOME of us are diligent, trustworthy, reliable, and conscientious. OTHERS of us, well … let's just `send' metta and karuna and think of Angulimala. No-one is past praying for (so to speak) You will just have to depend on those of us who have our priorities right. (We do, don't we, Steve?) Anyway - Reg is coming up with me once we solve the small matter of storing his motorcycle. We will be starting out at about 6.00 p.m. (one of us isn't on holidays) and, the devas willing, should arrive anywhere between 8.00 and 10.00 p.m. - depending on tea breaks, getting lost (which will not be the fault of the diligent driver), and mechanical problems. Two small questions: 1. Is anyone else sleeping way down that lonely track in that cavernous shed miles from anywhere (well, a quarter of a mile) except about 15 equanimous cats and one bunyip? Could bunyips be petas? (I AM NOT scared of the dark). 2. Any chance of going frogging? With all those deep dams and gullies, I thought there might be a chance of seeing some varieties of local frogs in any break from Dhamma Discussion. After the experience last time of not being able to repair the injured March Fly, I will bring my book on `Basic care of injured frogs' (Ruth Wait) How cold is it? Cheers, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" 32608 From: Andrew Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 5:41pm Subject: OT - Cooran, May long weekend (Re: Sabhava ... again!) Hi Christine It is a bit chilly and raining here at Cooran but the weekend forecast is for fine weather. I suggest you bring warm clothes and insect repellant. Your 2 questions: > 1. Is anyone else sleeping way down that > lonely track in that cavernous shed miles from anywhere (well, a > quarter of a mile) except about 15 equanimous cats and one bunyip? Probably not. Your bed is reserved. > Could bunyips be petas? Again, probably not but I decline to provide a sutta reference for that, with the consequence that half of this list won't accept my answer. ["bunyip" is a mythical Australian swamp monster]. > 2. Any chance of going frogging? With all those deep dams and > gullies, I thought there might be a chance of seeing some varieties > of local frogs in any break from Dhamma Discussion. After the > experience last time of not being able to repair the injured March > Fly, I will bring my book on `Basic care of injured frogs' (Ruth > Wait) You can come up to the house where, every evening about dusk, 2 large green tree frogs "appear" in the toilet bowl. I have to lift them out and take them outside for their night of feeding on insects. I have no idea how they get back into the toilet system. They appear to have no dosa towards their environment! Sorry to say, I have been so busy I haven't been able to prepare much Dhamma material for discussion. We will have to rely heavily on our erudite friend, Ken H, to carry the day - from his recent DSG posts, I think he has been deep in thought and will have many insights to share. (-: Have a safe trip. Andrew 32609 From: Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 6:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 76 Hi Nina, Sorry for not responding to this earlier. I didn't get it in my email so I went looking in the web site. You wrote: N: "Only three elements are tangible object. Even as one does not touch visible object, in the same way one does not touch fluidity or the element of water. Someone who believes that he can touch water is only thinking of a concept. We should verify this in touching water without thinking about it." L: I agree that we don't touch fluidity or shape; we only think we _touch_ them. However, I would say we do cognize fluidity and shape. They are both mind-door rupas. Shape is a manifestation of delimitation (space), and of course fluidity is one of the 4 primary rupas as "cohesiveness". Have a good vacation. We can pick up when you get back. Larry 32610 From: Andrew Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 8:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Practical View of Anatta Hi Howard You wrote: If one takes the phenomenalist and pragmatic assumption that all there is are the "experientials" - that is, that all there is are the five khandhas, and adds that assumption to the fact that none of these are self, then one can logically infer the conclusion that there is no self. However, such a logical inference is not liberating. What is liberating is no longer grasping onto anything as me or mine, and that is not a matter of inference. A: I still don't find this satisfying, I'm afraid. If I refuse to acknowledge a logical inference (which was apparently accepted by all early Buddhist schools except the Puggalavadins), aren't I clinging to the idea that "there just might be a self after all"? And if there IS some sort of self - well, that's "me" and "mine" isn't it? In addition, if a logical inference is not liberating then neither is an assertion like "a self cannot be denied". I previously put to Victor that he was treating the anatta teaching as ending in an unthinkable. Why didn't Buddha clearly declare it so, as he did with other unthinkables? My recollection is that Victor has not commented on this aspect thus far. Can one be liberated whilst being open to the possibility that, somewhere amongst all the pieces of meat at the butcher's table at the crossroads, there might just be a "cow"? Best wishes Andrew 32611 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 9:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cittas and cetasikas (basic question!) Hi Howard, When citta is akusala, all cetasikas are also akusala. Remember: citta and cetasika are of the same jati (kusala akusala, vipaka or kiriya), arise at the same base, experience the same object and fall away together. Some cetasikas, the universals, accompany each citta, some, the particulars, accompany cittas of the four jatis but not all of them. Now, when they accompany akusala citta, all of them are akusala. They do everything in the wrong way. Nina. op 28-04-2004 15:29 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > In particular, I'm not clear on whether or > not an akusala citta, one with akusala roots, must have *all* its cetasikas > akusala, or wherther there could be a "mix". 32612 From: Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Practical View of Anatta Andrew: "Can one be liberated whilst being open to the possibility that, somewhere amongst all the pieces of meat at the butcher's table at the crossroads, there might just be a "cow"?" Hi Andrew, How's this: there's no cow in the individual parts, but the parts function collectively as cow; there's no self in the khandhas but the khandhas function as a self. This may not seem like much of an insight, but we spend most of our life thinking there is self in the parts, in particular the thinking part. The test is: does this view support both kamma and anatta? Larry 32613 From: Andrew Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 0:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Practical View of Anatta Hi Larry You wrote: How's this: there's no cow in the individual parts, but the parts > function collectively as cow; there's no self in the khandhas but the > khandhas function as a self. This may not seem like much of an insight, > but we spend most of our life thinking there is self in the parts, in > particular the thinking part. > > The test is: does this view support both kamma and anatta? A: And anicca, of course. So the self is a concept, a conventional truth in flux from moment to moment. As such, it does not exist in absolute terms, it doesn't have own-nature. But I think that those who contend that the Buddha didn't deny the existence of a permanent self are talking about a self in absolute terms. The Puggalavadins certainly did, putting self on the level with the khandhas. So if a "cow" does exist in absolute terms, how liberated do you get by cutting it up and telling yourself that the parts are not "cow" and "cow" cannot be found in them? Sorry, but that doesn't seem to help me much at all. It only convinces me more that the Buddha did not believe in a permanent self and that's why he told people to look for it and see if they could find it. Just like he told that grieving mother to look for a mustard seed in a household untouched by death. The lesson is in the futility of the search. Thanks for your input, Larry. Best wishes Andrew 32614 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 1:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Question Still Remains/Cooran Hi Ken H & All, --- kenhowardau wrote: >.....If you have any > more gems like that.... .... S: :-)I think you should take some of your own gems along like the one about the superficial causes of annoyance and the real or deeper causes and lack of respect for the Dhamma. On this note you may prompt Chris to talk more about when she bumped her knee. This was one of the first topics during our recent discussions in Bangkok. We tend to think that when we bump a knee on a table that the discomfort and anguish is a lot of akusala vipaka (unfortunate result of kamma). K.Sujin gave a good response. She said to ‘take all the names out, then it’s realities’. In other words, when we think about knee and pain and coffee table and so on, these are terms and concepts which mask the realities. In truth there are the briefest moments of akusala vipaka through the body sense, when hardness, heat or motion are experienced with unpleasant (bodily) feeling. Subsequently in the sense and mind door processes there is bound to be aversion and other unwholesome mental factors including unpleasant mental feeling accompanying the javana cittas over and over again . One moment of akusala vipaka and then so many moments of akusala cittas. In between these processes there are also bound to be other sense door processes when visible objects, sounds and so on are experienced as well. I’ve enjoyed reading your discussions with RobM, KenO, Nina and others. As I understand, papa~nca (proliferation or ‘diffuseness’) extends to all sixfold sense-impressions through all doorways. From Nyantiloka dict: “In A 1V, 173, it is said: ‘As far as the field of sixfold sense-impression extends, so far reaches the world of diffuseness (or the phenomenal world: pap~ncassa gati)’. In just the same way the vipallaasa (perversions) of sa~n~naa and citta vipallasa arise with each akusala citta (including the 5 sense-doors)- only eradicated by the arahant. We also read in the texts about visible object craving (ruupata.nhaa) being ‘craving in respect of a visible datum’ and so on for the other sense objects. From Dispeller, 838: “For when visible-data craving occurs in the form of delighting with sense delight in a visible datum as object that has come into the focus of the eye, it is then called craving for sense desire......’. I believe it was in Myanmar that we discussed examples of possible strong reactions in the sense door processes and an example was given of when one’s asleep and is suddently woken by the sound of thunder impacting on the ear door. Too much speculation is not very helpful though, I find. I also like this quote which I’ve given before (but can’t find, so am re-tyoing)from Dispeller, 1755 about improper visitors in the eye-door process: “But when a visible datum comes into focus in the eye door, impulsion arises at the end when, following the disturbance in the life continuum, adverting, etc have arisen and ceased with the accomplishment of their respective functions. That [impulsion] is like a visitor in the eye door which is the home of the previously arisen adverting and so on. And as it is improper for a visitor who has entered another’s house to ask for something, to give orders, when the owners of the home sit in silence, so lusting or hating or becoming deluded in the eye door which is the home of adverting, etc. is improper when adverting, etc. do not lust or hate or become deluded. Thus should ‘clear understanding through non-delusion’ be understood by way of ‘visiting’.” I think this question of sense experiences is also relevant to the ‘guarding of sense doors’, not just guarding of the mind door. Like you and Nina, I don’t believe all akusala cittas to be akusala kamma likely to bring results. However, we can say that all akusala cittas are support for akusala kamma. I also agree with your comments on the description of visible objects (and sounds) and also find it more helpful just to describe them as ‘just that which appears through the eyes’, (ears) and so on. Like you, I think that when ‘dots’ or even ‘colours’ are used, people tend to have an idea of seeing something different from just that which appears when we open our eyes, seeing that which has always been seen naturally. However, when there is no understanding or awareness, whatever we read will be misunderstood. I also thought your comments on the ‘Illusion of Control’ were pretty good pls take along [32036] as my contribution to the weekend discussion;-). An extract which is bound to keep some lively discussion going through the night and leave little time for fire-gazing: >KenH: To digress: The thing that intrigues me is that we might admit we can't control paramattha dhammas but still think we can control concepts. (I fall into that trap all the time.) In fact, there is no control over anything (the uncontrollable dhammas created the concepts in the first place). >We might say; "Look, I wanted to sit down and now I am sitting down – control! I wanted to close my eyes and think about anatta and that is what I am doing. Maybe there is no control over ultimate reality but there certainly is over conventional reality!" >That is what happens during formal meditation – belief in control. Admittedly, it also happens throughout the rest of the day but at those other times we are not turning it into a ritualistic practice.< Look forward to the reports. Metta, Sarah p.s Chris, good to see you back. Do hope you find a way to retrieve your material from the old computer. Any special impressions from Bangkok to add? Andrew, thanks for your ‘sabhava’ support - never too late for that struggling cause;-)Hope you and Sandra are doing well. ============================ 32615 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 1:53am Subject: Vis. XIV, 76 and Tiika, no 2, reposted Vis. XIV, 76 and Tiika, no 2, reposted The Tiika text contiues in footnote 32: note 32. ' "Sensed (muta)" means apprehendable by sensing (mutvaa), by reaching; hence he said "because they are the objective fields of faculties that take contiguous [objective fields]" . But what is it that is called a tangible datum? It is the three elements, earth, heat, and air. But why is the water element not included here? Is not cold apprehended by touching; and that is the water element? Certainly it is apprehended but it is not the water element. What is it then? It is just the fire element. For there is the sensation (buddhi) of cold when heat is sluggish. N: The translation of sensation is wrong. We have to read vuddhi for buddhi, b and v are interchangeble. Vuddhi means increase. The text has: siitabuddhi, an increase of cold, when heat is sluggish or slight (manda). Text: There is no quality that is called cold; there is only the assumption (abhimaana) of coldness due to the sluggishness of the state of heat. How is it to be known? Because of the unreliability of the sensation of cold, like "beyond and not beyond". For in hot weather, while those who stand in the sun and go into the shade have the sensation of cold, yet those who go to the same place from an underground cave have the sensation of heat. N: Cold and heat are relative notions as is demonstrated. They are still the element of heat or fire. Text: And if coldness were the water element it would be found in a single group (kalaapa) along with heat; but it is not so found. That is why it may be known that coldness is not the water element. N: Cold is not taken as an additional great Element. There are only four great Elements. In the following sentences different contrarious opinions at that time are refuted. Text: And that is conclusive (uttara) for those who agree to the inseparable existence of the primary elements; and it is conclusive too even for those who do not agree because it is disproved by associate existence through seeing the functions of the four primaries in a single group. N: The element of Earth is a foundation four the other elements, the element of Water has the function of cohesion, holding the other elements together, the function of the Element of Fire is maturing or maintaining, the function of the Element of Wind or motion is to causing motion, oscillation or propelling. There is no place for an additional great Element such as cold. Text: It is conclusive too for those who say that coldness is the characteristic of the air element; for if coldness were the air element, coldness would be found in a single group along with heat, and it is not so found. That is why it may be known that coldness is not the air element either. But those who hold the opinion that fluidity (dravataa) is the water element and that that is apprehended by touching should be told: "That fluidity is touched is merely the venerable ones' assumption as is the case with shape". For this is said by the Ancients: "Three elements coexisting with fluidity together form what constitutes a tangible; that 'I succeed in touching this fluidity' is a common misconception in the world. And as a man who touches elements, and apprehends a shape then with his mind, fancies 'I really have been touching shape', so too fluidity is recognized" ' (Pm. 459). N: Only three elements are tangible object. Even as one does not touch visible object, in the same way one does not touch fluidity or the element of water. Someone who believes that he can touch water is only thinking of a concept. We should verify this in touching water without thinking about it. **** At the end of this Tiika text (English below): Sesanti yathaavutta.m ruupaadisattavidha.m ruupa.m .thapetvaa avasi.t.tha.m ekaviisatividha.m ruupa.m. As is said, he declares visible object and so on as sevenfold *, and the remaining materiality are twentyone kinds of materiality. Vi~n~naa.nassevaati manovi~n~naa.nasseva. As to the expression, (they are the objective field ) of consciousness only, this means, only of mind-consciousness **. Avadhaara.nena ruupaayatanaadiinampi manovi~n~naa.navi~n~neyyatte niyamaabhaavato na vi~n~naataruupataati sa"nkaraabhaava.m dasseti. By stressing this, although colour etc. are to be known by mind-consciousness too, he keeps the rupas that are not experienced exclusively through the mind-door separate (not mixing them with the others). ***** English: As is said, he declares visible object and so on as sevenfold *, and the remaining materiality are twentyone kinds of materiality. As to the expression, (they are the objective field ) of consciousness only, this means, only of mind-consciousness **. By stressing this, although colour etc. are to be known by mind-consciousness too, he keeps the rupas that are not experienced exclusively through the mind-door separate (not mixing them with the others). _______ * The seven rupas that appear all the time: the three that are tangible object, and colour, sound, odour and flavour. They are experienced through their relevant sense-doors. Together with the twentyone remaining rupas, there are twentyeight rupas in all. ** The twentyone remaining rupas are experienced only through the mind-door. The seven rupas mentioned above are experienced each through the relevant sense-door and in the succeeding mind-door process through the mind-door. **** Nina. 32616 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 1:53am Subject: Vis. XIV, 76 and Tiika, no 1, reposted Intro to Vis. 76. Also in some of the sutta texts we read about sense-cognitions as fourfold: what is seen, heard, sensed (muta) and cognized through the mind-door. Sensed includes the experience of odour, of flavour and of tangible object. The Vis gives the reason, stating: Contiguous, in Pali sampatta, means: reached. The Atthasalini (II, 314, p. 411) explains: It is a different matter in the case of odours, flavours, and tangible object. That is why their experience is taken separately by using the term muta, sensed. It reminds us of the direct contact of these objects with the relevant sense-organs. Thus, this is a fourfold classification of the experience of objects through the six doors, of the aayatanas. The Vis. stresses that the different elements are coming together at the right time so that there can be the experience of objects. We read about a classification of what occurs now, all the time. They exhibit their own characteristics and are gone before one can do anything about them. The word objective field is a translation of the Pali: visaya. This means sphere or field, and it is another term for object, aaramma.na. Vis. 76. Again, it is of four kinds as seen, etc., as concrete matter, etc., and as the physical basis tetrads, and so on. Herein, the visible-data base is 'seen' because it is the objective field of seeing. The sound base is 'heard' because it is the objective field of hearing. The three, that is to say, odours, flavours, and tangible data, are 'sensed' (lit. contacted) because they are the objective fields of faculties that take contiguous [objective fields]. The rest are 'cognized' because they are the objective field of consciousness (cognition) only. So firstly it is of four kinds according to the seen, etc., tetrad. (32) Pali: 76. puna di.t.thaadiruuparuupaadivatthaadicatukkavasena catubbidha.m. tattha ruupaayatana.m di.t.tha.m naama dassanavisayattaa, saddaayatana.m suta.m naama savanavisayattaa, gandharasapho.t.thabbattaya.m muta.m naama sampattagaahakaindriyavisayattaa, sesa.m vi~n~naata.m naama vi~n~naa.nasseva visayattaati eva.m taava di.t.thaadicatukkavasena catubbidha.m. *** Tiika (all English below): 76. Di.t.thaadicatukkavasena, ruuparuupaadicatukkavasena, vatthaadicatukkavasenaati paa.tekka.m catukkasaddo yojetabbo. The word fourfold should be applied severally with regard to the seen etc., with regard to concrete matter (rupa-rupa) etc., and with regard to the physical bases *. .. Dassanavisayattaati cakkhuvi~n~naa.navi~n~neyyattaa. As to the expression, the objective field of seeing, this means it is to be seen by seeing-consciousness. Savanavisayattaati sotavi~n~naa.navi~n~neyyattaa. As to the expression, the objective field of hearing, this means it is to be heard by hearing-consciousness. Gandharasapho.t.thabbattayanti gandho raso pho.t.thabbanti eta.m taya.m. As to the expression, the three, that is to say, odours, flavours, and tangible data, these are these three (that are sensed). Muta.m naama mutvaa patvaa gahetabbato. Tenaaha ³sampattaggaahaka-indriyavisayattaa²ti. They are called sensed, because they are apprehended after they have been sensed and reached (the sensebase). Therefore he said, ³because they are the objective fields of faculties that take contiguous [objective fields]² ** **** English: The word fourfold should be applied severally with regard to the seen etc., with regard to concrete matter (rupa-rupa) etc., and with regard to the physical bases *. ... As to the expression, the objective field of seeing, this means, it is to be seen by seeing-consciousness. As to the expression, the objective field of hearing, this means, it is to be heard by hearing-consciousness. As to the expression, the three, that is to say, odours, flavours, and tangible data, these are these three (that are sensed). They are called sensed, because they are apprehended after they have been sensed and reached (the sensebase). Therefore he said, ³because they are the objective fields of faculties that take contiguous [objective fields]² ** ________ * There is a grouping of four tetrads: The first is: what is seen, heard, sensed and cognized. The second, third and fourth tetrads are explained in the following paragraphs. ** See the explanation above, in the Intro. (to be continued) Nina. 32617 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 1:53am Subject: dialogue with Lodewijk, no 3 Dear all, The second evening of our hiking day we talked about the Application of Mindfulness of Feeling. I was worried because I had tired out Lodewijk by my walking fanatism. It was tough and he said that he never was as tired as that before. But when sitting down for dinner we had another Dhamma talk. We talked about the second Application of Mindfulness, Mindfulness of Feelings. When I see someone suffering, seeing is one reality and thinking is another reality. Thinking gives rise to different feelings but they are all gone before we realize it. One moment we have great anxiety and sadness and there is unhappy feeling, and the next moment there can very quickly be a change to pleasant feeling when we laugh about something, even about our worries. Feelings change before we can do anything about them, they are beyond control. It is very difficult to be aware precisely of feeling. The Abhidhamma is very precise, but we usually think of a mixture of many phenomena, bodily and mental. Lodewijk finds that vipassana without any understanding of the Abhidhamma makes no sense. We need some basic knowledge of the different processes of cittas that experience different objects and that each have appropriate conditions for their arising. It is important to know that seeing arises in one process of cittas and thinking in another process and that they experience different objects, and also, that on account of our experiences different feelings arise. We discussed the sutta of the ³Divine Messengers (Gradual Sayings, Book of the Threes, Ch IV, § 35) where we read that the Buddha spoke to the monks about three divine messengers: old age, sickness and death. A person who has immoral conduct in deeds, words and thoughts is reborn in hell. Lodewijk said that this sutta had made an overwhelming impression upon him. We had discussed this sutta in Thailand (I am writing more about this sutta). An old man who is sick is very realistically described, lying in his own filth and he is just like my father. This sutta reminds us of old age, sickness and death. But when we only think about the suttas it cannot change our life. The Abhidhamma goes to the root of our problems, the real causes: our defilements. The sutta can lead us to this moment: at this moment citta reflects on death and different feelings arise. Nama and rupa appear and they are just impermanent elements, devoid of self. Through satipatthana we can truly learn to see realities as they are. We talked about disease and death and our reactions to it. Lodewijk said that his brother had so much fear of death and that he himself is afraid to be afraid of death. He would like to die as a wise person, but he realizes that he needs the perfection of truthfulness so taht he will know himself. We talked about it that nobody can predict what cittas he has at such a moment. We need to know the dhamma appearing now. We should pay attention to the third Application of Mindfulness that includes all kinds of cittas arising now: kusala citta, akusala citta, indeterminate citta. The first citta that is mentioned is citta with attachment. We should not neglect this as object of mindfulness. We discussed the objects of the fourth Application of Mindfulness are the hindrances, the five khandhas, the six internal and external sensebases (ayatanas), the seven factors of enlightenment and the four noble Truths. Thus, dhammas under different aspects and different cetasikas. They all appear now and we should not forget this. All these objects are explained to bring us back to reality when we are neglectful. We learn more that dhamma is in daily life and that daily life itself reminds us to develop satipatthana now. There is no specific order according to which there should be awareness. At one moment rupa may appear, at another moment nama may appear. Citta with awareness travels from one object to another. I discussed the MN131 Bhaddekaratta Sutta "A Single Excellent Night" which is about insight of the present moment, and B.B. translates: being aware of each presently arisen state. The Pali has: tatthaa tatthaa vipassati: he has insight here and there. It occurred to me that this is very true: insight is developed of an object as it appears here and there, no matter it is an object of the first Application or any of the other Applications. To me this is what happens in reality. There is no rule, and there is not mindfulness at each moment. I asked Lodewijk whether he understands it now when I say: it depends on the sati what object it is aware of. He found this clear. He asked me what I mean by a moment of satipatthana. I answered that there are three meanings of the word satipatthana: the four Applications of Mindfulness which are the objects of sati and panna, sati itself that is aware of these objects, and satipatthana as the way the Buddha and his disciples went. Lodewijk said about a moment of satipatthana: thus, then it accompanies the citta that is aware, and it is with panna. Now all doubts were cleared with regard to the meanings of satipatthana. Our dialogues were very helpful and conforting to both of us. Nina. 32618 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 1:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 76, yahoo trouble Hi Larry and Jon, op 29-04-2004 03:29 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...:> > Sorry for not responding to this (Vis. 76) earlier. I didn't get it in my email so > I went looking in the web site. N: ??? again? We have to solve this. It also happened to Vis. 75, which I reposted. Is it the length of my Vis posts, should I split them? Is it your computer? No problem for next ones to also send them to you off line, whatever you like. Or just announce off line? I want to ask Jon whether the length of my post is the problem. I do not want to lose the connection of Vis and Tiika, but what other way of presentation is possible? I never like it that it is so long, but a few people may like the Pali as well. I shall repost Vis 76 in two parts now. Nina. 32619 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 2:52am Subject: na-vattaba ‘not so classifiable’ objects - Abhidhamma detail Dear Nina, Howard, Larry & All, Howard, many thanks for your report on the Abhid. retreat and I’m very glad you’re finding ‘Guide to Conditional Relations’ by U Narada so helpful. Larry, many thanks for your quotes from CMA Guide on mind-door process and other topics - very helpful for discussion. Nina, Before you leave on your trip, I’d like to report back on some of the discussion I had with A.Sujin on na-vattaba ‘not so classifiable’ or literally ‘not to be said to be’ objects which you referred to in a couple of posts. In texts like ‘Dispeller of Delusion’ (PTS transl of Sammohavinodani), I had wondered about the meaing of expressions such as in reviewing consciousness after magga and phala cittas when it said something like ‘it should not be said to have such an object’ (na-vattaba) and other similar references. Your posts referring to this ‘not so classifiable object’ were very interesting and helpful and triggered my questioning and further checking of references. You wrote to Larry when we were discussing the arupa jhana cittas: Nina: >Space like the air is a concept. The object of Jhana also a concept, but we can look at more details. Boundless space, a concept, but special. As I wrote in a former post to Howard, objects can be classified as: Slight (paritta, all sense objects), mahaggata (exalted, of jhana) and appamaa.na, boundless, here: lokuttara dhammas. Apart from these there are objects called: not so classifiable, navattaba, see Vis III, 117, note 32. This is very detailed. The object of boundless space when someone contemplates it is navatabba, it is a concept. Second jhana and third jhana have paramattha dhammas, namely cittas as object.< .... S: I think you may have meant second and fourth arupa jhana cittas here? What I understand is that all jhana cittas have concepts as objects with these two exceptions which have paramattha dhammas as objects? So the first arupa jhana citta (aakaasaana~ncaayatana) takes the concept of infinite space as object. The second arupa jhana citta (vi~n~naa.na~ncaayatana)has the first arupa jhana citta itself as object. Obviously in this case, the citta itself has fallen away, but it is the paramattha dhamma itself which is subsequently experienced by way of na-vatabba (not so classifiable) object. The third arupa jhana citta (aaki~nca~n~naayatana) takes as object the concept of non-existence or nothingness. The fourth arupa jhana citta (n’evasa~n~naan’aasa~n~naayatana) again has a paramattha dhamma as object, in this case the third arupa jhana citta. (see CMA p62 for more details). Again, the third arupa jhana citta taken as object has fallen away and as we know, only a present dhamma can be object, so again this is a paramattha dhamma experienced by way of na-vatabba object. So far this all sounds very picky and technical (which it is and hope I’m not making any mistakes), but I found there were wider implications and clarifications to many of Howard’s questions never satisfactorily answered (in his mind or mine) before. For example, questions raised about whether it is the reality of nibbana experienced by reviewing consciousness cittas following magga and phala cittas, how defilements eradicated could be reviewed, paramattha dhammas known by the Buddha from the past or in other beings etc can all be clarified in a similar way. The characteristics of the paramattha dhammas are known precisely, but by way of na-vatabba objects. To take this even further, the long-standing questions about how sense door objects or just fallen away namas can be known through the mind-door can also be answered in this way if we are precise. The characteristics are directly experienced, but in fact it is by way of being unclassifiable objects as past dhammas have gone. Conversely the nimitta or concepts experienced by jhana cittas are concepts experienced by way of unclassifiable objects, similarly representing concepts of other objects. In fact all concepts can be classified in this way. So we have both paramattha dhammas and concepts classified by way of unclassifiable objects;-). I found this all very helpful. Like Howard, many of my questions (like about how non-existent defilements could be reviewed as realities etc) had persisted and these discussions and subsequent checking of sources have helped a lot. Thank you Nina for raising it. One final comment: one Thai friend present for one of our discussions subsequently raised the topic in a Thai talk/discussion but was told her question was not relevant to the discussion of satipatthana. I think the point is that when it comes to understanding the characteristics of realities directly, it’s irrelevant whether strictly speaking the understanding occurs in the sense door or mind door process or whether strictly speaking the visible object or sound have just fallen away. When awareness is aware and panna understands, just that characteristic or paramattha dhamma is known. I hope this helps and I'll be glad to hear corrections or comments. Metta, Sarah p.s I’ve also just found the extract from Nina’s first post on (to na-vattaba ‘not so classifiable’ objects to Howard) which I’ll post below for reference. ============== Nina: >We discussed in Bgk subtle points and this taught me to be very careful with the word concept. There is much more to it. We also discussed past objects, which are not concepts but dhammas. The dhamma of the past can also be a not so classifiable object. Rebirth-consciousness can have past, present or not so classifiable object.We also have to remember that concept can be a term denoting a paramattha dhamma. Thus, when saying: there are just paramattha dhammas or concepts we have to be careful. We have to differentiate more. We went over texts of Dhammasangani, Vis. and Expositor. The English transl Dhsgn. omits these parts. It omits too many things. Rhys Davids may not have understood certain texts. <...> ========================== 32620 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 2:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: to old_dead_wood, present moment, no 3 Dear Nina, We'll all look forward to further reports of your conversations with Lodewijk. I also found your posts to old_dead_wood and the reminders about understanding the present dhammas in order to understand anatta and rebirth from moment to moment very inspiring. (As he is no longer around and I can't forward your letters for some reason -- maybe a full mail box --, if anyone comes across him, pls give the links to Nina's posts addressed to him. Of course, he may still be reading here.) I believe that what you write below summarises the only way that we can really eradicate all doubts about rebirth - i.e by understanding the arising and passing away of cittas now. Metta, Sarah ======= --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Dhamma friend old_dead_wood, > My conversation with Lodewijk was meant as an illustration that there is > a > different type of citta > at each moment, and that it falls away to be succeeded by the next one. > Seeing does not last, it falls away and shortly afterwards hearing > arises, > and this does not last either. But there has to be a citta at each > moment, > otherwise you would not stay alive. Our whole life is a long series of > different cittas and nobody can stop this series of cittas, they go on > and > on. Each citta that falls away is a condition for the arising of the > following citta. Thus, there is momentary death of each citta, and so > long > as there are conditions it is succeeded by the next citta. This happens > also > at the last moment of this life. The last citta, the > dying-consciousness, > falls away to be succeeded by the next citta, which is the > rebirth-consciousness of the following life. > We may reason about this, and it may not be very convincing. However, > when > insight is developed the present citta is understood more and more > precisely, and also its arising and falling away. Then there will not be > any > doubt that the dying-consciousness will be succeeded by the > rebirth-consciousness of the next life. It will be clear that this is in > fact not different from what occurs at this moment. > Nina. 32621 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 3:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Robber Guests Dear Connie (& Icaro), Like Nina I really appreciated your post full of great quotes. Thank you so much and keep sharing;-) Just one for comment now as i'm about to be running late for Tai-chi yet again: --- connie wrote: > Then there are those things that might sound criminal but aren't: > > Having killed mother and father, > And two kings, and having slaughtered > A realm together with its governor-- > The brahman wanders unafflicted (anigho). > (Dh 294) > > "mother" = craving, which gives birth to beings in the 3 planes of > existence; > "father" = the conceit "I am", which gives the egoist value to > individuality; > "two kings" = the eternalist and the annihilationist views, that divide > the world between them; > "realm" = the 6 pairs of sense-bases beginning with eye-and-form; > "governor" = the will and lust for those. > (NettA 212 f.) .... S: Really how many of us know what is and isn't criminal without the great assistance of the ancient Theravada commentators? Of course, sometimes the texts or these commentaries may not agree with our views which as you say we've followed and defended with great faith in our 'good company'. Let me also repeat your 'stolen' quote: "So long as we are not sotaapanna we shall have the inclination to wrong practice all the time." I think in my case it would be a sign of really great conceit if I were to think I could interpret verses and suttas more 'correctly' than the great 'ancients' who carefully preserved the Tipitaka for us to read and hear today. Metta and thanks, Sarah p.s ICARO - we've not heard from you for sometime - are you around?? ======= 32622 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 3:26am Subject: Re: Do or not do something Hi Jack, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jackhat1@a... wrote: > Am I correct in the following? In the Abhidhamma, a deliberately chosen > consciousness (sasankharika) can be just as skillful as one that just arises > without inducement (asasankharika). I can have a consciousness that is deliberately > chosen that is still associated with knowledge. > > To quote from Narada's Abhidhammattha Sangaha, "If, for instance, one does > an act, induced by another of after much deliberation or premeditation on one's > part, then it is sasankharika. If, on the contrary, one does it instantly > without any external or internal inducement, or any premeditation, then it is > asankharika." I am behind on another thread, but since this probably a "quickie", I will jump in. Unskillful (akusala) mental states rooted in lobha can be either prompted or spontaneous. Unskillful (akusala) mental states rooted in dosa can be either prompted or spontaneous. The question of prompted / spontaneous does not arise with moha mula cittas. Skillful (kusala) mental states with pleasant feeling can be either prompted or spontaneous. Skillful (kusala) mental states with neutral feeling can be either prompted or spontaneous. Skillful (kusala) mental states associated with wisdom can be either prompted or spontaneous. Skillful (kusala) mental states not associated with wisdom can be either prompted or spontaneous. A spontaneous mental state generally is associated with greater volition (cetana) and thefore creates weightier kamma. Hope that this helps. Metta, Rob M :-) 32623 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 76, yahoo trouble Nina There's no problem with the length of your posts. I think Larry's problems must be to do with arrangements at his end. Please continue as before. Jon --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi Larry and Jon, > op 29-04-2004 03:29 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...:> > > Sorry for not responding to this (Vis. 76) earlier. I didn't get > it in my > email so > > I went looking in the web site. > N: ??? again? We have to solve this. It also happened to Vis. 75, > which I reposted. > Is it the length of my Vis posts, should I split them? Is it your computer? > No problem for next ones to also send them to you off line, > whatever you like. Or just announce off line? > I want to ask Jon whether the length of my post is the problem. I do not > want to lose the connection of Vis and Tiika, but what other way of > presentation is possible? I never like it that it is so long, but a few > people may like the Pali as well. > I shall repost Vis 76 in two parts now. > Nina. 32624 From: Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 2:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Practical View of Anatta Hi, Andrew - In a message dated 4/28/04 11:10:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, athel60@t... writes: > A: > I still don't find this satisfying, I'm afraid. If I refuse to > acknowledge a logical inference (which was apparently accepted by all > early Buddhist schools except the Puggalavadins), aren't I clinging > to the idea that "there just might be a self after all"? > -------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not recommending ignoring a valid inference at all, but merely doing two things: 1) Recognizing some of the hidden premisses of that inference, and recognizing them as matters of belief, and 2) Making the observation that logical inference, while useful and conventionally enlightening, is not in itself spiritually transformative. The hidden premisses, which BTW I *do* accept as a matter of belief (but not knowledge), are that a) as the Buddha said, the 5 khandhas constitute "the all" in the sense that they constitute the entirety of experience, and b) pragmatically, what is unexperiencable may be, and reasonably should be, presumed non-existent. If one adds these as premisses to the Buddhist axiom that all the khandhas are not self, one can validly conclude there is no self. I *do* accept all these premisses, and I *do* make the inference and accept the no-self conclusion. So, why am I not liberated? Because mere intellectual belief - and I truly do believe in there being no self anywhere in anything - is not enough. Belief backed by observation and inference shades off into confidence, but even such saddha is not yet ~nana. There is one additional input to my confidence that there is no "personal self" which is more than just inferential, and that is my single experience in which, for a period, the sense of self was completely lacking in me all the while six-sense-door experience continued. This constituted direct experiential evidence of the non-necessity of self, and it has made my no-self commitment a drop more than mere intellectual assent. ---------------------------------------------------- And if > > there IS some sort of self - well, that's "me" and "mine" isn't it? > In addition, if a logical inference is not liberating then neither is > an assertion like "a self cannot be denied". > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Quite so. (Especially the latter! ;-) ------------------------------------------------------- > I previously put to Victor that he was treating the anatta teaching > as ending in an unthinkable. Why didn't Buddha clearly declare it > so, as he did with other unthinkables? My recollection is that > Victor has not commented on this aspect thus far. > Can one be liberated whilst being open to the possibility that, > somewhere amongst all the pieces of meat at the butcher's table at > the crossroads, there might just be a "cow"? > Best wishes > Andrew > > ============================ 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) 32625 From: Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 4:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Do or not do something Thanks, Rob. I'm curious. How do you use the info. on types of consciousness (besides answering my question) in your daily life? Sometimes I get caught up in some technical point in the Abhidhamma, ask myself how it is relevant to alleviating suffering and can't think of an answer. Jack I am behind on another thread, but since this probably a "quickie", I will jump in. Unskillful (akusala) mental states rooted in lobha can be either prompted or spontaneous. Unskillful (akusala) mental states rooted in dosa can be either prompted or spontaneous. The question of prompted / spontaneous does not arise with moha mula cittas. Skillful (kusala) mental states with pleasant feeling can be either prompted or spontaneous. Skillful (kusala) mental states with neutral feeling can be either prompted or spontaneous. Skillful (kusala) mental states associated with wisdom can be either prompted or spontaneous. Skillful (kusala) mental states not associated with wisdom can be either prompted or spontaneous. A spontaneous mental state generally is associated with greater volition (cetana) and thefore creates weightier kamma. Hope that this helps. Metta, Rob M :-) 32626 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 10:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts', feeling Hi Larry, op 29-04-2004 00:36 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Nina: "What do you think about this Vis. passage?" > Not very enlightening. If dukkha is an asabhava dhamma how can it have a > cause? Is "cause of suffering" just conventional language? N: Dukkha has many meanings: dukkha-dukkha is painful feeling or mental unhappy feeling. Then there is dukkha because of change(viparinama dukkha): pleasant feeling changes, that is suffering, unsatisfactory. Then there is sankhara dukkha: the unsatisfactoriness inherent in all conditioned dhammas: they are impermanent and thus no refuge, not worth clinging to. This is the first noble truth, it encompasses all conditioned phenomena. What we read in the Vis. footnote as to the three characteristics: < they are not separate from the aggregates because they are unapprehendable without the aggregates>. All that is said here is that they are inherent in them. Never mind about the word asabhava. You remember Howard and Sarah spoke about it whether dhammas are the same as their characteristics and there was a quote from the Dispeller of Delusion, that dhammas and their characteristics are not different. If we do not cling to words and definitions this is no problem. All that matters: what can be experienced now and can be the object of understanding. The growth of direct understanding of what appears now is essential. Through insight the characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anatta are to be realized. This means, at such moments one does not have to think of the word characteristic or wonder: is the characteristic itself an asabhava dhamma or not. Panna realizes the true nature of the nama or rupa that appears. At the moment of enlightenment the four noble truth are realized, thus also the cause of dukkha. Thus, dukkha that is the first noble truth has a cause: clinging. Because of clinging there is rebirth of the khandhas again and again. Clinging, the cause of dukkha is a reality, it is a cetasika. It is a dhamma with its own characteristic. As to painful feeling, dukkha vedana, this is another subject, it concerns only feeling cetasika. L: As for the dhammas we experience, they don't have objects. We can easily > observe this. N: What about seeing or hearing? They have objects, they are nama, thus, they experience an object. They are not rupa that does not experience anything. Seeing experiences visible object which is rupa. Hearing experiences sound which is rupa. L: When I stub my toe, the throbbing painful sensation has > nothing to do with hardness. N: There is feeling cetasika, bodily feeling. It arises with citta, body-consciousness. I recap: citta and cetasika are of the same jati (kusala akusala, vipaka or kiriya), arise at the same base, experience the same object and fall away together. When you stub your toe body-consciousness experiences hardness, and so do all accompanying cetasikas, hardness is the object they all share. The cetasikas perform each they own function while they assist the citta: sanna marks or remembers; feeling, in this case painful bodily feeling (but it is nama, a cetasika), experiences the "taste" of the hardness, concentration focusses on the object, etc. Thus, hardness is experienced by feeling at that moment, feeling is nama. Quite different from rupa. This is important, we should understand feeling as nama, and we should know that there can be awareness of it as nama. It is under the Application of Mindfulness of Feeling. We have to see feeling in feeling, no self in the feeling. But we cling so much to it and take it for self. Thus, if we have misunderstandings about feeling as being nama and experiencing an object, this hinders the development of satipatthana. L: I couldn't tell if that is your position or > not. Aversion to painful feeling is just aversion. N: When the body-consciousness that is vipakacitta experiencing the hardness has fallen away there are other types of cittas, and the javana cittas in that same process still have hardness as object; they can have aversion to that object, they may be rooted in aversion. Shortly after this process has fallen away there may be javana cittas in another process that take as object the painful feeling that arose just before and has just fallen away. They react to that painful feeling with aversion accompanied by mental unpleasant feeling. Their object is then painful bodily feeling. In another process again there may be javana cittas that take as object the aversion or the mental unpleasant feeling that arose and had just fallen away. Again in another process you can think of the concept of "my poor toe" with aversion. All this is possible, very likely to happen very often. A whole chain of negative reactions. But, depending on the accumulated understanding, in a following process kusala cittas with panna may take as object the previous aversion that has just fallen away. Then there is wise attention to the object, which object is aversion in this case. One can learn to see dhamma in dhamma: aversion is dhamma, not self. The fourth Application of Mindfulness! All processes occur extremely fast, there is no time to think. But understanding can be accumulated. L: We link it to > painful feeling by inference. This has nothing to do with insight. N: We understand this by inference, but through insight the understanding of different cittas that have different objects can be more precise. Then there is no thinking of processes or any terms, just penetration of characteristics of different dhammas. Eventually these can be seen as they are: impermanent, dukkha and anatta. I do not know whether I clarified this sufficiently, and if not, I have to think of another approach. It is, as said, very important to know what nama is, different from rupa. To know that each citta and each cetasika experience an object. Also theoretical understanding is very important. Nina. 32627 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 10:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 76 Hi Larry, op 29-04-2004 03:29 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: >Quote: N: "Only three elements are tangible object. Even as one does not touch > visible object, in the same way one does not touch fluidity or the > element > of water. Someone who believes that he can touch water is only thinking > of a > concept. We should verify this in touching water without thinking about > it." > > L: I agree that we don't touch fluidity or shape; we only think we > _touch_ them. However, I would say we do cognize fluidity and shape. > They are both mind-door rupas. Shape is a manifestation of delimitation > (space), and of course fluidity is one of the 4 primary rupas as > "cohesiveness". N: Fluidity or cohesion is a subtle rupa to be known through the mind-door. When it is known through insight, there is no thinking of the word or term. As to shape, the Pali has: sa.n.thaana, and this means: composition or shape, thus a whole. It is like an image, not visible object. You perceive the shape of a person, but in fact this is a composition or collection of a whole, a concept. On account of colour that is seen such an image is formed up. Therefore I would not say it is a manifestation of space. Space is only in between the groups of rupa, invisible and so very slight. L: Have a good vacation. We can pick up when you get back. N: Thanks, Larry. Nina. 32628 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 10:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something Hi Jack, They are too fast to do anything or choose. Before you know they have arisen and fallen away. It is by accumulated conditions that cittas which are sasankharika or asankharika arise. The inducement should not be seen in conventional sense: you sit down and deliberate about what kind of citta you prefer at a particular moment. Nina. op 28-04-2004 22:09 schreef Jackhat1@a... op Jackhat1@a...: > In the Abhidhamma, a deliberately chosen > consciousness (sasankharika) can be just as skillful as one that just arises > without inducement (asasankharika). I can have a consciousness that is > deliberately > chosen that is still associated with knowledge. 32629 From: Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something In a message dated 4/29/04 10:48:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: Hi Jack, They are too fast to do anything or choose. Before you know they have arisen and fallen away. It is by accumulated conditions that cittas which are sasankharika or asankharika arise. The inducement should not be seen in conventional sense: you sit down and deliberate about what kind of citta you prefer at a particular moment. Nina. Nina, That seems contrary to Narada's interpretation. To repeat my quote of his: "If, for instance, one does an act, induced by another of after much deliberation or premeditation on one's part, then it is sasankharika. If, on the contrary, one does it instantly without any external or internal inducement, or any premeditation, then it is asankharika." page 19 of Abhidhammattha Sangaha. "After much deliberation or premeditation" seems to be used in a very conventional sense to me. jack 32630 From: Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 7:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something Hi, Jack and Nina - In a message dated 4/29/04 2:00:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Jackhat1@a... writes: > > In a message dated 4/29/04 10:48:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > nilo@e... > writes: > Hi Jack, > They are too fast to do anything or choose. Before you know they have arisen > and fallen away. It is by accumulated conditions that cittas which are > sasankharika or asankharika arise. The inducement should not be seen in > conventional sense: you sit down and deliberate about what kind of citta you > prefer at a particular moment. > Nina. > Nina, > > That seems contrary to Narada's interpretation. To repeat my quote of his: > "If, for instance, one does an act, induced by another of after much > deliberation or premeditation on one's part, then it is sasankharika. If, on > the > contrary, one does it instantly without any external or internal inducement, > or any > premeditation, then it is asankharika." page 19 of Abhidhammattha Sangaha. > "After much deliberation or premeditation" seems to be used in a very > conventional > sense to me. > > jack > =========================== The idea of mindstates going by too fast for "something to be done" or "a choice to be made" has long bothered me. It seems to presuppose some separate doer or watcher sitting back and trying to examine and catch elements of a stream of experience. But there *is* no such doer or watcher. It is not a matter of an observer of a film projected on a screen - there is neither screen nor observer. There is just the experiential flow. (If anything, that flow is both screen and observer, to use a poor metaphor. And to continue to digress with that poor metaphor, the stronger the lighting, the greater the clarity.) Now, dropping the metaphor, there being only the psychophysical flow, it "keeps up" with itself. There is nobody to "lose track". The namarupic flow goes just as fast as it goes, and there is nothing else that needs to "keep up". When mindfulness, momentary concentration, and clear comprehension become sufficiently heightened, wisdom heightens and the flow is transformed into a stream of radically improved functionality. 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) 32631 From: Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something In a message dated 4/29/04 11:35:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: The idea of mindstates going by too fast for "something to be done" or "a choice to be made" has long bothered me. It seems to presuppose some separate doer or watcher sitting back and trying to examine and catch elements of a stream of experience. But there *is* no such doer or watcher. It is not a matter of an observer of a film projected on a screen - there is neither screen nor observer. There is just the experiential flow. (If anything, that flow is both screen and observer, to use a poor metaphor. And to continue to digress with that poor metaphor, the stronger the lighting, the greater the clarity.) Now, dropping the metaphor, there being only the psychophysical flow, it "keeps up" with itself. There is nobody to "lose track". The namarupic flow goes just as fast as it goes, and there is nothing else that needs to "keep up". When mindfulness, momentary concentration, and clear comprehension become sufficiently heightened, wisdom heightens and the flow is transformed into a stream of radically improved functionality. Howard, Makes sense to me with the caveat that looking at something dualistically (subject and object) can be very useful at times in our practice. I would add that the idea that the Abhidhamma is about momentary mind states that we can't possibly observe and have to take on blind faith has always bothered me. Anything you can't prove by evidence seems very un-Buddhist to me. On the other hand, one can observe streams of cittas/cetasaikes and streams of Cycles of Dependent Origination and prove "by one's own light" what causes and what alleviates suffering. The whole point, for example, of the Cycles of Dependent Origination is that one can affect whether an event (phassa) ends with suffering or non-suffering even though each individual cycle is only a billionth of a second long. jack 32632 From: Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 3:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 76, yahoo trouble Hi Nina, There's no need to repost if they show up on the Yahoo web site, which they usually do. One or two Yahoo groups emails a week don't make it to my in-box. I don't know why. It is a phenomenon called "bouncing". It has nothing to do with the length. Don't worry about it. Larry ------------- N: ??? again? We have to solve this. It also happened to Vis. 75, which I reposted. Is it the length of my Vis posts, should I split them? Is it your computer? 32633 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:27pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Do or not do something Hi Jack, Abhidhamma is the theory behind the Buddha's smile. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jackhat1@a... wrote: > I'm curious. How do you use the info. on types of consciousness (besides > answering my question) in your daily life? Sometimes I get caught up in some > technical point in the Abhidhamma, ask myself how it is relevant to alleviating > suffering and can't think of an answer. Excellent question! BTW is another DSGer complains that I am slow to respond to the other ongoing thread, I am going to blame you... :-) It is important to "begin with the end in mind". Before starting to study the Abhidhamma, it is important to clearly define your goal in making the effort. Having a goal will help keep you focused on the right things and help spur you on when things get difficult. Are you studying to learn classifications of reality? Are you studying to learn new words in Pali? Do you need to study to learn that greed, hatred and delusion are bad things? Most of us study Abhidhamma to gain a Buddhist perspective on life. Perspective is extremely important. If we can gain a Buddhist perspective on life, we will perceive everything in a different way. Changing our perspective causes a fundamental shift in our perception of the world. As we gain a Buddhist perspective, the nature of the mind (lobha, dosa, moha) and the characteristics of reality (anicca, dukkha, anatta) will be obvious to us; not just at a "knowledge level" but at a deeper, "belief / confidence level". An untrained ear hears a melody. A trained ear instantly recognizes notes, structure, chord progressions, etc. in the music. The trained ear has a different, deeper perspective when listening to music. A "trained ear" requires considerable study of music theory followed up by practice of listening to music. Studying Abhidhamma is the first step in getting a "trained mind". The next step, which should be done in parallel with study, is the practice of Dana, Sila and Bhavana. With a "trained mind" we will see things as they truly are. A single day of practice of the Dhamma is more valuable than a hundred years of theoretical study. According to the Abhidhamma, the mind experiences millions of thoughts each second. We can only be aware of a small portion of these thoughts. A "trained mind" can be mindful of all thoughts, even those of which we are not aware. Abhidhamma is the study of the mind, and this will lead to a more effective practice and eventually a "trained mind". It is our perspective that drives our thoughts. Our actions are the manifestation of our thoughts. It is our thoughts that create kamma. For those of us inclined to an Abhidhamma perspective, studying the details of mental states, etc. gives us confidence (saddha) borne from a sense of "everything fits together". Studying the technical details of the Abhidhamma is part of a synthetic process; "I know that there is no self because I know why there cannot be a self because I have carefully examined the details of the Abhidhamma" or "I have confidence in the law of kamma because I know the details of how kamma works". The Visuddhimagga suggests meditation practices based on a basic character (carita) of the individual. Of the six basic character types, we can identify two that would be interested in the Abhidhamma: - Buddhi-carita: Intellectual, intelligent; propensity to curiosity and reasoning things through - Vitakka-carita: Discursive, speculative, ruminating or pondering; propensity to excessive thought and worry However, we must never lose sight of the big picture: Study (pariyatti) -> Practice (patipatti) -> Realization (pativedha) Hope this helps. Metta, Rob M :-) 32634 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 9:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] na-vattaba ‘not so classifiable’ objects - Abhidhamma detail Dear Sarah, op 29-04-2004 11:52 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > You wrote to Larry when we were discussing the arupa jhana cittas: > > Nina: >Space like the air is a concept. The object of Jhana also a > concept, but we can look at more details. > Boundless space, a concept, but special. As I wrote in a former post to > Howard, objects can be classified as: Slight (paritta, all sense objects), > mahaggata (exalted, of jhana) and appamaa.na, boundless, here: lokuttara > dhammas. Apart from these there are objects called: not so classifiable, > navattaba, see Vis III, 117, note 32. This is very detailed. The object of > boundless space when someone contemplates it is navatabba, it is a > concept. Second jhana and third jhana have paramattha dhammas, namely > cittas as object.< > .... > S: I think you may have meant second and fourth arupa jhana cittas here? N: Yes. S; What I understand is that all jhana cittas have concepts as objects with > these two exceptions which have paramattha dhammas as objects? N: Some meditation subjects for samatha are realities, such as the elements. S: So the first arupa jhana citta (aakaasaana~ncaayatana) takes the concept > of infinite space as object. > > The second arupa jhana citta (vi~n~naa.na~ncaayatana)has the first arupa > jhana citta itself as object. Obviously in this case, the citta itself has > fallen away, but it is the paramattha dhamma itself which is subsequently > experienced by way of na-vatabba (not so classifiable) object. N: I have the Thia here and have to check. As I understand the arupajhanacittas that have paramatthas have objects that are mahaggata, but the other two have navattarammana. Or when consider kasina meditation without panna the object is navattabbarammana. > The third arupa jhana citta (aaki~nca~n~naayatana) takes as object the > concept of non-existence or nothingness. This is navattabbarammana. > > The fourth arupa jhana citta (n’evasa~n~naan’aasa~n~naayatana) again has a > paramattha dhamma as object, in this case the third arupa jhana citta. > (see CMA p62 for more details). Again, the third arupa jhana citta taken > as object has fallen away and as we know, only a present dhamma can be > object, so again this is a paramattha dhamma experienced by way of > na-vatabba object. N: The object that has just fallen away: well this happens all the time when nama experiences another nama. It is still a present object and a paramattha dhamma. The object is mahaggata. This does not make it "not so classifiable". I have to leave it here for now. Later on more. Please remind me. Nina. > 32635 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] na-vattaba ‘not so classifiable’ objects - Abhidhamma detail Dear Nina, Thanks for your reply when you're so busy. --- nina van gorkom wrote: > S; > What I understand is that all jhana cittas have concepts as objects > with > > these two exceptions which have paramattha dhammas as objects? > N: Some meditation subjects for samatha are realities, such as the > elements. .... S: This was exactly my question (whether this actually was so) and Jon raised the elements as an example and reading from Vism. As we know, concepts can be of paramattha dhammas too. Good discussion for India. Actually, it makes sense to me that in samatha these could only be concepts of the elements (like in some of the examples friends have given about their wise reflections on elements), whereas in satipatthana they are the paramattha dhammas as objects. The same with any aspects under Dhamma too, I think. K.Sujin said (as I recall and of course there can always be misunderstandings) that only those 2 arupa jhana cittas have paramattha dhammas as objects but she also told me to check texts. .... > N: I have the Thia here and have to check. As I understand the > arupajhanacittas that have paramatthas have objects that are mahaggata, > but > the other two have navattarammana. > Or when consider kasina meditation without panna the object is > navattabbarammana. .... S: I raised all these points and made notes on 2 or 3 different occasions, repeating what I heard and making a few notes. I’ll be interested in what you find and it’ll be good for further discussion in India. Meanwhile, I’ll also try to double check by listening to tapes. I’ll let you know if there is anything different from what I wrote. I’ve checked all the refs in Dispeller, but it’s not detailed enough (or over my head in parts;-)). ..... > N: The object that has just fallen away: well this happens all the time > when > nama experiences another nama. It is still a present object and a > paramattha > dhamma. The object is mahaggata. This does not make it "not so > classifiable". ... S: I was surprised at this wide implication too. If I have time, I’ll try to listen and quote what was said on this point. It may not be according to the stricter wording in the texts. More an implication of how the words could be used? I found it helpful, but of course may have misunderstood some aspects. ..... > I have to leave it here for now. Later on more. Please remind me. ..... S: It’s quite interesting. A bit of a Pandora’s box. Sukin may have comments to add as well as I know he was taking interest too, but we’ll wait for your return before resuming the topic. Metta, Sarah ====== 32636 From: sarahdhhk Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Satipatthana - Covetousness and grief Dear Nina, You asked Jon to raise this question with A.Sujin: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: <..> > Some questions for Bgk: One of the teachers said about tangible object: the > *three* Great elements impinge on the bodysense, but one of these > characteristics (like hardness) is experienced. I thought: of the octad only > one of the great Elements impinges and then its characteristic is > experienced. Kh Anop was going to ask A. Sujin. .... S: I made a few notes on this when Jon raised it, even though it's somewhat over my head: K.Sujin said 'it doesn't matter' whether one, two or three of the great elements impinge and there's 'no use in saying it'. She said that different texts give different answers because they are written by the commentators (i.e without the Buddha's omniscience). 'Still, only one characteristic appears'. We know that because it's an object of body consciousness (i.e the rupa), it must be in a kalapa of at least 8 rupas. 'The very fine detail can only be known by the Buddha's omniscience'. Hope this helps. Metta, Sarah ===== 32637 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something Hi Howard and Jack, Howard has got the essence here. It is well formulated. Nina. > =========================== > The idea of mindstates going by too fast for "something to be done" or > "a choice to be made" has long bothered me. It seems to presuppose some > separate doer or watcher sitting back and trying to examine and catch elements > of a > stream of experience. But there *is* no such doer or watcher. It is not a > matter of an observer of a film projected on a screen - there is neither > screen > nor observer. There is just the experiential flow. (If anything, that flow is > both screen and observer, to use a poor metaphor. And to continue to digress > with that poor metaphor, the stronger the lighting, the greater the clarity.) > Now, dropping the metaphor, there being only the psychophysical flow, it > "keeps > up" with itself. There is nobody to "lose track". The namarupic flow goes > just as fast as it goes, and there is nothing else that needs to "keep up". > When > mindfulness, momentary concentration, and clear comprehension become > sufficiently heightened, wisdom heightens and the flow is transformed into a > stream of > radically improved functionality. 32638 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Do or not do something Hi Jack, op 29-04-2004 17:25 schreef Jackhat1@a... op Jackhat1@a...: > Sometimes I get caught up in some > technical point in the Abhidhamma, ask myself how it is relevant to > alleviating > suffering and can't think of an answer. N:just butting in. A very good and relevant question. Please if you would care to elaborate after eight days what you find are technical points? I am just off for a week, but I am always very glad if I can do something, even a little, to explain that what seems technical is relevant to our life now. Abhidhamma study does not mean that you have to try to catch all the different types of citta you read about, or find out exactly when they arise. That is impossible. It helps to understand that all these dhammas arise because of conditions and that you do not own them or can manipulate them. However, understanding of them can grow, and, as A. Sujin stresses, this has to begin at this very moment now of seeing, hearing, bodily phenomena, kusala cittas, akusala cittas. As Lodewijk said, the Abhidhamma brings all phenomena down to basics, and that is true: nama and rupa. That is our life, and we can develop understanding of them at this moment. The Abhidhamma helps us to understand anatta, non self. In the ultimate sense there are only citta, cetasika and rupa. I like to recap what Lodewijk said: through the Abhidhamma we can develop the perfection of truthfulness, we can truthfully know our cittas. True, we learn to detect the deepest motives for all our actions, speech and thoughts. The Abhidhamma is very realistic. It shows us that there are not kusala cittas all the time, but that these are alternated with akusala cittas in different processes. We cannot know cittas from moment to moment, but at least we can learn different characteristics by beginning to be mindful of them. I stress: beginning. As Rob M said: Practice (patipatti) -> Realization (pativedha). > Correct intellectual understanding must lead to the right application of the Abhidhamma in our life and this will lead to the direct realization of the truth. Enlightenment is far off, but there is a Path leading to it. If the Path is right it must eventually lead to this goal. Lodewijk said: without the Abhidhamma Vipassana makes no sense. Yes, the two go together. Again, this does not mean that you have to catch all the different types of citta, but we can apply the main principles of Abhidhamma in our life. The Abhidhamma is not words or terms, it teaches us what is dhamma now. It teaches us what is true in the ultimate sense and what is only a concept or story, fabricated by our thinking. We understand more what is kamma and what is vipaka. Right now there are many kinds of vipakacittas, experiencing pleasant and unpleasant objects. Seeing and hearing are vipakacittas. They are conditioned already, no use to worry about them. Disease and death, it all depends on kamma. Understanding of citta, cetasika and rupa is the condition to face our problems in life, problems concerning our defilements, and also unhappy events. We can see that the Abhidhamma is powerful, that it works, and this causes our confidence and respect for the Abhidhamma to grow. The Abhidhamma helps us to develop our own understanding, and thus we shall find out for ourselves that it truly is the teaching of the Enlightened One. You wrote to Howard: J:(snipped) I would add > that the idea that the Abhidhamma is about momentary mind states that we can't > possibly observe and have to take on blind faith has always bothered me. N: No, it is not a matter of blind faith. As said, we cannot know all the momentary states, but when sati and understanding arise together, characteristics of nama and rupa can gradually be known. It is not a matter of just observing, it is a matter of understanding, and this can develop to direct understanding. Rob M stressed the development of all kinds of kusala. When there is more truthfulness of different cittas, kusala cittas and akusala cittas, this is a condition for more kusala, sincere kusala. Abhidhamma and the perfections: they are connected with each other. J: . On the other hand, > one can observe streams of cittas/cetasikas and streams of Cycles of > Dependent Origination and prove "by one's own light" what causes and what > alleviates > suffering. N: Some people in the Buddha's time attained enlightenment after hearing only a few words. Assajji said just a few words to Sariputta: This is the Dependent Origination, containing the whole of the teachings, also the four noble Truths. It is Abhidhamma, and when we hear the word Abhidhamma we do not need to think of terms. Abhidhamma is the truth of life. After hearing these words Sariputta became a sotapanna. We today we need to hear more details. We have to listen again and again, consider and develop understanding of what occurs now, again and again, for countless lives. We need the perfection of patience. As A. Sujin repeats to us all the time: patience is the highest ascetism. Nina. 32639 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 76, yahoo trouble Hi Larry, I had bouncing before, but you can notify Yahoo. There can be partial bouncing. Go to "my groups" and they give you history of bouncing! Also which months there was bouncing, and slight or serious bouncing. It can and should be corrected. You can send the note: please unbounce, and Jon can help. You may receive an Email from Yahoo. Reckon, when you do not hear from me after a week when you have posted, something is amiss. The last one, Tiika to Vis 80 is quite long, but there are gems in it. When there is no arising, from where are there old age and death? And about the Paticca samuppada. I hope I can manage this text. Nina. op 30-04-2004 00:51 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > There's no need to repost if they show up on the Yahoo web site, which > they usually do. One or two Yahoo groups emails a week don't make it to > my in-box. I don't know why. It is a phenomenon called "bouncing". 32640 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 2:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something Hi Jack (& Rob M), Thanks, Rob for providing the relevant Abhid details. I always find it helpful when you do this. Jack asked about the practical relevance of the technical details and this is a very good question. I understand these ‘prompted’ and ‘unprompted’ cittas to be referring to stronger and weaker cittas. For example, we can test for ourselves whether the generosity is stronger when we see an opportunity and just spontaneously help or give as opposed to when it is ‘prompted’ by say another’s encouragement or example. The same with the dosa involved in killing which is ‘unprompted’. As Nina said, >It is by accumulated conditions that cittas which are > sasankharika or asankharika arise. The inducement should not be seen in > conventional sense: you sit down and deliberate about what kind of citta > you > prefer at a particular moment.< ... S:I’m joining in here as I know Nina is about to go on her trip. You wrote: .... > That seems contrary to Narada's interpretation. To repeat my quote of > his: > "If, for instance, one does an act, induced by another of after much > deliberation or premeditation on one's part, then it is sasankharika. .... S: Remember that though we talk conventionally, in truth there is no ‘one’ who acts and the cittas which ‘deliberate’ can be incredibly fast. They are conditioned by many factors at that time - not necessary for any words or deliberation as we know it. No self who ‘chooses’ any action. .... > If, on the > contrary, one does it instantly without any external or internal > inducement, or any > premeditation, then it is asankharika." page 19 of Abhidhammattha > Sangaha. > "After much deliberation or premeditation" seems to be used in a very > conventional > sense to me. .... S: Yet we know that the teachings are all about anatta and conditioned dhammas. Let me quote from the commentary to the Abhidammattha Sangaha translation which Narada would have been basing his comments on, I assume: Summary of Topics and Exposition, PTS, p13: “Prompting is what prepares and equips the consciousness in the form of furnishing it with energy, or consciousness is prepared and equipped by it in the said fashion. It is that exertion of oneself or others which precedes by way of giving assistance to a consciousness that is slowing down in a particular action. In this case the prompting designates the consciousness’s particular state of energy when it has arisen because of the preceding occurrence in the consciousness-flow of oneself or of others. When it is not there, it is unprompted; just this is ‘without prompting’ (asa’nkhaarika). Along with prompting is ‘with prompting ‘ (sasa’nkhaarika). Thus it is said: The particular quality [which is] produced by the preceding exertion and which produces the consciousness is prompting; it is by virtue of this that there is here the condition of [being] without prompting, and so on.” Jack, referring back to our other thread as well, when you write ‘I have consciousness that is deliberately chosen....’ or ‘I practice by deliberately selecting...’ or ‘I just sit and watch whatever comes up....’ etc., I wonder what you mean by these references to ‘I’ and who or what does this selecting or choosing? You also mentioned that after selecting the sensations or elements that the following phase of ‘watching’ is without ‘agenda or attachment’ as far as you know. Isn’t there attachment involved whenever there is an idea of ‘watching’ in order for awareness to arise? Otherwise, why would there be any watching, I wonder. I’m also in danger of repeating myself. I’m sure these points will all come up again and again;-). I enjoy your reflections and practical questions, Jack. So 'Do or not do something' now will depend on what cittas are conditioned at this very moment. Metta, Sarah p.s RobM, it’s a real treat to have you around and I’m following all your threads with keen interest. A little prompting - how is the back-up of the archives going? I know you’ve been incredibly busy - do you still read through the DSG archive diary on flights? ====== 32641 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 3:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > James: Okay, now I think I understand your position better. I was > beginning to wonder why no matter how many different suttas I quote > to explain my position, it is like you don't read them. .... S: On the contrary, I always appreciate it when you quote suttas and I’m always very ready to discuss any one of them as you know. .... >After all, > you are obviously an intelligent person; I was beginning to wonder > what the problem was! ;-)) Now I see that you have this underlying > belief that the suttas don't really mean what they are saying. They > have a deeper meaning which must be wrangled out of them. .... S: I think that what you’re saying here is that you often don’t agree with my interpretation of a sutta. That’s OK. Like with the shells etc in the lake metaphor, we can discuss our readings, If we have access to the ancient commentary, it may shed extra light for some of us. For others it might not and that’s fine too. .... <...> > Hmmm…well, now I am faced with a quandary. Obviously, I can't quote > suttas to explain my position… ... S: You can, but it doesn’t mean anyone has to agree with your interpretation;-) ... >so I'll try some logic. First, let me > focus on this last part you write, "contrary to what we read about > knowing `presently arisen dhammas'." Sarah, the goal of Buddhism > isn't to `know presently arisen dhammas', who cares about `presently > arisen dhammas'? ... S: Does this mean we also throw out suttas referring to knowing presently arisen dhammas? ... >The goal of Buddhism is to know Nibbana, which > does not arise and does not cease. Concepts, dhammas, nama, rupa… > they are all unsatisfactory and not really worth `knowing'. Throw > them out the window! They are rubbish and trash! ;-)) The only > think worth knowing is nibbana…the sweet release. Nibbana is not a > part of `the present moment' either. Who cares about `the present > moment'? Throw that out the window also! ;-) Nibbana is beyond > time and moments and everything. .... S: And yet unless the present conditioned dhammas are understood, there will be no experience of nibbana. Should suttas referring to namas and rupas (aka khandhas -- asPhil said --, elements, sense fields) all be thrown out too? .... > So, knowing namas and rupas is like wallowing in filth and thinking > it is heaven. The mind must penetrate to the nibbana element to > have true release. The only way to do this is to practice > mindfulness and concentration. Okay, nuff said. ;-)) .... S: Mindfulness and concentration of what? Surely not the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness (aka namas and rupas once again;-)). James, we agree that the only ‘true release’ or escape from samsara is the realisation of nibbana by the supramundane consciousness when defilements are eradicated. However, the path has to be developed and this can only be by way of gradually knowing present namas and rupas as anatta, i.e knowing material forms, feelings, perceptions, formations and consciousness for what they are - conditioned dhammas or elements. I agree with you that the idea of self is only finally eradicated at the first stage of enlightenment, but the insight can only ever begin to develop at the present moment. MN131: Bhaddekaratta Sutta “‘..Instead with insight let him see Each presently arisen state;’ <.....> “And how, bhikkhus, is one invincible in regard to presently arisen states? Here, bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple, who has regard for noble ones and is skiled and disciplined in their Dhamma, who has regard for true men and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, does not regard material form as self or self as possessed of material form, or material form as in self or self as in material form....feeling...perception....consciousness.... This is how one is invincible in regard to presently arisen states.” Metta, Sarah ====== 32642 From: Philip Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 4:35am Subject: Understanding aggregates and annata (was Video Games) Hi James, and all. There are a couple of things I want to try to work out in my own mind about understanding "understanding." As it happens, Sarah has just replied to you in this thread as well, so I hesitate to overdo it, but thinking out loud in an exchange with a dhamma friend seems to be helping me these days, so please bear with me as I babble on. > James: Well, this depends on what you mean by `understand' the > Aggregates. Do you mean understand what they are? If so, I don't > believe that this is so important. Okay, let's try this experiment, > I will define the five aggregates for you and we'll see if it makes > you enlightened: The five aggregates are a continually changing > psycho-physical process which are interconnected and dependently > arisen. Okay, are you enlightened yet? No? Why not? You > now `understand' what the five aggregates are. Ph: I am always thinking about what "understanding" means to me, but your experiment has helped me see that intellectual understanding - and for the time being I am only capable of intellecutal understanding - is helped by concrete terms, which you didn't really provide in your definition of the aggregartes: "The five aggregates are a continually changing psycho-physical process which are interconnected and dependently arisen" Not bad, but could be more explicit. That's why I respond well to Abhidhamma. It seems to be just about as explicit as could possibly be. But since you don't value talk of rupa and nama, let me go to the Satipatthna Sutta for a more explicit consideration of aggregates: "Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the five aggreages for clinging/sustenance.(snip) THere is the case where a monk (discerns): "Such is form, such is its origination, such its disappearance. Such is feeling...sych is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness..." So now I have form (rupakhanda) feeling (vedanakhanda) perception (sannakhanda) fabrications (sankharakhanda) and consciousness (vinnanakhanda) - things are still confusing for me at this point, but are become clearer, and I can see that the Buddha here is positing a practice that seems very similar to "seeing realities in the moment" as many members of this group talk about. James: > The reason you are > not enlightened is because there still exists clinging to the five > aggregates. Clinging is something which cannot be eliminated with > mere `understanding', it must be eliminated with penetrative >insight. Ph: Exactly! That's what Nina et al point at, isn't it? Panna arises to lead to knowing realities. For me, there is intellectual understanding. It's a bit confusing sometimes that Nina uses "understanding realities" when translating K Sujin in her book on Metta, for example, when she is talking about something that seems more like "knowing realities" to me - something more direct. Now I see there is understanding in the intellectual sense and understanding in an absolute way. I'm very interested in how the intellectual process can gradually become something more absolute. For example, when I meditate on the breath in the morning - in my own carefree, experimental way - I usually reach a point where I become aware that the breath is holding eveything together. Holding what together? All those dreams, worries, aversions, attachments etc. There is no self, clearly, so what is there. And I look intellectually at khandas. Do I understand them deeply? No. Do I understand them enough to keep me in equanimity through my daily life. Kind of. And that equanimity is becoming more absolute, surely, as the understanding deepens day by day. I think the pentrative insight will come for me more during daily life, like when I looked up from that book and *knew* my wife as the aggregates and/or rupa/nama. (For me, these collections of terms are still interchangeable. If you can tell me the difference between the aggregates and rupa/nama.) For this beginner, meditation softens the ground for insight that arises later in the day. My circumstances prevent me from seeking jhanas, so I will do what I can with shallow insight meditation leading to gradually cultivating sati and panna during my daily life. Whew. What a babble. Please bear with me. As I said, thinking out loud with a dhamma friend is very helpful for me. > James: Well, here we have that word `understand' again. You may > have an intellectual understanding of anatta but that isn't a direct > knowledge of anatta. If you had a direct knowledge of anatta, you > would be enlightened. Ph: This is interesting. I can't say whether it's true or not. I would have thought that almost anyone with a certain degree of clarity of mind and diligence in his or her practice would come to understand annata in a deep enough way to make it more than mere "intellectual" understanding. I mean, when I am at the breath in the morning, and a certain tranquility arises, I can clearly feel that all the crud self generates, all the lovely stuff, all the neutral babble, it is so clearly not anything real. With one breath that never came, they would go up in dust. And I would say that understanding that implies a certain degree of enlightenment. Again, it seems to me that Theravada with its stages of enlightenment values the idea of gradual enlightenment. It seems that you are saying it's an all or nothing thing. Technically speaking, I can't say whether you're right not. Haven't "stream-enterers" and "once returners" had direct knowledge of annata? That's not a rhetorical question. I have no idea what goodies go with those stages of enlightenment. On to another topic: > Philip: I struggle with doubts about the existence of different > realms. You too? > > James: I had the same doubts when I first became a Buddhist, my > freshman year at college, but since then I have lost all doubts. > Just give it time. ;-)) Ph: I've been told similar things by people in other groups too, so it's encouraging. As usual, I don't struggle with things I can't believe in yet, but "postpone them for later understanding." I think I picked up that phrase from someone in this group. As for your suggestion of sensual delights going on in the deva realms, I was a bit surprised but I will leave google research on that for another lifetime. I'm having enough trouble not checking out that bikini link these days. ;) I hope you or anyone else can find something of value in this unnecessarily long-winded post. :) Metta, Phil 32643 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:23am Subject: Linking the messages Dear Dhamma Friends, There are 60 messages. They are related in a way. I just avoided monotony and just changed the headings in the way while messages are ongoing. There are 11 messages on 'How To Get Through The Samsara', 6 messages on 'Contemplation On Own Body', 7 messages on 'Sensing feeling where it arises and where it vanishes', 11 messages on 'Sensing own mind whenever it moves', 19 messages on 'Seeing Dhamma as they really are', 2 messages on 'Powerful Friends Coming Together', and 4 messages on 'Seeing and seeing of seeing' all messages in the stated order. I was just observing who tasted them. There are many people who came out to contact and discussed the matter of interest. When some tasted them in a meaningful way, some other people disregarded them and even some critised in an adverse way. Some seem to be uninterested in all these. There is some special traveller who is very enthusiatic to walk on The Journey To Nibbana. Once that traveller said, ''Hey! We have to drop the idea of self from the start.'' To that traveller, here I say we have not even started the journey. We are just collecting the necessary things which are needed during the journey. We have not got the map. The map has not been spread out even though that traveller talked that the map was spread out. Anyway from the message one to the message 60 that is number 4 of ''Seeing and seeing of seeing'' are all just only the first step and there are many steps coming, to be on the Path that leads to the intended destination. All these 60 messages are just like discussions. If no one is talking on them, the messages will remain domant. These are not teaching and not intended as teaching. Some were delighted as I can clearly see through their emails sent to me. But some were in the other way round. There were many colours. Colour of red, green, violet, black, blue, orange, yellow, indigo, green and many others. I mean when they were reading these messages ( any of 60 ), they expressed with colours that is anger, hatred, aversion, attachment, craving, ignorance, delusion, jealousy, stinginess and so on. Anyway, Dhamma is always there and try to find it and feel it. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htootintnaing@y... JourneyToNibbana 32644 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:33am Subject: Re:Linking the messages for Sarah There is some special traveller who is very enthusiatic to walk on The Journey To Nibbana. Once that traveller said, ''Hey! We have to drop the idea of self from the start.'' To that traveller, here I say we have not even started the journey. We are just collecting the necessary things which are needed during the journey. We have not got the map. The map has not been spread out even though that traveller talked that the map was spread out. Anyway from the message one to the message 60 that is number 4 of ''Seeing and seeing of seeing'' are all just only the first step and there are many steps coming, to be on the Path that leads to the intended destination. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Sarah, How have you been doing? Are you travelling? You know what I mean. It has been nice to chat with you on Dhamma matter. Several time, I confused and mixed on the sexth sense. At that time you cleared me out. Thanks for your continous support. I just posted this for your attention. With Metta, Htoo Naing 32645 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > As Sukin says,> > > conditions rule! > > > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > And I agree with this, provided one doesn't exclude > intention from conditions. Of course not. Whether you're referring to the intention that is the mental factor (cetasika) of that name, or intention as conventionally understood, both are conditioned. Intention as conventionally referred to is in fact just moments of thinking, directed to future action. It is not a particular kind of citta or cetasika, nor does it involve particular combination of cetasikas. > P.S. I've taken up studying U Narada's "Guide to Conditional > Relations" once > again. ... > for me, the > spoonful of conditional-relations sugar makes the analytic medicine go down! > ;-)) Good news, Howard. I look forward to mention from time to time of things you come across. Jon 32646 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana James --- buddhatrue wrote: > Friend Jon (and Howard at end), > James: How much about dhammas does a person know with weak insight? > You had written that one doesn't need any kind of special practice, > concentration practice, because understanding dhammas as they arise > are the practice. Now you are saying that this understanding is > weak. Which is it? There's no contradiction here. As I see it, weak understanding is strengthened by the nurturing and further cultivation of the weak understanding. It is the same as for the increase of any wholesome quality. > Jon: As a starting point, we need to acknowledge that kusala and > akusala can arise interspersed with each other. > > James: As a starting point for what? What is this knowledge going to change? This relates to your comment that awareness, being kusala, cannot take an akusala mindstate as its object because the 2 cannot co-arise. From our own experience we can see that kusala and akusala can arise intermingled with each other and thus each succeeding the other very rapidly. So this would indicate a way in which awareness could take the (immediately preceding) akusala mindstate as its object. > Jon: Having the idea that akusala must be totally absent before the > awareness of dhammas can begin to be developed tends to lead to all > sorts of ideas about you-know-what;-)) > > James: No, I don't know what. Do you mean…eeeekkkkkk… > MEDITATION??!! Maybe even JHANA!!??? Say it isn't so!! ;-)) What it tends to lead to is aspiring to having more kusala generally, and this in turn tends to lead to actions or practices designed to achieve this. > Ps. Happy Birthday, whenever it was. To you also, Howard! Thanks, James. It was on Monday (Howard's was on Sunday, and Sarah's is tomorrow, Saturday). Jon 32647 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > > why the many special references to mindfulness of > breath/breathing? > > > ======================= > Well, I suppose some benefits of the breath are the > following: > > 1) It's always available. (On hopes! ;-) > > 2) It's not a mind-created image or internized sound, but a sequene of > rupas which can come to be directly observed as attention and other factors heighten. > > 3) The breath is closely interacting with mental states - its calmness > or the opposite affects and is affected by the calmness or opposite of the > mind. Emotions are reflected in the breath. So it is a kind of > process that links nama with rupa. I'm not saying these aren't benefits, but I was trying to make the point that the Anapanasati Sutta itself and its commentary are silent on this matter. That raises the question of whether the assumptions we may have made regarding the sutta are correct. To approach the question from another angle, is there anything described in the sutta that is not attainable with another object (other than breath), i.e., that is unique to breath? Jon 32648 From: Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 3:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 4/30/04 10:31:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Jon - > ... > >>why the many special references to mindfulness of > >breath/breathing? > >> > >======================= > > Well, I suppose some benefits of the breath are the > >following: > > > > 1) It's always available. (On hopes! ;-) > > > > 2) It's not a mind-created image or internized sound, but a > sequene of > >rupas which can come to be directly observed as attention and other > factors heighten. > > > > 3) The breath is closely interacting with mental states - > its calmness > >or the opposite affects and is affected by the calmness or opposite > of the > >mind. Emotions are reflected in the breath. So it is a kind of > >process that links nama with rupa. > > I'm not saying these aren't benefits, but I was trying to make the > point that the Anapanasati Sutta itself and its commentary are silent > on this matter. That raises the question of whether the assumptions > we may have made regarding the sutta are correct. > > To approach the question from another angle, is there anything > described in the sutta that is not attainable with another object > (other than breath), i.e., that is unique to breath? > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: In short - no. The sutta *does* say that anapanasati serves as a means of implementing the four foundations of mindfulness, but it certainly doesn't claim that it is unique in that respect. However, the Anapanasati Sutta does seem to be sort of a "companion piece" to the Satipatthana Sutta. One thing that is pointed out in the Anapanasati Sutta, is that mindfulness of the breath does produce calming, which may well be due in part to the (commonly observed) lulling effect of the breath, a rhythmic process. And, at the same time, the breath is not a fixed image, but is an ever-changing process composed of rupas of varying character and with repeated arisings and ceasings, which makes it suitable for vipassana investigation, as opposed to the purely samatha-meditation subjects such as kasinas. But, no, I don't think that mindfulness of the breath is unique in the features mentioned above nor due I think that anapanasati is, or is claimed to be, "the only way". Clearly, though, it is presented as a good way. ---------------------------------------------- > > 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) 32649 From: Philip Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:51am Subject: [dsg] Re: Cittas and cetasikas (basic question!) Hello Howard Howard: > A mindstate that can produce kammic > results has kusala or akusala roots, and it is the nature of the roots, kusala or > akusala, that derivatively characterize the mindstate as kusala or akusala. (snip) > So, for example, a state of seeing would > be "kusala" or "akusala" not in the sense that the state, itself, is > wholesome or unwholesome, but merely in its being the *result* of wholesome or > unwholesome conditions. Now I got it. Thanks! And now I realize that I had this clarified before by someone - Nina, I think - some months ago. Well, it takes a while to sink in, I guess. :) Metta, Phil 32650 From: Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 4:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something In a message dated 4/30/04 2:11:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: Jack, referring back to our other thread as well, when you write ‘I have consciousness that is deliberately chosen....’ or ‘I practice by deliberately selecting...’ or ‘I just sit and watch whatever comes up....’ etc., I wonder what you mean by these references to ‘I’ and who or what does this selecting or choosing? Sarah, You are making dualistic categories when you ask "who or what does this selecting or choosing." There is just selecting and choosing without an "I" as subject or doer. An example that is often used to illustrate this point is that there is not the see-er and the seen. There is just seeing which is a process. Deciding and choosing are also processes. Anatta does not preclude selecting and choosing. You also mentioned that after selecting the sensations or elements that the following phase of ‘watching’ is without ‘agenda or attachment’ as far as you know. Isn’t there attachment involved whenever there is an idea of ‘watching’ in order for awareness to arise? Otherwise, why would there be any watching, I wonder. I'm getting a little frustrated trying to make myself understood on this point. What I tried to say in my earlier response below is there is no idea of watching in the "second phase." Just sitting there and observing doesn't imply my making any decision or having attachment to sitting and observing. I just let my mind and body do what they will without my telling them to do anything. There is no "I" selecting anything. Awareness, watching, arises by itself. At those moments when I become attached to a thought and lose awareness, the decision to bring my attention back is made by itself. This is different from the "first phase." (I feel uncomfortable making this distinction between training and not training phases. I hope it makes my view more understandable.) In the first phase I might be consciously making the decision to note hardness, for example. This is part of the process of training my mind. In the second phase I am not consciously making this decision. jack >>S: Let me ask you whether at this moment it really is possible to select an object - say to experience hardness without thinking or seeing or hearing or attachment or doubt for example. And how would this be more beneficial to the development of satipatthana than the awareness of presently arising thinking or doubt or a wish to focus?<< >>Sarah, As I said in a previous post, I practice by deliberately selecting a particular material ultimate such as hardness or coldness as object. In my 4-Material Element meditation, I practice by selecting, one by one, 13-16 different types of sensations in my body. This is practice, artificial, and choosing one object over another one. Then after doing this, I just sit there and watch whatever comes up. I think I do this later phase with no agenda or attachment. Sometimes I don't have time to do the second phase. But, after doing this practice for a year or so, I find myself being aware of ultimates as I just sit, say, in a dentist's office. To me (and I think to the Buddha), this practice phase is essential. Here is what I said in my last post. >> Here is what I mean by deconstructing. I'm sitting in the dentist's office. I see I am in discomfort. I think (use concepts) to decide to put my attention on my physical body sense door. Once my attention is there, I just observe with no thought or direction. At times, my training in 4 material elements (ultimates) meditation kicks in and my attention goes to the physical body elements without the first step of using concepts to decide to do it. It all happens with "my" not doing anything. Thinking, deciding and using concepts in this situation to me is only useful in that it points me toward a state of not thinking, deciding or using concepts. My meditation practice has benefits to me such as reducing stress but its ultimate use to to practice "directly understanding dhammas with detachment and without any idea of self." as you say below. "Understanding" in this sense means direct, non-conceptual wisdom not book learning.< 32651 From: Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 4:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Do or not do something In a message dated 4/30/04 1:56:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: Lodewijk said: without the Abhidhamma Vipassana makes no sense. Yes, the two go together. Nina, I don't know who Lodewijk is or whether you attributed the quote above to him to give it the weight of authority, but I think Lodewijk is overstating it. Yes, the Abhidhamma can be useful. But, millions of people through the centuries have gotten value out of vipassana teachings and practices and made sense of it without any knowledge of the Abhidhamma. jack 32652 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] na-vattaba ‘not so classifiable’ objects - Abhidhamma detail Dear Sarah, We also talked about this with the late Phra Dhammadharo. Some of the meditation subjects of samatha are paramatthas, but the aim is not: knowing them as not self, but: eliminating attachment. The aim is calm that is temporary freedom from defilements. Nina. op 30-04-2004 10:05 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > S: This was exactly my question (whether this actually was so) and Jon > raised the elements as an example and reading from Vism. As we know, > concepts can be of paramattha dhammas too. Good discussion for India. > > Actually, it makes sense to me that in samatha these could only be > concepts of the elements (like in some of the examples friends have given > about their wise reflections on elements), whereas in satipatthana they > are the paramattha dhammas as objects. The same with any aspects under > Dhamma too, I think. 32653 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:45am Subject: to Christine Dear Christine, You are having your Cooran weekend and I hope to hear about it after one week, since I am away. Perhaps Sarah will save it. I wrote to you, but your computer broke down. Here it is: How is Achaan Jose? We often think of him. How was your dog on your return? I liked the description of his aversion when you went. Typical. What was your impression about the sessions in Bgk? I hope you found them useful. What impressed you most? Nina. 32654 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vesakha Dear Sarah, Andrew, Philip Thank you. It is the word impinging, and what one means by it, really a minor point. I should not have asked it, it is a hairsplitting matter. The main thing is: what characteristic appears now. In the last instance we have to verify ourselves the truth of realities. And we should not cling to words or terms. I get the point here. But when I wrote, a teacher said, I did not refer to a Commentator, only to one of the teachers at the Foundation. I did not read about this subject in commentaries. I do not know whether there is anything in the Commentary about this. I want to add a word about this subject lest people have misunderstandings about the way commentators work. As said before, I am always impressed by the way Buddhaghosa works, mentioning when there were opinions of other teachers. Moreover, different opinions were mostly concerning minor points. The Commentators are not the omniscient Buddha, but they most faithfully assisted in transmitting his teachings and I am infinitely grateful to the reciters of the Tipitaka and commentaries. Thanks to them we can learn so much today. Buddhaghosa did not invent new things, he edited the old commentaries as we often discussed. I am thinking of Andrew's correspondance with Philip about oral tradition. Here are a few points to consider. Think of it when people in a large group recite together, there is constant surveillance here. And when these are superior people, wise and understanding, it ensures the highest standards. This was the case when at the Councils hundreds of arahats were reciting the texts, Tipitaka and commentaries, together! People without defilements have infallible memories. No doubt about it! They were without perversity of sa~n~naa. Andrew was wondering about the word pa~n~natti not used in the suttas. But we have the words conventional truth and absolute truth. Conventional truth is pa~n~natti. The Abhidhamma explains in detail about these notions. It is essential to know the difference, otherwise vipassana cannot be developed correctly. We would take the unreal for the real. Now, happy Vesakha to you and all here on May 4th! I am also thinking of my friends in Bogor. I will have a good talk with Lodewijk, like we had last year on Rahula who had to become like the Earth, the dustrag mentality. May we all become like dustrags, with all conceit eventually eliminated. Nina. op 30-04-2004 10:15 schreef sarahdhhk op sarahdhhk@y...: > K.Sujin said 'it doesn't matter' whether one, two or three of the > great elements impinge and there's 'no use in saying it'. She > said that different texts give different answers because they are > written by the commentators (i.e without the Buddha's > omniscience). 'Still, only one characteristic appears'. We know > that because it's an object of body consciousness (i.e the rupa), > it must be in a kalapa of at least 8 rupas. 'The very fine detail can > only be known by the Buddha's omniscience'. 32655 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 0:11pm Subject: good wishes Dear Sarah Lodewijk and I wish you a very happy birthday. This is a good occasion to thank you for all your friendship and the admirable way you help Jon monitoring this list. We know you spend so much time and energy on it. Great kusala and anumodana. Our birthday danas in Sri Lanka were delightful, weren't they. I remember you were greatly moved when the monks recited the texts and you poured the water to extend the merit. With fond regards, Nina and Lodewijk. 32656 From: Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 5:17pm Subject: Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Sarah, If we look at dependent arising in the light of the 4 noble truths then "formations" is essentially desire and the result of desire is dukkha. So "consciousness" as the result of desire is dukkha. Of course every link in dependent arising is consciousness and as such is characterized by the three general characteristics but the consciousness link and the becoming link are in particular conditioned by desire, and desire is the cause of dukkha. The question is, how is desire the cause of dukkha and how is resultant consciousness, in particular, dukkha? We might also ask how is "consciousness" and "becoming" similar? Any thoughts? Larry 32657 From: robmoult Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:37pm Subject: VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi All, Just wanted to squash the rumour (can't imagine how this rumour got started :-) ) that a "dot of light" is a suitable analogy for visible object. A "visible object" is that which presents itself at the eye door in a small fraction of a second. Unlike a television, the rods and cones of the eye door do not scan a set of dots to construct an image. A better analogy would be that a visible object is like a single frame from a movie film. At the movie theatre, a motion picture is projected on the screen at a rate of 24 frames per second (at least that is what Jeeves said when I asked him). Each frame is seen as a visible object and the mind merges them together into a continuous stream. Anicca (impermanence) is concealed by continuity. A series of mental states arise to experience an object. Each mental state arises to perform a certain function and disappears conditioning the next mental state to arise and continue the task. Just as in the movie theatre, we take this stream as continuous and having permanence. The Vipallasa Sutta (AN IV.49) touches on this point. Let's go back to Plato's cave. The occupants of Plato's cave were chained in such a way that they could only look toward one wall of the cave. There was a bright light behind them so that they cast shadows on the visible wall. The occupants of the cave were born, lived and died looking at the shadows. Plato talked about one of the occupants breaking free from the chains, making his way outside the cave and then returning to try and explain to the others what true reality was like. Let us consider the perspective of three individuals: - The one who broke free and saw the outside world for himself - The one who has never broken free but has listened to the one who broke free and has an intellectual understanding of what the one who broke free was talking about - The one who has never heard the story from the one who broke free The one who has never heard the story is like the one who has never heard the Dhamma. They are like a person who was born and raised in a movie theatre and take the film as real. When the actor in the film dies, they are upset because they believe the film to be real. The one who has heard the story and accepts it as true from an intellectual perspective is like us; we accept the Dhamma but have never experienced Nibbana. When we visit the movie theatre, we know intellectually that what we are looking at is not real, yet we still get upset when the hero dies. Because of our intellectual understanding, the level of our emotion may not be as deep as the one who has never heard the Dhamma, but our own experience shows us how willing we are to suspend our intellectual understanding and accept for real something that is not real. The one who broke free and saw the outside world for himself is an enlightened being (Buddha or Arahant). They view the world as being like a series of movie frames being presented. They see each frame as impermanent, soon to be replaced by a slightly different frame (even faster than 24 frames per second). With this insight into impermanence, there is no support for emotions. Perhaps we can extend this metaphor even further to liken a Sotapanna to one who has had a quick glance at the world outside the cave. They are still subject to defilements as the quick glance was not long enough to uproot lifetimes of accumulated views. Nevertheless, after a quick glance, they are on their way to completely breaking free from their chains. Clearly Plato's cave has some Dhamma in it. Here is an interesting possibility. I believe that it mentions in the commentary that the Buddha used his supernormal powers to visit other countries and preach the Dhamma. I have heard that Lao Tze (founder of Taoism and a contemporary of the Buddha) said that he studied with a "golden skinned foreigner". I have been told that early Taoism has some distinctive Buddhist features. The Buddha lived in India just before the time of Socrates and Plato in Greece. Perhaps the story of Plato's cave can be traced back to a visit by the Buddha to Greece. One a similar vein, I was recently passed a fascinating book that builds a strong case that Jesus visited Tibet in his youth and studied Buddhism. I am digressing... getting back to the purpose of this post, I hope that this post dispels the rumour that visible object is a dot of light :-) Let's hear no more of this :-) Metta, Rob M :-) 32658 From: Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 4:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi Rob M. Just jumping in here. I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "dot of light." It sounds like you might be referring to a photon? If this is the case, then I totally disagree with that conclusion. The actual objects of vision are photons (photon energy.) Without that, no vision. TG 32659 From: Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 5:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi, TG - In a message dated 4/30/04 11:05:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > Hi Rob M. > > Just jumping in here. I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "dot of light." > > It sounds like you might be referring to a photon? If this is the case, > then > I totally disagree with that conclusion. The actual objects of vision are > photons (photon energy.) Without that, no vision. > > TG > ========================= Seeing is a kind of awareness, a visual experience, and the object of that is not a photon but a sight. A photon is an element of a biophysical, predictive, conceptual system/theory. 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) 32660 From: m. nease Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 9:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi Rob, I think what you're saying here is that the entire field of vision arises simutaneously--so, a 'frame' vs a 'pixel'. ----- Original Message ----- From: "robmoult" To: Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 6:37 PM Subject: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! > Each frame is seen as a > visible object and the mind merges them together into a continuous > stream. On what grounds do you hold that entire sequential 'frames' are merged rather than sequential 'pixels'? > Anicca (impermanence) is concealed by continuity. A series of mental > states arise to experience an object. Each mental state arises to > perform a certain function and disappears conditioning the next > mental state to arise and continue the task. Just as in the movie > theatre, we take this stream as continuous and having permanence. The > Vipallasa Sutta (AN IV.49) touches on this point. Sure...still begs the question, I think. > Let's go back to Plato's cave. The occupants of Plato's cave were > chained in such a way that they could only look toward one wall of > the cave. There was a bright light behind them so that they cast > shadows on the visible wall. The occupants of the cave were born, > lived and died looking at the shadows. Plato talked about one of the > occupants breaking free from the chains, making his way outside the > cave and then returning to try and explain to the others what true > reality was like. I'm familiar with this and think it is very far removed from Buddhadhamma. > Let us consider the perspective of three individuals: > - The one who broke free and saw the outside world for himself > - The one who has never broken free but has listened to the one who > broke free and has an intellectual understanding of what the one who > broke free was talking about > - The one who has never heard the story from the one who broke free > > The one who has never heard the story is like the one who has never > heard the Dhamma. They are like a person who was born and raised in a > movie theatre and take the film as real. When the actor in the film > dies, they are upset because they believe the film to be real. > > The one who has heard the story and accepts it as true from an > intellectual perspective is like us; we accept the Dhamma but have > never experienced Nibbana. When we visit the movie theatre, we know > intellectually that what we are looking at is not real, yet we still > get upset when the hero dies. Because of our intellectual > understanding, the level of our emotion may not be as deep as the one > who has never heard the Dhamma, but our own experience shows us how > willing we are to suspend our intellectual understanding and accept > for real something that is not real. > > The one who broke free and saw the outside world for himself is an > enlightened being (Buddha or Arahant). They view the world as being > like a series of movie frames being presented. They see each frame as > impermanent, soon to be replaced by a slightly different frame (even > faster than 24 frames per second). With this insight into > impermanence, there is no support for emotions. I think the entire field of vision is already a concept (that is, already post hoc and constructed of many moments of visual consciouness)--and that insight into it is conceptual and not liberating. > Perhaps we can extend this metaphor even further to liken a Sotapanna > to one who has had a quick glance at the world outside the cave. They > are still subject to defilements as the quick glance was not long > enough to uproot lifetimes of accumulated views. Nevertheless, after > a quick glance, they are on their way to completely breaking free > from their chains. If I'm right, the sotapanna has to have experienced insight into a paramattha dhamma, and not a concept (or 'frame'). > Clearly Plato's cave has some Dhamma in it. Not clearly at all, to me... > Here is an interesting > possibility. I believe that it mentions in the commentary that the > Buddha used his supernormal powers to visit other countries and > preach the Dhamma. I have heard that Lao Tze (founder of Taoism and a > contemporary of the Buddha) said that he studied with a "golden > skinned foreigner". I have been told that early Taoism has some > distinctive Buddhist features. The Buddha lived in India just before > the time of Socrates and Plato in Greece. Perhaps the story of > Plato's cave can be traced back to a visit by the Buddha to Greece. > One a similar vein, I was recently passed a fascinating book that > builds a strong case that Jesus visited Tibet in his youth and > studied Buddhism. This is all very consistent with theosophism and lots of 'new age' religion, but not with Buddhdhamma, I think--just my opinion, of course. > I am digressing... getting back to the purpose of this post, I hope > that this post dispels the rumour that visible object is a dot of > light :-) Let's hear no more of this :-) My apologies for disregarding your closing request! Of course, you know a great deal more abhidhamma than I do, so it's entirely possible you're right and I'm wrong. Don't think so, though, of course... Best Wishes, Rob, mike 32661 From: Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 5:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! In a message dated 4/30/2004 9:12:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: Seeing is a kind of awareness, a visual experience, and the object of that is not a photon but a sight. A photon is an element of a biophysical, predictive, conceptual system/theory. With metta, Howard Hi Howard Could you be more specific by what you mean by "sight?" (Keep in mind the topic here is "visible object.") I can only infer when you say "sight" that you are taking about a "view" of something "out there." Regarding your first two statements that -- (Seeing is a kind of awareness, a visual experience) I would regard that as indisputable. A photon is theoretical, but the fact that light energy needs to contact the eye in order to see is not. In the mean time let me be more clear... Whatever we experience through the senses is always an energy that has made contact with one of the sense bases and the corresponding consciousness. We don't actually see a car. We see light (photons, electro-magnetic energy,) reflecting off a car. The car is interpreted (from the contact of light) and as such is a perception and mental interpretation based on the way the light hits the eye (and based on previous conditioning/education.) There are a lot of "sights" "out there." We do not see them unless the energy of light contacts the eye/mind. The topic here is "visible object" and visible object is indeed light. (And that's no rumour.) ;-) TG 32662 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:01pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Friend Sarah, Sarah: James, we agree that the only `true release' or escape from samsara is the realisation of nibbana by the supramundane consciousness when defilements are eradicated. However, the path has to be developed and this can only be by way of gradually knowing present namas and rupas as anatta, i.e knowing material forms, feelings, perceptions, formations and consciousness for what they are - conditioned dhammas or elements. I agree with you that the idea of self is only finally eradicated at the first stage of enlightenment, but the insight can only ever begin to develop at the present moment. James: Okay, great, we agree here!! (BTW, I took a somewhat radical position in this post for a purpose: to pin you down to what is important. If I mention that knowing namas and rupas is somewhat important, but nibbana is more important, you will only focus on the first part, blow it completely out of proportion, and then my meaning would be lost. You have done this before! ;-)) To summarize, so that we are both on the same page: The goal of Buddhism is enlightenment, not knowing namas and rupas. Simply understanding namas from rupas in everyday life is still mundane knowledge. Knowing namas and rupas as anatta won't occur until enlightenment, which is of a supramundane consciousness. Additionally, this supramundane consciousness won't occur until the defilements are eradicated. Am I the only one to see the necessity for meditation practice to achieve this goal? (Don't answer that…I already know your answer! ;-)) One must purify the mind and this cannot be done (`that well'…I hate to give you even an inch! ;-)) in this midst of defilements. It would be like trying to dry your clothes in a rainstorm, it just can't be done. It is incorrect to say that meditation practice should not be practiced because of the idea of self because even the knowing of namas and rupas in the present moment has the idea of self present! Your approach reminds me of the Zen story of the master who wanted to teach his disciple how his approach to Buddhism was incorrect. The disciple came across his master looking around the floor inside his hut. The disciple asked his master what he was looking for and the master replied that he was looking for his keys. They both searched around the room, high and low, but couldn't find them. The disciple then asked the master if he was sure he had lost them in the hut, and the master replied, "No, actually, I lost them outside. But the light is better in here." The disciple was shocked and told his master that they should look for the keys outside, in the dark, where they had really been lost. The master replied, "Then why do you search for nibbana only where there is light and not where it has been lost?" The disciple then became enlightened. Metta, James 32663 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 1, 2004 3:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > Just jumping in here. I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "dot of light." > It sounds like you might be referring to a photon? If this is the case, then > I totally disagree with that conclusion. The actual objects of vision are > photons (photon energy.) Without that, no vision. I was refering to a pixel, not a photon. According to the commentary, the following are the necessary conditions for sense consciousness to arise: - Eye sensitivity (eye has to work, not blind) - Visible object - Light - Attention In other words, photons (light) are necessary for eye consciousness, but they are different from visible object. Metta, Rob M :-) 32664 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 1, 2004 3:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi Mike, Long time no chat! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > I think what you're saying here is that the entire field of vision arises > simutaneously--so, a 'frame' vs a 'pixel'. ===== Yup! ===== > > On what grounds do you hold that entire sequential 'frames' are merged > rather than sequential 'pixels'? > ===== Imagine that the eye were opened for one billionth of a second. The signal to the brain would be an entire image (a frame). This is unlike a TV screen or computer monitor that builds up an image pixel by pixel. The brain would receive an entire image. ===== > > > Let's go back to Plato's cave. > > I'm familiar with this and think it is very far removed from Buddhadhamma. ===== The way that Plato took the analogy is different from the way that I took the analogy. ===== > > I think the entire field of vision is already a concept (that is, already > post hoc and constructed of many moments of visual consciouness)-- and that > insight into it is conceptual and not liberating. > ===== Could you expand on this? I'm not clear on your meaning. ===== > > > Perhaps we can extend this metaphor even further to liken a Sotapanna > > to one who has had a quick glance at the world outside the cave. They > > are still subject to defilements as the quick glance was not long > > enough to uproot lifetimes of accumulated views. Nevertheless, after > > a quick glance, they are on their way to completely breaking free > > from their chains. > > If I'm right, the sotapanna has to have experienced insight into a > paramattha dhamma, and not a concept (or 'frame'). > ===== What defines a Sotapanna is that attainment of the magga (path) citta. This citta has nibbana as object. As a result of this attainment, certain defilements are uprooted. ===== > > > Clearly Plato's cave has some Dhamma in it. > > Not clearly at all, to me... ===== You may be right if we are talking about "Plato's cave", but if we are talking about "Rob's cave" (same cave analogy, different interpretation) then there is some Dhamma in there :-) > > > Here is an interesting ... > > This is all very consistent with theosophism and lots of 'new age' religion, > but not with Buddhdhamma, I think--just my opinion, of course. No argument... and since this is DHAMMA study group (not THEOSOPHISM study group), I won't pursue this further. Metta, Rob M :-) 32665 From: Date: Sat May 1, 2004 2:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi, TG - In a message dated 5/1/04 12:54:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > In a message dated 4/30/2004 9:12:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, > upasaka@a... writes: > Seeing is a kind of awareness, a visual experience, and the object of > that is not a photon but a sight. A photon is an element of a biophysical, > predictive, conceptual system/theory. > > With metta, > Howard > Hi Howard > > Could you be more specific by what you mean by "sight?" (Keep in mind the > topic here is "visible object.") I can only infer when you say "sight" that > you > are taking about a "view" of something "out there." Regarding your first > two > statements that -- (Seeing is a kind of awareness, a visual experience) I > would regard that as indisputable. A photon is theoretical, but the fact > that > light energy needs to contact the eye in order to see is not. In the mean > time > let me be more clear... > > Whatever we experience through the senses is always an energy that has made > contact with one of the sense bases and the corresponding consciousness. We > > don't actually see a car. We see light (photons, electro-magnetic energy,) > reflecting off a car. The car is interpreted (from the contact of light) > and as > such is a perception and mental interpretation based on the way the light > hits > the eye (and based on previous conditioning/education.) > > There are a lot of "sights" "out there." We do not see them unless the > energy of light contacts the eye/mind. The topic here is "visible object" > and > visible object is indeed light. (And that's no rumour.) ;-) > > TG > ============================ The world of the physicists may or may not be a reality. Within the biophysical theory of sight, there is posited the existence of wave-particle events called "photons" occurring in an "exterior world" that impact the retina of the eye (the eye being another presumed reality, but referred to by some Buddhists as a "conventional object" and by some as "pa~n~natti", and by some Mahayanists as "mind-only"), producing nerve impulses that travel to the brain, and the brain responding by producing (excreting? ;-) "consciousness of visual object". This is a story to account for, interpret, and predict certain phenomena. It is just a story. It may well be a true one - we don't know. It is certainly useful. Phenomenologically, however - that is, in terms of direct experience, whether or not there is an external world independent of experience, and whether or not photons are part of it, seeing is not the experience of photons, it is the experience of visual objects, and phenomenologically, sights are not "out there" (nor are they "in here") - they just "are", or better, they just "occur". A photon is not the object of sight but of thought. This is the distinction that I make. It is my perspective alone - I'm not a dealer or pusher. ;-)) With phenomenal 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) 32666 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat May 1, 2004 6:23am Subject: Re: The Practical View of Anatta Hi Andrew, The not-self teaching is not about the denial or affirmation of the existence of a permanent self. To assume, conjure up the idea that self as some sort of permanent self or something, is a misunderstanding. With the assumption of what self is, question about whether self exists or not comes into play, and both assertions "self exists" and "self does not exist" are based on that assumption. The Buddha taught that form is not self. What does it mean by form is not self? Form 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." Seeing thus is insight into the conditioned. Assuming what self is is not. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > Hello everyone and especially Victor > In his book, "An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, history and > practices" (Cambridge Uni Press, 11th reprint 2002), Prof Peter > Harvey writes that "the not-self teaching is not in *itself* a denial > of the existence of a permanent self; it is primarily a practical > teaching aimed at the overcoming of attachment." I'm sure Victor > will agree with this. Harvey goes on to explain that the practical > exercise of examining phenomena and seeing that none of them can be > taken as a permanent self results in the idea of self withering > away "as it is seen that no actual instance of such a thing can be > found anywhere." > I would have thought that if no instance of something can be found > anywhere, we are to conclude that it doesn't exist. If we don't > embrace that conclusion, are we not reinforcing self-view in a subtle > way? > It seems that there WERE early Buddhists who believed in the > existence of a self: the Puggalavadins or "Personalists". They > argued that the self was as real as the khandhas. In the 7th century > AD, a quarter of all Buddhist monks were Puggalavadins. All the > other schools argued they were wrong. > Surely there is a fine line between refusing to state "there is no > self" and being a Puggalavadin? Victor in particular seems to walk > that line quite confidently. I'm not sure I can keep up with him, > though. Am I missing something important? Does anyone have any > thoughts on how one can refuse to deny "self" and not be a believer > in self like the Puggalavadins? > Best wishes > Andrew 32667 From: Date: Sat May 1, 2004 6:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Do or not do something Lodewijk said: without the Abhidhamma Vipassana makes no sense. Yes, the two go together. Nina, Jack: >>I don't know who Lodewijk is or whether you attributed the quote above to him to give it the weight of authority, but I think Lodewijk is overstating it. Yes, the Abhidhamma can be useful. But, millions of people through the centuries have gotten value out of vipassana teachings and practices and made sense of it without any knowledge of the Abhidhamma.<< I want to be clear on this. I am not degrading the beliefs of anyone else. There are many useful and valid paths in Buddhism. Abbidhamma, in my opinion, is useful and valid. I don't question that the interpretation of Abhidhamma of some on this list (which I don't consider a mainstream Abhidhamma view) is a valid and useful path to them. jack 32668 From: m. nease Date: Sat May 1, 2004 10:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi Rob, ----- Original Message ----- From: "robmoult" To: Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 3:45 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! > Hi Mike, > > Long time no chat! Yes, nice to be in touch again... > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" > wrote: > > I think what you're saying here is that the entire field of vision > arises > > simutaneously--so, a 'frame' vs a 'pixel'. > > ===== > > Yup! > > ===== > > > > On what grounds do you hold that entire sequential 'frames' are > merged > > rather than sequential 'pixels'? > > > ===== > > Imagine that the eye were opened for one billionth of a second. The > signal to the brain would be an entire image (a frame). This is > unlike a TV screen or computer monitor that builds up an image pixel > by pixel. The brain would receive an entire image. I still don't think so--I think it just seems so because of the brevity of cittakha.na. In fact, I think that most of the time, minute bits of the visual field are succeeded by equally minute bits of the other sense fields, rapidly assembled after the fact as a seemingly 'holographic' mirage of sight, sound, touch and so on. Obviously I can't support this from the Abhidhamma (or from the suttas, for that matter), but it is more consistent with my (obviously limited) understanding than the 'frame-by-frame' model, superior though that is to the idea of a lasting, sensible phenomenon. > > ===== > > > > > Let's go back to Plato's cave. > > > > I'm familiar with this and think it is very far removed from > Buddhadhamma. > > ===== > > The way that Plato took the analogy is different from the way that I > took the analogy. > > ===== I think I'll leave the cave alone--to me this is wonderful philosophy but not Buddhadhamma, but I know so little of philosophy that I could, of course, be mistaken. > > > > I think the entire field of vision is already a concept (that is, > already > > post hoc and constructed of many moments of visual consciouness)-- > and that > > insight into it is conceptual and not liberating. > > > ===== > > Could you expand on this? I'm not clear on your meaning. > > ===== Does the above clarify this? > > > > > Perhaps we can extend this metaphor even further to liken a > Sotapanna > > > to one who has had a quick glance at the world outside the cave. > They > > > are still subject to defilements as the quick glance was not long > > > enough to uproot lifetimes of accumulated views. Nevertheless, > after > > > a quick glance, they are on their way to completely breaking free > > > from their chains. > > > > If I'm right, the sotapanna has to have experienced insight into a > > paramattha dhamma, and not a concept (or 'frame'). > > > ===== > > What defines a Sotapanna is that attainment of the magga (path) > citta. This citta has nibbana as object. As a result of this > attainment, certain defilements are uprooted. > > ===== Right--and nibbaana is paramattha, isn't it? > > > > > Clearly Plato's cave has some Dhamma in it. > > > > Not clearly at all, to me... > > ===== > > You may be right if we are talking about "Plato's cave", but if we > are talking about "Rob's cave" (same cave analogy, different > interpretation) then there is some Dhamma in there :-) You're probably right--you did say your take was different from Plato's, I think. > > > > > Here is an interesting ... > > > > This is all very consistent with theosophism and lots of 'new age' > religion, > > but not with Buddhdhamma, I think--just my opinion, of course. > > No argument... and since this is DHAMMA study group (not THEOSOPHISM > study group), I won't pursue this further. Thanks, Rob--nice chatting with you, as always. mike 32669 From: m. nease Date: Sat May 1, 2004 11:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi Rob, p.s. Have you ever noticed that one part of your field of vision may seem to be accompanied by pleasant feeling, another by unpleasant feeling and another by neutral feeling? And, of course, other feelings attending other sense-impressions seemingly simultaneously...of course, all these could, I suppose, be complete sense fields arising and subsiding whole, each with its own attendant feeling etc. Just doesn't seem so to me. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "robmoult" To: Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 3:45 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! 32670 From: Date: Sat May 1, 2004 8:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi, Mike (and Rob) - In a message dated 5/1/04 2:53:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mlnease@z... writes: > > Hi Rob, > > p.s. Have you ever noticed that one part of your field of vision may seem > to be accompanied by pleasant feeling, another by unpleasant feeling and > another by neutral feeling? And, of course, other feelings attending other > sense-impressions seemingly simultaneously...of course, all these could, I > suppose, be complete sense fields arising and subsiding whole, each with its > own attendant feeling etc. Just doesn't seem so to me. > > mike > ========================== What I suspect is the case is that the differing feelings are in response to differing experiences. Specifically, it seems to me that a sight is followed up by repetitions involving sa~n~nic carvings-out of patterns from within that visual object producing a variety of mind-door objects with differing vedanic tastes. Without well developed concentration, mindfulness, and clarity of comprehension, most of this detail is missed, and there is the false seeming of simultaneity. 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) 32671 From: Date: Sat May 1, 2004 10:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! In a message dated 5/1/2004 3:35:22 AM Pacific Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: I was refering to a pixel, not a photon. According to the commentary, the following are the necessary conditions for sense consciousness to arise: - Eye sensitivity (eye has to work, not blind) - Visible object - Light - Attention In other words, photons (light) are necessary for eye consciousness, but they are different from visible object. Metta, Rob M :-) Hi Rob Understand what you mean. That makes sense and I can basically agree with it. However, I will maintain that light is still technically the visible object. I think the commentary is a little wrong. The forms that light bounces off and become perceivable thereby, would be analogous to a mountain side that reflects sounds as an echo. I'm not sure anyone would claim that a mountain side is an "audible object." (To some extent both forms would be supporting factors.) The sun is primarily the "visible object" that we experience. Even fires we may burn or light bulbs we might electrify are derivitives that were primarily fueled by the electro-magnetic energy of the sun. I.E., it took solar energy to grow the trees, to elevate water whereby dams and generators could produce electricity, to support the dinosaurs that who's oil we now convert into energy, etc. When a light bulb is "burning," the visible object is the light emmiting from the filiment. The walls, chairs, tables, etc. are not "themselves" visible. They only echo light into shapes/colors whereby we interpret what those shapes and colors mean. TG 32672 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 1, 2004 3:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi Mike, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > > > > Imagine that the eye were opened for one billionth of a second. The > > signal to the brain would be an entire image (a frame). This is > > unlike a TV screen or computer monitor that builds up an image pixel > > by pixel. The brain would receive an entire image. > > I still don't think so--I think it just seems so because of the brevity of > cittakha.na. In fact, I think that most of the time, minute bits of the > visual field are succeeded by equally minute bits of the other sense fields, > rapidly assembled after the fact as a seemingly 'holographic' mirage of > sight, sound, touch and so on. Obviously I can't support this from the > Abhidhamma (or from the suttas, for that matter), but it is more consistent > with my (obviously limited) understanding than the 'frame-by-frame' model, > superior though that is to the idea of a lasting, sensible phenomenon. > ===== I think that we agree that each eye-door citta process brings in a minute piece of visual data. But what is the nature of this minute piece of visual data? The texts refer to it as "that which presents itself at the eye door". So now the questions arises, "is the eye door the entire field of vision (frame model) or is the eye door a small fraction of the field of vision which is later assembled (by some other underlying process) into an entire field of vision (pixel model)"? My understanding of modern science is that there are distinct rods and cones in the retina, but brain recieves the signals from all these nerves together as a block (one frame, not a pixel). The analysis of the frame into portions comes later (a mental process). In the same vein, when we taste sweet and sour soup, the part of the tongue that "tastes" sweet is separate from the part of the tongue that tastes "sour", but the brain recieves the signals from these two parts of the tongue together. The analysis of the taste into sweet and sour comes later (a mental process). Similarly, the "heat sensing nerves" are distinct from the "cold sensing nerves" in the body, but the brain recieves the signals from both sets of nerves together. Metta, Rob M :-) 32673 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 1, 2004 3:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi Mike, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > p.s. Have you ever noticed that one part of your field of vision may seem > to be accompanied by pleasant feeling, another by unpleasant feeling and > another by neutral feeling? And, of course, other feelings attending other > sense-impressions seemingly simultaneously...of course, all these could, I > suppose, be complete sense fields arising and subsiding whole, each with its > own attendant feeling etc. Just doesn't seem so to me. I see the analysis of the field of vision into segments and reaction to those segments as subsequent mental processes to the eye door process. Metta, Rob M :-) 32674 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 1, 2004 3:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > In a message dated 5/1/2004 3:35:22 AM Pacific Standard Time, > rob.moult@j... writes: > I was refering to a pixel, not a photon. > > According to the commentary, the following are the necessary > conditions for sense consciousness to arise: > - Eye sensitivity (eye has to work, not blind) > - Visible object > - Light > - Attention > > In other words, photons (light) are necessary for eye consciousness, > but they are different from visible object. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > Hi Rob > > Understand what you mean. That makes sense and I can basically agree with > it. However, I will maintain that light is still technically the visible > object. I think the commentary is a little wrong. > > The forms that light bounces off and become perceivable thereby, would be > analogous to a mountain side that reflects sounds as an echo. I'm not sure > anyone would claim that a mountain side is an "audible object." (To some extent > both forms would be supporting factors.) > > The sun is primarily the "visible object" that we experience. Even fires we > may burn or light bulbs we might electrify are derivitives that were primarily > fueled by the electro-magnetic energy of the sun. I.E., it took solar energy > to grow the trees, to elevate water whereby dams and generators could produce > electricity, to support the dinosaurs that who's oil we now convert into > energy, etc. > > When a light bulb is "burning," the visible object is the light emmiting from > the filiment. The walls, chairs, tables, etc. are not "themselves" visible. > They only echo light into shapes/colors whereby we interpret what those > shapes and colors mean. Everything arises because of multiple conditions. We can say that the conditions that contributed to the arising of the tree include (among others): - sun - rain - soil - seed Imagine that there are three trees grouped together; an oak, a maple and a pine. Though all three trees had the same conditions of sun, rain and soil, it is the seed that makes each tree unique. For eye consciousness to arise, the following conditions are required: - Eye sensitivity (eye has to work, not blind) - Visible object - Light - Attention I see the condition of "light" as a "common conditioning factor" (like sun, rain and soil) and I see "visible object" as a "specific conditioning factor" (like the seed). Metta, Rob M :-) 32675 From: gazita2002 Date: Sat May 1, 2004 7:07pm Subject: wrong view Hello dsg-ers How obvious is dosa with its associated bad feelings? After returning home from a months' holiday which included spending time in BKK with A. Sujin and several other dsg members, I'm having lots of aversion about my job, others things including the computor!! How seductive is the thought that to stay in BKK where I can hear the true Dhamma each week, would be much better than being here. I would then be wiser and have more understanding!! We can have the idea that if we are in a more conducive place to hear and practise the true Dhamma then wisdom will grow more quickly. Instead, this may be wrong view and actually have the opposite effect and hinder the development of sati. Wisdom grows from detachment not from more attachment, and thinking that one place is better than another could be attachment not wisdom. No amount of trying, wishing, hoping for sati will make it arise. Sati must arise naturally, by conditions. Association with good friends - by conditions. Hearing the true Dhamma - by conditions Considering - by conditions Practise in accordance with the true Dhamma - by conditions. Better that I see the aversion for what it is, a reality which can be known as not me, not myself, not mine, that it is anicca, dukkha [you bet] and anatta. May we all have patience, courage and good cheer Azita. 32676 From: Suravira Date: Sat May 1, 2004 7:59pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Suravira, > > It took me a little time to realize that you're the same-that was- our > friend Chuck. Perhaps you'd care to tell us about the meaning of your new > Pali name. > Sarah - do not believe we have ever meet before, I believe that you are thinking of another friend of your's. The name Suravira is composed of two Pali words sura and vira (with an long i). It is my understanding that sura is a synonym for deva. Vira (with a long i not a short i (which would translate as intoxicated)) means brave and courageous. According to folklore/myth, Suravira enters into the hell realms and gives teachings on compassion and wisdom, thereby aiding the beings in those realms towards rebirth in more favorable realms. > We thought of you in Bangkok and I hoped you were going to join us, but > perhaps you were busy again or back in Phil. I think you were going to > tell us more about your experiences during the services for your late > teacher at Wat Amphawan. It would also be good to hear about your recent > visit. > > --- Suravira wrote: > > > > When the conditions are suitable, stream entry occurs. All Buddhist > > meditation practices, regardless of their lineage, have as their aim > > facilitating stream entry - and eventually enlightenment. > .... > Thank you for clarifying this. Of course stream entry is the first stage > of enlightenment, but by your last comment I'm sure you're referring to > arahantship. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== 32677 From: Suravira Date: Sat May 1, 2004 8:51pm Subject: Re: The Practical View of Anatta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > Hello everyone and especially Victor > In his book, "An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, history and > practices" (Cambridge Uni Press, 11th reprint 2002), Prof Peter > Harvey writes that "the not-self teaching is not in *itself* a denial > of the existence of a permanent self; it is primarily a practical > teaching aimed at the overcoming of attachment." I'm sure Victor [Suravira] The term anatta is, regretably, commonly interpreted to mean "not-self", or "no-self" or "non-self". This is a very regretable translation, as the term (and notion of) "self" is multifaceted within western cultures. A more preferable definition would be "false views of individuality." As regards Prof. Harvey's position that anatta is "... not a denial of the existence of a permanent self ...", this assertion is both incorrect and partially correct. It is incorrect in that the Buddha clearly negated the notion of a permanent self (and of any permanent phenomena) through his teachings on dependent origination. Prof. Harvey's assertion is partially correct only in the sense that the Buddha never negated the subjective, individual, experience of life - of reality. > will agree with this. Harvey goes on to explain that the practical > exercise of examining phenomena and seeing that none of them can be > taken as a permanent self results in the idea of self withering > away "as it is seen that no actual instance of such a thing can be > found anywhere." > I would have thought that if no instance of something can be found > anywhere, we are to conclude that it doesn't exist. If we don't [Suravira] Is this matter of engaging in exercises adequate proof that the "self" does not exist? Or, is it first necessary to present absolute proof that this "self" does in fact exist - in a manner that cannot be disputed by someone whose percieves things correctly? Why accept the challenge of negating the existance of something that has not been proven to exist? We all have this perceived experience of life - of being in time/space - correct? This is a universal state of all sensient beings. Nevertheless, is this notion of "self" merely an abstraction that we project onto the experience of life? Do we percieve something beyond this individual experience of life - do we percieve something ever so slightly more that this being in time/space? This perception of the experience of being in time/space exists - no more and no less than any other phenomena. In fact all known phenomena arise within this mode of experience. However, is there really anything even slightly more than this mode of existance - than this perception of the experience of being in time/space? Does it just appear that there is? Or, is it that within this experience of being there recurrently arises this need to believe that there is? And, is it this deeply ingrained need that imprints this notion of "self" onto this perception of the experience of being. > embrace that conclusion, are we not reinforcing self-view in a subtle > way? > It seems that there WERE early Buddhists who believed in the > existence of a self: the Puggalavadins or "Personalists". They > argued that the self was as real as the khandhas. In the 7th century > AD, a quarter of all Buddhist monks were Puggalavadins. All the > other schools argued they were wrong. > Surely there is a fine line between refusing to state "there is no > self" and being a Puggalavadin? Victor in particular seems to walk > that line quite confidently. I'm not sure I can keep up with him, > though. Am I missing something important? Does anyone have any > thoughts on how one can refuse to deny "self" and not be a believer > in self like the Puggalavadins? [Suravira] The main trap is sprung when translating anatta as "not- self". This erroneous trap can be avoided, as well as all ancilliary concerns/issue regarding this dharma (e.g., rebirth, etc.), by promoting the term "false views of individuality" To construct a negating term, such as "not-self" one has the responsiblity for first providing a bullet-proof definition for the term "self". It seems that too many people approach this dharma of anatta bass ackward. With metta, Suravira 32678 From: Date: Sat May 1, 2004 5:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! In a message dated 5/1/2004 3:25:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: Everything arises because of multiple conditions. We can say that the conditions that contributed to the arising of the tree include (among others): - sun - rain - soil - seed Hi Rob M. I agree and when you take this reasoning to its full conclusion, it can be said that everything in the universe is a supporting condition to some extent or another for everything experienced. The below (bottom) commentarial statement is interesting in that I don't remember a single sutta where the Buddha takes about 4 conditions for sense experience contact. Its always 3 conditions. In at least one sutta, the Buddha talks about "dyads" being responsible for the arising of sensory consciousness. The eye and visible object, the ear and audible object, etc., being the dyads expounded by the Buddha. (Connected Discourses of the Buddha, Pg. 1172) Its seems to me that those compiling the commentaries probably realized that there was an error of not incorporating "light" as a chief factor in visible consciousness. I suspect the error came earlier when it was perhaps assumed that "visible objects" were something other than light. (In the olden days, people more likely thought that vision "reached out" with some sort of "vision rays" to the object.) I believe some commentaries state that smells, tastes, and tangibles actually "touch" the sense bases, while visible objects and audible objects do not. This is total non-sense as far as I'm concerned. Sensory consciousness can only arises when sensory objects/energies contact the sense organs. In actuality, a chair in the distance cannot be seen; rather, it is revealed by light as the light reflects off of it. In terms of our everyday experiences this is probably a near meaningless distinction. In terms of understanding conditional relations this may be very important for some individuals. Commentarial Quote... For eye consciousness to arise, the following conditions are required: - Eye sensitivity (eye has to work, not blind) - Visible object - Light - Attention TG 32679 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat May 1, 2004 10:36pm Subject: Re: Understanding aggregates and annata (was Video Games) Friend Phil, Thank you for the lovely e-mail. I am glad that you feel comfortable enough with me, and with this group, to explore your feelings and thoughts out loud. That is a good thing and I encourage you to do it quite frequently. Okay, I will respond to a few of the items: Phil: Haven't "stream-enterers" and "once returners" had direct knowledge of annata? That's not a rhetorical question. I have no idea what goodies go with those stages of enlightenment. James: I don't think it is important to memorize these various stages and what is achieved in each. Without a practical context, like being a member of a Bhikkhu Sangha, this knowledge will only lead you to believe that you know something you don't. Instead, I would just focus on the first stage of Enlightenment, Stream Entry. I suggest you read this article for backgroud: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/stream.html Phil: As for your suggestion of sensual delights going on in the deva realms, I was a bit surprised but I will leave google research on that for another lifetime. James: Yea, that is a little bit shocking isn't it? Hehehe… This isn't one of those details about Buddhism which monks speak about too often, which is understandable. But I can give you two examples off the top of my head: 1. A monk died while practicing meditation too strenuously (from a `wind disorder') and he was spontaneously reborn in a deva realm. He didn't know that he had been reborn however because he had been so engrossed in meditation. He came to visit the Buddha, as a deva, and he asked him why it was that he was in hell. He assumed that he was in hell because hundreds of female devas kept trying to seduce him to have sex and he wasn't interested! LOL! 2. The Buddha's brother became a monk but subsequently wanted to disrobe because he was too attracted to sensual desires…he was a real ladies man! ;-)). The Buddha, being clever, transported him to a deva realm to show him that there were thousands of female devas ready and willing to have sex and the Buddha told his brother that if he stayed a monk and practiced he would be reborn there. This inspired the Buddha's brother to practice diligently until he became enlightened and subsequently lost all interest in sex. Phil: I'm having enough trouble not checking out that bikini link these days. ;) James: LOL! I also suffer strongly from sensual desire (though bikinis don't do it for me!...if you know what I mean ;-)). Actually, this may surprise you to know, but right now my goal in this lifetime isn't to become enlightened. I used to have the goal to become enlightened, and even went to Thailand to become a monk to achieve this goal, but realized that I was not going to be able to find the right company of `admirable friends' to achieve enlightenment (BTW, I was severely depressed after this realization). My goal now is to be reborn in a deva realm until the next Buddha arrives, hopefully become on of his disciples, and then become enlightened. Nowadays I practice the Brahma-Viharas to attain the first levels of jhana. (But I am not suggesting that you follow suit. You may be able to become enlightened in this lifetime. It is all dependent on conditions.) Metta, James 32680 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 2, 2004 1:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > What is your reading of the sutta pitaka regarding whether in-&-out > breaths are bodily fabrications or not? > > Metta, > Victor I think you're referring to the comment in my last post? What I meant there was that my reading of the tipitaka is that there is no actual dhamma called 'breath', but that what we take for breath is mostly the dhammas of hardness/softness and heat/cold and motion/pressure experienced through the body-door (in terms of the five aggregates, these are dhammas of the rupa aggregate). Now in some suttas, such as the Satipatthana Sutta, where 'body' and aspects of the body (including 'breath' ) are mentioned, these are to be understood as referring to all rupas. So in the case of the particular sutta you mention, I would need to check the commentary before coming to a view regarding the intended meaning of the reference to breathing as bodily fabrications. Jon > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott > wrote: > > Victor > > > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > > > > > No problem. Given the sutta reference, it should be clear now > that > > > in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. > > > > > > Metta, > > > Victor > > > > Well those are the words of the sutta, but given my reading of the > > sutta pitaka in general and the rest of the tipitaka (such as it is) > > I think I'd like to see the commentary on this passage before > > agreeing or disagreeing with you ;-)) > > > > Jon 32681 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 2, 2004 1:46am Subject: Listening, considering etc (was, Pannatti (Concept)) James --- buddhatrue wrote: > Friend Jon, > > Jon: The advice the Buddha himself gave to others was to listen > more, > consider more, reflect more on the presently arising dhammas. > > James: The words `consider' and `reflect' are rather vague, could > you be more specific? Also, are you stating that the Buddha didn't > teach the practices of Jhana and Bhrama-Viharas? As to my > understanding, these practices don't involve any listening (maybe > they involve considering and reflecting if you will be more > specific?? Not sure what you mean). Both the issues you mention are important ones, and they are related. Of course I would agree that the Buddha taught about the development of serenity (samatha bhavana), including its aspects of jhana and the Brahma-Viharas. But this form of kusala is known outside the teachings of a Buddha, whereas the truth about the presently arising dhammas is found only in the teachings of a Buddha. There is frequent mention in the suttas of the importance to the development of insight (vipassana bhavana) of listening to the teaching about dhammas, considering what one has heard, and reflecting on how it relates to the presently arising dhamma. The reason for this is I think that without the correct intellectual backing, there can be no development at a deeper level, and worse still, any 'practice' is bound to be wrong. To my understanding these same conditions of listening and reflecting also support the development of all the other kinds of kusala, not just satipatthana. Hope this clarifies my references to listening, considering and reflecting. Jon 32682 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 2, 2004 2:08am Subject: More on Anapanasati Sutta James --- buddhatrue wrote: > Friend Jon, ... > Jon: I don't think this is a description of just sitting down and > doing it in the hope that somehow it will all become clear in time. > > James: I think so. What else is it a description for? Well, I'd like to suggest it describes someone in whom both samatha bhavana (with breath as object) and mindfulness are already well developed, rather than being a beginner's guide. This may not be the impression you get on first reading the sutta, but then first impressions can be misleading (preconceptions are inevitable ;-)). > James: I don't have any problems with the commentaries to that > sutta. They explain more how one is to use mindfulness of the > breath to gain insight. You obviously have a problem with this > sutta because it calls for focusing on one object for an extended > period and this practice contradicts with your view of Buddhism. > Rather than trying to wrangle some contradictory meaning from the > commentaries, I think you should just give up and face the reality > of what the sutta calls for. It depends what you mean when you say the sutta *calls for* focusing on one object for an extended period. It certainly describes a person who is developing samatha with breath as object, in fact I would say it presupposes that, and as such it has no direct application to someone who is not doing that. But I think our main difference is that I don't see it as being a beginner's guide, nor do I see anything there saying that this particular combination of development of samatha and vipassana is being generally recommended for followers. > Jon: But I don't find in the sutta any mention of a specific causal > connection between mindfulness of breathing and seeing the > impermanence of all dhammas. > > James: The Buddha said that the practitioner will breathe in and out > contemplating impermanence. How can you say that you don't see > impermanence in that sutta when it clearly says `impermanence'? It > doesn't matter if the sutta doesn't say anything about the `casual > connection', that is why you must practice it to know the > connection > and the meaning. See my above comments. > > Jon: I think if you read the sutta carefully you'll see that > mindfulness of dhammas, not of breathing per se, is the key. > > James: I think that if you read the sutta carefully you will see > that it says mindfulness of breathing, hence the title "Mindfulness of Breathing". LOL! This is a fair comment but I think it's also fair to say that the teaching contained in the suttas, although precise and detailed, is often cryptic. The Anapanasati Sutta is a good example of this; it cannot be understood without a lot of detailed study and elucidation from other sources. As I understand it, "mindfulness of breathing" was the term already in use at the time of the Buddha's enlightenment to describe the practice that in his teachings is classified under samatha bhavana (development of serenity), and which I will refer to as 'samatha with breath as object', to distinguish it from the insight aspect of the sutta. What the Anapanasati Sutta shows, in my view, is not how samatha with breath as object can be developed (since that was already widely known and practised), but rather how there can also be the development of insight (vipassana bhavana) at the same time, even while the jhanas are being developed or experienced, despite the fact that moments of mundane jhana and moments of insight cannot coincide. Now although this development of insight is included under the rubric of mindfulness of breathing, the object of the insight is not breath, but is any presently arising dhamma . This is made clear in the commentary, as I previously explained in a post to Jack and which I restate below. (My apologies for the length of the passage, but for reasons I gave at the beginning I think it's necessary to go into things in some detail to unlock the embedded meaning of the sutta. At least it's Pali-free ;-)). Apologies also for any overlap/repetition.) So "mindfulness of breathing" as an aspect of insight development refers to the development of insight by a person who is developing samatha with breath as object. Jon <<<<<<<<<<< [From the Sutta -- 4th tetrad, followed by relevant passage regarding frames of reference being brought to completion. Ven Nyanitoloka trans:] (xiii) He trains thus 'I shall breathe in contemplating impermanence'; he trains thus 'I shall breathe out contemplating impermanence'. (xiv) He trains thus 'I shall breathe in contemplating fading away'; he trains thus 'I shall breathe out contemplating fading away'. (xv) He trains thus 'I shall breathe in contemplating cessation'; he trains thus 'I shall breathe out contemplating cessation'. (xvi) He trains thus 'I shall breathe in contemplating relinquishment'; he trains thus 'I shall breathe out contemplating relinquishment'... On that occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu abides contemplating mental objects in mental objects, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having put away covetousness and grief with regard to the world. Having seen with understanding what is the abandoning of covetousness and grief, he becomes one who looks on with complete equanimity. That is why on that occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu abides contemplating mental objects in mental objects, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having put away covetousness and grief with regard to the world. That is how respiration-mindfulness, developed and repeatedly practised, perfects the four foundations of mindfulness. Visuddhimagga (VIII, 234), which contains the detailed word commentary on the fourth tetrad, elaborates in the meaning of the expression 'contemplating impermanence' contained in the sutta passage "He trains thus 'I shall breathe in contemplating impermanence'". It explains that a proper understanding of that passage requires an understanding of 4 terms, namely (a) 'the impermanent', (b) 'impermanence', (c) 'the contemplation of impermanence' and (d) 'one contemplating impermanence'. As to these 4 terms, it says: (a) Herein, the five aggregates are 'the impermanent', because their essence is rise and fall and change.' (b) 'Impermanence' is the rise and fall and change in those same aggregates, or it is their non-existence after having been; the meaning is, it is the break-up of produced khandhas through their momentary dissolution since they do not remain in the same mode. (c) 'Contemplation of impermanence' is contemplation of materiality, etc., as 'impermanent' in virtue of that impermanence. (d) 'One contemplating impermanence' possesses that contemplation. What is the significance of these explanations? Firstly, that contemplation of impermanence within the meaning of the tetrad is contemplation of the impermanence of *any of the five aggregates* (not just of the 'breath' rupas of the rupa aggregate only) -- see the explanations at (a) and (c) above. Secondly, that whenever such contemplation occurs, the person in question is to be regarded as 'one contemplating impermanence', i.e., emphasising the fact of the contemplation *occurring* rather than as something *being done* by the person -- see the explanations at (c) and (d) above. The Visuddhi-Magga passage word commentary then concludes by saying: <> This draws together all the foregoing explanation. My reading is as follows: When there occurs, in a person who is developing samatha with breath as object, contemplation of the impermanence of the five aggregates, then that person is said to be 'training himself' in the manner stated in the sutta. So while the tetrad is indeed all about insight (and insight only), it is to be understood as describing insight into the five aggregates in general, and not insight into 'breath' per se, nor even necessarily into those particular rupas of the rupa aggregate that are taken as breath. The significance of the breath here lies in the occasion on which the insight occurs (i.e., person developing samatha with breath as object), rather than in the actual object of insight. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See also Nina's post at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/27840 32683 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 2, 2004 2:14am Subject: Anapanasati Sutta (again) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... Howard: In short - no. The sutta *does* say that anapanasati serves as a means of implementing the four foundations of mindfulness, but it certainly doesn't claim that it is unique in that respect. However, the Anapanasati Sutta does seem to be sort of a "companion piece" to the Satipatthana Sutta. Jon: I agree with this last observation. As I understand it, the Anapanasati Sutta elaborates on mindfulness of breathing as described in the Satipatthana Sutta. Howard: One thing that is pointed out in the Anapanasati Sutta, is that mindfulness of the breath does produce calming, which may well be due in part to the (commonly observed) lulling effect of the breath, a rhythmic process. And, at the same time, the breath is not a fixed image, but is an ever-changing process composed of rupas of varying character and with repeated arisings and ceasings, which makes it suitable for vipassana investigation, as opposed to the purely samatha-meditation subjects such as kasinas. Jon: Just a comment on your reference here to breath as an object of insight (vipassana). I think it's clear from the commentaries that, as vipassana bhavana, mindfulness of breathing means insight with any *dhamma* as object, and that includes dhammas other than just the rupas that are taken for breath. Only as samatha bhavana is 'breath' as such (in reality, the concept of breath) the object. As I understand it, the term 'mindfulness of breathing' is taken from the particular form of samatha bhavana/jhaana development of that name. (As we know, one of the favoured teaching methods of the Buddha was to take an existing term or practice an give it a new meaning, and I see this as a classic instance of that approach.) Howard; But, no, I don't think that mindfulness of the breath is unique in the features mentioned above nor due I think that anapanasati is, or is claimed to be, "the only way". Clearly, though, it is presented as a good way. Jon: Well I agree that mindfulness of breathing is presented in a positive light, and I have never suggested it should be regarded as otherwise. But if breath is not unique in any way, what is the main message of the sutta? If the sutta is to be read as recommending mindfulness of breathing as a preferred way of developing the path, we would expect to find some mention of the specific advantages of this way over any other way. If that kind of explanation isn't to be found in the sutta or commentary, it could mean that the message is other than we think it is. In Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary', the sutta and its commentary are summarised in this way: The first three [groups of four] apply to both tranquillity (samatha) and insight-meditation, while the fourth refers to pure insight practice only. Here is the fourth tetrad just mentioned ('pure insight pracitce only'): IV. (13) " 'Reflecting on impermanence (anicca) I will breathe in,' thus he trains himself; 'reflecting on impermanence I will breathe out,' thus he trains himself. (14) " 'Reflecting on detachment (virága) I will breathe in,' thus he trains himself; 'reflecting on detachment I will breathe out,' thus he trains himself. (15) " 'Reflecting on extinction (nirodha) I will breathe in,' thus he trains himself; 'reflecting on extinction I will breathe out,' thus he trains himself. (16) " 'Reflecting on abandonment (patinissagga) I will breathe in, thus he trains himself; 'reflecting on abandonment I will breathe out,' thus he trains himself." Thus, insight *while breathing* not, *of breath*. The object of the insight, as explained in the commentary passage previously quoted in the thread with Jack, and just restated in my post to James, is any dhamma of the five aggregates. So putting aside the particular context here, namely of a person developing samatha with breath as object, the insight development being described here comes down to the same as anywhere else in the suttas, namely, insight into the impermanence of presently arising dhammas. Jon 32684 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun May 2, 2004 5:41am Subject: Re: Understanding aggregates and annata (was Video Games) Dear James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: < snip > James: LOL! I also suffer strongly from sensual desire (though bikinis don't do it for me!...if you know what I mean ;-)). Actually, this may surprise you to know, but right now my goal in this lifetime isn't to become enlightened. I used to have the goal to become enlightened, and even went to Thailand to become a monk to achieve this goal, but realized that I was not going to be able to find the right company of `admirable friends' to achieve enlightenment (BTW, I was severely depressed after this realization). My goal now is to be reborn in a deva realm until the next Buddha arrives, hopefully become on of his disciples, and then become enlightened. Nowadays I practice the Brahma-Viharas to attain the first levels of jhana. (But I am not suggesting that you follow suit. You may be able to become enlightened in this lifetime. It is all dependent on conditions.) KKT: Your goal now is to be reborn in a deva realm? Ah, now I understand how the worship of Amitabha began. (ie. the new Buddhist religious movement beginning around 500 years after Buddha's Parinibbana and believing in the salvation of Buddha Amitabha by aspiring to be reborn in His Pure Land) All that began with someone who had a similar idea to yours. (just kidding :-)) Have a great day! KKT 32685 From: Date: Sun May 2, 2004 2:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (again) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/2/04 5:14:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Jon - > ... > Howard: > In short - no. The sutta *does* say that anapanasati serves as > a means of implementing the four foundations of mindfulness, but it > certainly doesn't claim that it is unique in that respect. However, > the Anapanasati Sutta does seem to be sort of a "companion piece" to > the Satipatthana Sutta. > > Jon: > I agree with this last observation. As I understand it, the > Anapanasati Sutta elaborates on mindfulness of breathing as described > in the Satipatthana Sutta. > > Howard: > One thing that is pointed out in the Anapanasati Sutta, is > that mindfulness of the breath does produce calming, which may well > be due in part to the (commonly observed) lulling effect of the > breath, a rhythmic process. And, at the same time, the breath is not > a fixed image, but is an ever-changing process composed of rupas of > varying character and with repeated arisings and ceasings, which > makes it suitable for vipassana investigation, as opposed to the > purely samatha-meditation subjects such as kasinas. > > Jon: > Just a comment on your reference here to breath as an object of > insight (vipassana). I think it's clear from the commentaries that, > as vipassana bhavana, mindfulness of breathing means insight with any > *dhamma* as object, and that includes dhammas other than just the > rupas that are taken for breath. Only as samatha bhavana is 'breath' > as such (in reality, the concept of breath) the object. As I > understand it, the term 'mindfulness of breathing' is taken from the > particular form of samatha bhavana/jhaana development of that name. > (As we know, one of the favoured teaching methods of the Buddha was > to take an existing term or practice an give it a new meaning, and I > see this as a classic instance of that approach.) ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Clearly much is involved in this meditative procedure besides attending to rupas underlying the breath - the entire range of satipatthana is involved. I will say a drop more about this at the end. ----------------------------------------------- > > Howard; > But, no, I don't think that mindfulness of the breath is > unique in the features mentioned above nor due I think that > anapanasati is, or is claimed to be, "the only way". Clearly, though, > it is presented as a good way. > > Jon: > Well I agree that mindfulness of breathing is presented in a positive > light, and I have never suggested it should be regarded as otherwise. > But if breath is not unique in any way, what is the main message of > the sutta? If the sutta is to be read as recommending mindfulness of > breathing as a preferred way of developing the path, we would expect > to find some mention of the specific advantages of this way over any > other way. If that kind of explanation isn't to be found in the > sutta or commentary, it could mean that the message is other than we > think it is. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I wouldn't take it upon myself to judge the Buddha or his explanations. He does include the following in this sutta: "Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their culmination. The four frames of reference, when developed & pursued, bring the seven factors for Awakening to their culmination. The seven factors for Awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination." Oh, and the words "when developed AND PURSUED" [emphasis mine] suggests to me prescription and not just description. ----------------------------------------------------- > > In Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary', the sutta and its commentary > are summarised in this way: > The first three [groups of four] apply to both tranquillity (samatha) > and insight-meditation, while the fourth refers to pure insight > practice only. > > Here is the fourth tetrad just mentioned ('pure insight pracitce > only'): > IV. (13) " 'Reflecting on impermanence (anicca) I will breathe in,' > thus he trains himself; 'reflecting on impermanence I will breathe > out,' thus he trains himself. > (14) " 'Reflecting on detachment (virága) I will breathe in,' thus he > trains himself; 'reflecting on detachment I will breathe out,' thus > he trains himself. > (15) " 'Reflecting on extinction (nirodha) I will breathe in,' thus > he trains himself; 'reflecting on extinction I will breathe out,' > thus he trains himself. > (16) " 'Reflecting on abandonment (patinissagga) I will breathe in, > thus he trains himself; 'reflecting on abandonment I will breathe > out,' thus he trains himself." > > Thus, insight *while breathing* not, *of breath*. The object of the > insight, as explained in the commentary passage previously quoted in > the thread with Jack, and just restated in my post to James, is any > dhamma of the five aggregates. So putting aside the particular > context here, namely of a person developing samatha with breath as > object, the insight development being described here comes down to > the same as anywhere else in the suttas, namely, insight into the > impermanence of presently arising dhammas. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: You might find it interesting, as modern support for the commentarial view (and yours) that anapanasati is not just mindfulness of the actualities underlying breath, that Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's detailed book on this sutta is entitled "Mindfulness While Breathing" - "while" and not "of". ---------------------------------------------- > > 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) 32686 From: m. nease Date: Sun May 2, 2004 10:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi Rob, ----- Original Message ----- From: "robmoult" To: Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 3:13 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! > I see the analysis of the field of vision into segments and reaction > to those segments as subsequent mental processes to the eye door > process. Sure--but feeling arises simultaneously with each cittakha.na, right? mike 32687 From: m. nease Date: Sun May 2, 2004 11:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hello Again Rob, ----- Original Message ----- From: "robmoult" To: Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 3:11 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! > So now the questions arises, "is the eye door the entire field of > vision (frame model) or is the eye door a small fraction of the field > of vision which is later assembled (by some other underlying process) > into an entire field of vision (pixel model)"? > > My understanding of modern science is that there are distinct rods > and cones in the retina, but brain recieves the signals from all > these nerves together as a block (one frame, not a pixel). The > analysis of the frame into portions comes later (a mental process). > > In the same vein, when we taste sweet and sour soup, the part of the > tongue that "tastes" sweet is separate from the part of the tongue > that tastes "sour", but the brain recieves the signals from these two > parts of the tongue together. The analysis of the taste into sweet > and sour comes later (a mental process). > > Similarly, the "heat sensing nerves" are distinct from the "cold > sensing nerves" in the body, but the brain recieves the signals from > both sets of nerves together. I'll certainly defer to your superior knowledge of neurophysiology. I tend to think of abhidhamma as being a sort of anatomy of a moment of experience, which I take to be quite a different thing from neurophysiology, physics and so on. I know some other contributors also think of modern science as being somehow the same as abhidhamma, but I don't see it that way at all. To me, trying to fit abhidhamma into modern science is a dead end--just my opinion, of course--but I have no interest at all in trying to reconcile the two. If I'm wrong, there may be great virtue in doing this, so best wishes for your efforts. Nice chatting with you as always. mike 32688 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun May 2, 2004 0:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (again) Hi Jon and Howard. Well, I'm now getting back into the habit of jumping into these topics when I can, and as you may recall mindfulness of breathing, and the Anapanasati sutta are favorite topics of mine. If it seems abrupt that I am jumping into the middle of this debate with a strong opinion, please forgive me, and if you cannot, then blame it on Nina! She encouraged me to come back!! : ) [Nina, I will soon stop trying to give you responsibility for my actions. I know it's not fair.] Comment below: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 5/2/04 5:14:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard; > > But, no, I don't think that mindfulness of the breath is > > unique in the features mentioned above nor due I think that > > anapanasati is, or is claimed to be, "the only way". Clearly, though, > > it is presented as a good way. > > > > Jon: > > Well I agree that mindfulness of breathing is presented in a positive > > light, and I have never suggested it should be regarded as otherwise. > > But if breath is not unique in any way, what is the main message of > > the sutta? If the sutta is to be read as recommending mindfulness of > > breathing as a preferred way of developing the path, we would expect > > to find some mention of the specific advantages of this way over any > > other way. If that kind of explanation isn't to be found in the > > sutta or commentary, it could mean that the message is other than we > > think it is. > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, I wouldn't take it upon myself to judge the Buddha or his > explanations. He does include the following in this sutta: > > "Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great > fruit, of great benefit. Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & > pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their culmination. The four frames > of reference, when developed & pursued, bring the seven factors for Awakening > to their culmination. The seven factors for Awakening, when developed & > pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination." > > Oh, and the words "when developed AND PURSUED" [emphasis mine] > suggests to me prescription and not just description. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard, Thank you for this clear explanation of how and in what context the Buddha emphasized the breath as an object or setting for practice of mindfulness, that it is indeed seen as a practice, and that it is being promoted as a way to pursue satipatthana. What I am interested in, and have never gotten a real explanation of [and am too personally ignorant to supply myself] is why Abhidhamma looks askance at the obvious interpretation of breathing meditation and meditation in general as ways of pursuing the development of mindfulness. Where did the idea that one cannot pursue anything come from? That to develop an intention that something take place through certain practices must necessarily create a conceptual block to that which is intended, and that only the most passive kind of approach to development of insight can lead to any actual moments of insight? It seems to me that reading sutta and clarifying the Buddha's teachings are also "practices," and I don't understand the underlying philosophy by which such a pursuit and that of meditation and other skillful means of development are distinguished from each other as "fruitful" and "fruitless." Jon, addressing you for a moment, when you say that the Buddha used the name of former or popular practices to announce or name a new one, and that this seems to you the probably explanation of calling the Buddha's mindfulness practice while breathing "mindfulness of the breath," this seems extremely tortured to me. Why is it that there is so much emphasis on not distorting the teachings, but then when the Buddha's own words so obviously point to a practice which happens to contradict some point in Abhidhamma philosophy or commentary, an explanation that twists and turns the words to mean something completely different than what they say appears to be necessary? Why not just accept the idea that there is more than one practice proposed by the Buddha, and that one of them is mindfulness meditation, just as he says? I still would like to know what is at stake in making sure that the meaning of anapanasati turns out to have nothing special to do with either the breath or meditation, when that is clearly what it is about. What is the point of philosophy which which this acknowledgment would not fit? If this can be openly discussed, perhaps we can arrive at a real understanding of what the differenc in opinion is, and what documents really support it. If there is a contradiction between some sutta and some of the Abhidhamma commentaries, and if those in the Abhidhamma community come down on the side of the coms, then why not face this possibility, rather than trying to re-callibrate the context of the Buddha's own words in order to make it a fit? Buddha's words in the anapanasati sutta constantly refer to the breath as the object of meditation. "When having a long exhalation, he thinks: "This is a long exhalation," etc. The whole first part of the sutta establishes the mindfulness of the breath as object in all of its specifics, paying careful attention to exactly what each breath is doing, and then establishes this mindfulness as the basis for going on to the Four Foundations of Mindfulness. It is another angle, one that is breath-centered, on the satipatthana sutta. You cannot twist the meaning of the sutta to ignore the majority of its content and try to erase the word "breath" from the procedure. This issue should finally be faced square on, and the Buddha's own words and emphasis and theme should be acknowledged. Anyway, I apologize for appearing combative and perhaps rude, after being away for so long, but I figure that I will do more justice to the topic by being clear and straightforward about it than by dancing around it. By doing so, I intend to pay you the respect of getting your best and most considered response, and do not at all intend to insult you. And I am braced for whatever you may think of my opinion. > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > You might find it interesting, as modern support for the commentarial > view (and yours) that anapanasati is not just mindfulness of the actualities > underlying breath, that Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's detailed book on this sutta is > entitled "Mindfulness While Breathing" - "while" and not "of". > ---------------------------------------------- Howard, I appreciate this note, and think that "while breathing" opens up a lot of possibilities, but at the same time, I would note that this does not at all say it is *not* about mindfulness of the breath at the same time. It is clear in the whole beginning section of the sutta, which is the main body of the text, that the object of discernment is the action of the breathing itself, and not just other things while the breath is in the background. I don't think anyone could interpret the sutta that way. If they did, it would not even make sense to call it "mindfulness while breathing" since one is *always* breathing, whether mindfully or not. It would then make more sense to just translate it "mindfulness" and leave the breathing out altogether, as it is always in the background anyway. I think we should just admit that the breath as object of discernment and contemplation does have special properties, as it is a central and most intimate focus for all living beings, and I think the Buddha intended it that way. While all cittas may theoretically have equal value for dicernment, some may have more of a charged content for arising consciousnesses, based on their continued and repeated apprehension - breathing being "locked in" as a continually arising object for consciousness -- and may also have more accumulated experiences and meanings passed on by the cetasikas responsible, and thus may have more of a "charge" for awakening the arising consciousness. Whether this last is seen to be somewhat "far out" or not, the argument for breath being an important object for mindfulness according to Buddha, still stands. While breath like everything else may merely break down into individual rupas, the sequence of rupas and the number of consciousness involved with them, and the accumulations passed on by corresponding cetasikas, does make a difference, and rupas do not merely exist in monadic isolation because of accumulations and essences that are given to then inhere in them for cittas. One must take into account the role that certain types of rupas take as opposed to others which others may only arise incidentally on rare occasions, and have less powerful accumulations attaching to them, and the potential that this may have for repeated and cumulative exposure to cittas. Best, Robert 32689 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun May 2, 2004 0:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (again) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 5/2/04 5:14:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > jonoabb@y... writes: > > Here is the fourth tetrad just mentioned ('pure insight pracitce > > only'): > > IV. (13) " 'Reflecting on impermanence (anicca) I will breathe in,' > > thus he trains himself; 'reflecting on impermanence I will breathe > > out,' thus he trains himself. > > (14) " 'Reflecting on detachment (virága) I will breathe in,' thus he > > trains himself; 'reflecting on detachment I will breathe out,' thus > > he trains himself. > > (15) " 'Reflecting on extinction (nirodha) I will breathe in,' thus > > he trains himself; 'reflecting on extinction I will breathe out,' > > thus he trains himself. > > (16) " 'Reflecting on abandonment (patinissagga) I will breathe in, > > thus he trains himself; 'reflecting on abandonment I will breathe > > out,' thus he trains himself." > > > > Thus, insight *while breathing* not, *of breath*. The object of the > > insight, as explained in the commentary passage previously quoted in > > the thread with Jack, and just restated in my post to James, is any > > dhamma of the five aggregates. So putting aside the particular > > context here, namely of a person developing samatha with breath as > > object, the insight development being described here comes down to > > the same as anywhere else in the suttas, namely, insight into the > > impermanence of presently arising dhammas. Hi Jon. Okay, here is Thich Nath Hanh's translation. Somebody ought to sort out who's got the literal meaning and who doesn't: 1. Breathing in a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a long breath." Breathing out a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a long breath." 2. Breathing in a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a short breath." Breathing out a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a short breath." Jon, this is how the sutta starts, the first two stanzas. There is no other substantive way to translate this, as there is no other object of mindfulness mentioned here other than the breath. So the breath is indeed the object of discernment or contemplation here, what I would call "meditation." Then it assumes the awareness of the breath has been established and starts adding other objects of mindfulness while maintaining the awareness of the breath in the background. I don't see any other way to interpret the sutta. Why keep mentioning the breath as the foundation for every stanza? It can't just be a coincidence! 3. "I am brething in and am aare of my whole body. I am breathing out and am aware of my whole body." The awareness of the body, and then various other increasingly less physical objects [such as the mind, which the Buddha also mentions] are added to the awareness of the breath. The breath is the foundation and main object of this sutta. I don't see any other way to interpret it without twisting its meaning. And he also makes the statement which Howard has quoted: "The practice of Full Awareness of Breathing, if developed and practiced continuously, will lead to the perfect accomplishment of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness." It is clearly a call to practice continuously the full awareness of breathing, and to include in that awareness, all of the arising objects within the four foundations of mindfulness. It includes what you would include as the arising rupas in everyday life as objects of mindfulness, as well as an admonition that to practice such in conjunction with full awareness of breathing is a most effective way of doing so. I would invite an investigation from whatever view you like as to why the Buddha felt the breath was such a centrally important object of awareness, but to deny that he thought so would be a serious misinterpreation of his own words. Robert 32690 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun May 2, 2004 2:31pm Subject: Re: Listening, considering etc (was, Pannatti (Concept)) Friend Jon, Jon: Of course I would agree that the Buddha taught about the development of serenity (samatha bhavana), including its aspects of jhana and the Brahma-Viharas. But this form of kusala is known outside the teachings of a Buddha, whereas the truth about the presently arising dhammas is found only in the teachings of a Buddha. James: This is not entirely true. Actually, the Buddha was the one to teach the Brahma-Viharas; this practice was not in existence before the enlightenment of the Buddha. Before the enlightenment of the Buddha, the ascetics of his time were trying different methods to be united with Brahma. After the Buddha became enlightened, he taught that practicing the Brahma-Viharas was the only way to be reborn in the Brahma realm. No one else had taught this practice prior to the Buddha, so the Brahma-Viharas are not a form of kusala outside the teachings of the Buddha. However, the jhanas were present and practiced before the Buddha, so you are correct about that aspect. Still, I don't understand your point anyway. The Buddha said that these practices were important, end of story. Why are you second guessing the Buddha? Metta, James 32691 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun May 2, 2004 2:50pm Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Sukin. Thank you for your very complete answer to my post. I appreciate all your points, even those I have a different view about, and I am sorry for repyling so many days later. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > :-) I too have such thoughts that those who stick around dsg must > have some degree of `right view'. Though I believe there are others > who leave the group thinking that most of us have the opposite. I guess that goes to the point that we can't put too much stock in views! : ) > I will try to pay extra attention to you. ;-) You are very kind! : ) So in the end, it all > depends on our own accumulated panna and any good kamma that we may > have performed. In the same way, any `discernment of realities in > daily life', depends on accumulated panna and not > on `purposefulness'. Yes, and the question is not whether some general or intellectual sense of purpose causes panna; obviously it would not. But there is a question as to what does cause panna to arise and accumulate, so that it can be passed on to subsequent cittas. I think you might agree that we have to choose a description of how this works that is somewhere between "volition," -- which would assume a "self" to have volition, and perfect arbitrariness, which would say that no matter what we do, our actions, thoughts, intentions that arise will make no difference whatever, because panna arises via conditions that have nothing to do with our thoughts, understandings and actions. I don't think you would say that, just that we don't have control, as there is no central self to have such control or to mount a project apart from its arising in the moment. But I think it is important to say that despite the lack of control and volition that these kandhas contain, that there are activities that we may find ourselves attracted to, may hear about, may fall into via kammic predispositions, that will influence the development of sati leading to panna. Certainly if sutta reading or meditation are engaged in with the idea of self and attachment to the goal rather than focus upon the reality of the moment, then it will be counter-productive. But let's keep in mind that the purpose of meditation is to indeed focus upon the moment and not upon the result, except for understanding. And I think that one can do so. We may be deluded in any activity, and have akusala thoughts and purposes arising, but the solution is the same in any case. The idea that sutta reading is given as gradual and intellectual and thus is less prone to result orientation again is not convincing to me. I think that we read sutta striving for understanding and that the goal is to gain insight and wisdom. If we can avoid result orientation and enjoy whatever present insight is derived, we can exercise the same discipline or non-discipline that is needed to keep meditation from becoming overblown. Since the purpose of meditation and the mechanism of it is to focus on the reality of the moment, hopefully that is what the practitioner will sit to do, just as the sutta reader sits to read and gain whatever understanding comes in the moment. > The mental factor chanda accompanying some level of panna may lead > us to seek more understanding and this may be followed by and mixed > with any number of akusala motives. However in the end there is no > sutta or commentaries, just meaningful words made so in part by > one's own accumulated understanding. Though we do live in the > conventional world, and when going to the library we do make a > choice to pick up the Tipitaka instead of a book on `flower > arrangement' ;-). And there is ultimately no "sitting" or "meditation" to do or not to do. Still one reads the meaningless words, and one sits in meaningless meditation. ; ) > Panna recognizes its limitations and seeks to understand more *of > theory*, this is living in the conventional world. But in the end > whether there is going to be any understanding or not, it is at > least not hindered by any wrong view that mistakes `knowledge' > for `understanding'. I may be mixed up on the terminology, but isn't panna wisdom? Please let me know if I am mistaken because I don't want to answer you incorrectly. What is panna's limitation in that case? If we are able to tell the difference between wisdom, understanding, and knowledge, I think we can safely meditate as well and tell the difference equally well between striving and seeing. And when we don't, the arising cittas at least have the repeated opportunity to notice this. > > But in what possible way is this > > different from the "sense of doing" involved in meditation? > Simply, > > there is no difference on that level at all. > > There is a difference. I am having difficulty to find the right > words and the following may seem like trying to justify my position, > hope you do not see it as such though. Conventionally on the one > hand, one is seeking `intellectual understanding' which may or may > not happen and whatever is gained is still acknowledged as > just `intellectual understanding'. FM on the other hand, presupposes > in the practice, the arising of dhammas which to the `theorist' > happens by conditions other that what the meditator thinks. On one > level it seems like arrogance on the part of the meditator who > thinks that with `intention' he can make sati arise, whereas the > person who seeks to listen or read, it seems he is coming from a > position of not-knowing and is receptive to what is being heard, > this is not to say that there wont be akusala cittas. The former may > admit that the `practice' requires time to bear fruit and may > believe that the attention to a neutral object such as breath allows > for mindfulness to be developed. This may be on the level > of `belief', namely the Buddha taught it. But wouldn't it still come > to each person's ability to discernment? Or is there a belief > somewhat in the magical power of having breath as object no matter > how each individual may understand it? I think you may have a mistaken notion of the arrogance of the meditator. I don't see any inherent gain in restricting one's focus to "intellectual" understanding. In fact, this may hinder the development of real insight if one is content with intellectual knowledge, which I assume you agree, is on the level of concept. If direct discernment is not the intention, then I don't understand how this fits either the dhamma or the abhidhamma. Perhaps you can explain how having a more limited focus on something that is intellectual, equally out of control of the nonexistent self however, can aid one in avoiding having a goal orientation that will block the arising of understanding. It seems to me instead that thinking of the path as an intellectual attainment that may someday be rewarded with a gift of insight, is choosing an intellectual path and that one may remain restricted to it if one doesn't go beyond such a path. I personally don't understand the merit in that orientation. As for the meditator, he does not assume he will be granted direct insight through the magical power of the breath. Like yourself, he is following the Buddha's roadmap for discernment and development of sati, and has made the difficult move of sitting really with no purpose and with plenty of discomfort and boredom, to satisfy the requirement to focus on the moment and discern whatever arises as best he can in the moment. This seems like a noble and not an arrogant position. I don't know anyone who sits for a bit and assumes that he has some wisdom. Insight either comes or doesn't and comes when it does, as you describe in the alternative path. How can wrong understanding > lead to right understanding? The Zen people have even gone to the > extreme of saying that one is already like a Buddha, when sitting in > the lotus posture. Others imply that when they are able note their > body and mental activity, that this is "sati". Lobha associated with > wrong view is not only around the corner, but it leads and follows > us everywhere. And this is what seems like `sati' to most people. This is truly a misapprehension of the zen position. Zen sitting is a long and tedious process just as is sutta reading and comprehension. No one sits in crossed legs and thinks "Ah, now I'm like the Buddha!" The image you cite here is one of taking the position of the Buddha, or putting oneself on the same path as the Buddha, not magically turning into a Buddha without any understanding arising. It's merely a metaphor. Some lead to the goal > > and others don't, but the sense of doership will have to be > dropped no > > matter what the practice is, and that will take as long as it takes > > according to arising conditions. > > > Right, but do you really believe that more than one practice will > lead to the goal? Is it a question only of `dropping the sense of > doership'? What about the right causes leading to the right result > and the wrong cause to the wrong result? And when it is wrong, there > are not the correct conditions for any `doer' to be dropped, namely > there is no panna to even discern `self' at work? On the other hand, > if indeed there is panna, it is accompanied by detachment. So this > may be a sign, no? ;-) Can you tell when you are detached? I would say perhaps yes but I would think you would say 'no,' since if you are claiming detachment there must be a "self" to decide this? If one must consciously decide to `let go' > then it must not be panna, whereas if panna arose, then letting go > has already happened. Rather fatalistic, no? So if one does the "right thing" it's the "wrong thing" but if one does "nothing" and it just "happens by itself" then it's okay. Well, according to what you have said it only happens "by itself" anyway, so the sense of "self" would only be an overlay, not a truth. If letting go happens, can it be noticed without the "self" arising? First of all it was the > Buddha who talked about `association with the wise and so on' as > being the conditions for enlightenment. Well I believe he talked about meditating on the breath as well. Hmn...we must be reading differently....Maybe not as a condition for enlightenment, but as one of the noteworthy expressions or means of contemplating the four foundations of mindfulness. Second, to approach any of > these with a `self' directing and making choices would surely be > counter productive. Well what happens when you direct yourself to read a sutta? And do you read it with no desire for understanding? If desire does arise, does it make the activity less than useless? Or does kusala still arise because of the repeated return to the reading of the sutta as such? Third, all these conditions in the end refer to > ultimate realities which reside not in the conventional activity, > but are conditions conditioning each other whether or not the person > who walks it is aware. But eventually we do have to become aware, we do have to have kusala arisings, we do have to have sati and understanding, so somewhere along the line we are not so uncertain and in the dark anymore. Some of us may have these moments already, and they would have to know that they are indeed discernment of reality, and not have doubt. Now what if this happens and one does not have doubt because it is panna? Shoudl they then doubt themselves [akusala] and assume it is impossible and reject the development of wisdom? Or should they go with it and allow it to accumulate? You can't take the position that you know nothing and can do nothing and doubt that you have any understanding forever. If you do you're actually subverting the path. We have to progress, even if the thought of progress should not arise. Humility can also be akusala, if it rejects the potential for liberation! We have to have faith, don't we? And to some extent, expect sati of one level or another at least to arise, if we claim to be on this path. > Whatever one does and whatever views one has with regard to them, if > it does not point to knowing the presently arisen dhamma, it is not > the right practice. And what if it does? Can we then acknowledge it? There must be a place for saying "yes" to something and not just "no," am I correct? If it is looking forward to a better time, place > or position, then the present will never be, for the wanting has > already dictated the illusion of result. If there does arise any > genuine satipatthana, it would be in spite of the practice and one > would know that. So the practice may then be dropped ;-). Or perhaps, contrary to expectation, satipatthana will clearly arise as a result of the path, and then the path should not be dropped!! It shows that when > one perceives a so called reality with a judgment about any other > state as being a distraction or being favorable, then it is > comparison at work, therefore very much in the world of conventional > reality, and obviously, with a "self". Then that should indeed be discerned. And then on to the next moment. > The problem is not about contriving but about wrong understanding. > Only with avijja and wrong view can there be an idea of a better > time and place. And yet there is a goal. So what is a "good perception of the correct goal" according to Right Understanding, as opposed to "an idea of a better time and place." And why does the Buddha talk about Nibbana and the realization of the path at all? Isn't this "an idea of a better time and place" in itself? In which case the entire path is foudned on an akusala idea. This is critical. We must see what is a "goal that does not hinder" and one that does. Obviously Right Understanding of the path understands later stages, not just a rupa all by itself with no context. We talk about the later stages of the path all the time. We don't pretend to be creatures of the moment who have no understanding of past or expectation of future. The accumulated panna if present is part of the way in which the moment is apprehended and it understands what is there and what it means. If it is just naked rupa that is the goal then what is the use of accumulating panna? Why have developed intelligence and the great discrimination power of the Buddha? Like I said earlier, panna doesn't mind anything. > And development does not happen by a prescribed path of practice; > the skill that may be developed instead, is that of performing some > rite or ritual. I wish it were so easy as your piano example, sati > and panna must arise with kusala cittas, whereas a pianist can > basically have any kind of wrong view and identified with any > religion. But his music will be lousy. :) Of course there is a prescribed path. The Abhidhamma has thousands of pages of commentary on how the true path is discerned and followed. How can you say that one is not following a prescribed path when studying and following all this? There are the rupas, the namas, the cittas and cetasikas, and one is to discern all these functions so that one can discern the true reality of how these arise. All of this is a study, and a path, an attempt to understand and thus "change the state of arising cittas through gradual accumulation and insight." It is is aprogressive path that uses the moment as its vehicle and also recognizes that as its goal. We can't pretend that path A has an agenda and path B doesn't. All paths have an agenda!! All of them. what you do with this in the moment is what is important. But let's be honest about what is there in the mind of the practitioner. > You have made up your mind about FM being necessary for liberation, > and so you speak about exceptions to the rule. I would like to say > that the N8FP can be reached only by the practice of satipatthana, > so it has no limitation with regard to time, place or activity. Right, but I also believe in being somewhat practical. Every path has an associated activity, whether it is sutta study or sitting meditation. And of course different activities have a kusala effect on different individuals. I would never doubt that. Maybe one person's proper path to satipatthana is indeed to play the piano and he will awaken to understanding that there are no notes, just rupa of piano key and nama of sound. what an awakening! [I forget if sound would be rupa or nama...since there is no object in sound.....please clear my mind for me, thank you....] > However, without intellectual Right View, there can never be the > right practice. So sitting down to watch the breath or not, if there > is no Rt. View, there is no hope. :-( I would agree with that; and I would say that whether one awakens to the reality of what we call breath, or to the reality of the squiggles we call "words of the sutta" it is the same awakening. Or not. : ) But there's nothing in that against meditation. And I would say, nothing against contemplation of sutta either. Best Regards, Robert 32692 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun May 2, 2004 2:56pm Subject: Re: Understanding aggregates and annata (was Video Games) Friend KKT, Good to see you again. I was wondering where you were hiding yourself recently. KKT: Your goal now is to be reborn in a deva realm? James: Sure, why not? The Buddha Sangha is not what it used to be; I don't think I can achieve enlightenment in this lifetime without a strong company of admirable friends; and this human realm is really the pitts! ;-)) Might as well hang out in a deva realm, work on the perfections, and be reborn in the time of a Buddha. You know, the Buddha did teach that this is possible! One's intentions have a great influence on future lives. Since you brought it up, what is your goal? KKT: Ah, now I understand how the worship of Amitabha began. (ie. the new Buddhist religious movement beginning around 500 years after Buddha's Parinibbana and believing in the salvation of Buddha Amitabha by aspiring to be reborn in His Pure Land) James: I don't know anything about this belief and it doesn't sound comparable to my goal. My goal is very simple and personal; I am not calling anyone, even myself, to `salvation' in a Pure Land! LOL! KKT: All that began with someone who had a similar idea to yours. (just kidding :-)) James: Huh? What's funny? I don't get it. ;-)) All good ideas can be transformed later into something that is not quite right. Is the original good idea at fault? (And I am not saying that I have a `good idea', I am just expressing my thoughts at the moment. I know that I am not ready for enlightenment and that there isn't a really good reason to be reborn a human unless a Buddha is present. End of story.) KKT: Have a great day! James: You too! Hope you make appearances more often. ;-) Metta, James 32693 From: Suravira Date: Sun May 2, 2004 3:20pm Subject: What are the 2nd and 3rd discourses given by the Buddha? Can someone tell me the names of the 2nd and 3rd discourses of the Buddha? Thanks, Suravira 32694 From: Date: Sun May 2, 2004 4:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What are the 2nd and 3rd discourses given by the Buddha? Hi Suravira, In his general introduction to SN, p.35, B. Bodhi writes, "Thus we find three SN suttas of geat importance also recorded in the Vinaya Mahavagga, represented as the first three discourses given by the Buddha at the dawn of his ministy: the Dhammacakkappavattana, the Anattalakkhana, and the Addittapariyaya (56:11; 22:59; 35:28). Larry ----------------- Suravira: "Can someone tell me the names of the 2nd and 3rd discourses of the Buddha?" 32695 From: Date: Sun May 2, 2004 1:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (again) Hi, Rob - In a message dated 5/2/04 3:17:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@Y... writes: > Howard: > > You might find it interesting, as modern support for the > commentarial > >view (and yours) that anapanasati is not just mindfulness of the > actualities > >underlying breath, that Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's detailed book on this > sutta is > >entitled "Mindfulness While Breathing" - "while" and not "of". > >---------------------------------------------- > > Howard, I appreciate this note, and think that "while breathing" opens > up a lot of possibilities, but at the same time, I would note that > this does not at all say it is *not* about mindfulness of the breath > at the same time. It is clear in the whole beginning section of the > sutta, which is the main body of the text, that the object of > discernment is the action of the breathing itself, and not just other > things while the breath is in the background. I don't think anyone > could interpret the sutta that way. If they did, it would not even > make sense to call it "mindfulness while breathing" since one is > *always* breathing, whether mindfully or not. It would then make more > sense to just translate it "mindfulness" and leave the breathing out > altogether, as it is always in the background anyway. > > I think we should just admit that the breath as object of discernment > and contemplation does have special properties, as it is a central and > most intimate focus for all living beings, and I think the Buddha > intended it that way. While all cittas may theoretically have equal > value for dicernment, some may have more of a charged content for > arising consciousnesses, based on their continued and repeated > apprehension - breathing being "locked in" as a continually arising > object for consciousness -- and may also have more accumulated > experiences and meanings passed on by the cetasikas responsible, and > thus may have more of a "charge" for awakening the arising > consciousness. Whether this last is seen to be somewhat "far out" or > not, the argument for breath being an important object for mindfulness > according to Buddha, still stands. > > While breath like everything else may merely break down into > individual rupas, the sequence of rupas and the number of > consciousness involved with them, and the accumulations passed on by > corresponding cetasikas, does make a difference, and rupas do not > merely exist in monadic isolation because of accumulations and > essences that are given to then inhere in them for cittas. One must > take into account the role that certain types of rupas take as opposed > to others which others may only arise incidentally on rare occasions, > and have less powerful accumulations attaching to them, and the > potential that this may have for repeated and cumulative exposure to > cittas. > > =========================== I agree that the breath is the centerpiece of the practice of anapanasati, and obviously so. I also think there are several features of the breath, mentioned before by me, that make it particularly suitable as a vehicle for satipatthana. However, I agree with Jon that it is not the sole vehicle for that and also that much of the practice involves investigation of dhammas not underlying the breath, which, thus, makes it a mindfulness practice based on the breath and centered there but not exclusively there, and which makes the terminology "mindfulness while breathing" or, better, I think, "mindfulness with the breath" quite reasonable. 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) 32696 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 2, 2004 10:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Linking the messages for Sarah Dear Htoo, Thank you for thinking of me and for your kind comments and special linking of messages;-). --- htootintnaing wrote: > There is some special traveller who is very enthusiatic to walk on > The Journey To Nibbana. Once that traveller said, ''Hey! We have to > drop the idea of self from the start.'' To that traveller, here I say > we have not even started the journey. .... S: ;-) I always enjoy our discussions. I think the last couple of messages I wrote (to you) you didn’t respond to, so I assumed you were too busy on your journey;-). Actually, you and some others ask me to let you know when there are messages addressed to you and I have good intentions but always forget to do this. Let me know if you didn’t see them. ..... > Dear Sarah, > > How have you been doing? Are you travelling? You know what I mean. It > has been nice to chat with you on Dhamma matter. Several time, I > confused and mixed on the sexth sense. At that time you cleared me > out. Thanks for your continous support. I just posted this for your > attention. .... S: It’s kind of you to say this, but truly we help and support each other here and all the detail you provide is very helpful too, Htoo. Sometimes friends suggest that what some of us say may not be in accordance with ‘mainstream Abhidhamma’ understanding, so it’s important to discuss, check texts and so on to clarify. You’ve mentioned a couple of times about your Patthana series. Maybe you can post these in short installments and I’ll promise to read them and discuss any aspects of special interest as related to the journey or laying out of the map;-). Metta, Sarah ====== 32697 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 2, 2004 10:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana (and my intro) Hi Christopher (& Phil), --- Christopher wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the replies on my question. > > Many times I think that maybe it would be most 'natural' just to live > with > full understanding of dukkha, but not to advance to the point where the > stream is entered and the cycle of dependant origination will inevitably > > one day be broken. I mostly wonder about this as to what is in > accordance with the truth, no doubt my ego has much influence on this > idea. .... I liked Phil’s sharing in response to your post and also his kind one to James. So, Phil, pls don’t be concerned about any over-doing;-). Chris, It would not be natural at all to live ‘with full understanding of dukkha’. The path of the enlightened ones definitely goes against the stream and the natural state. All dhammas, including wisdom, are conditioned. So as wisdom develops to understand more and more about the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and lack of self in these dhammas, it is inevitable that the stream will be entered and the cycle broken one day. As you suggest, any views dictated by erroneous ideas of a self or ego are bound to interfere with the progression of wisdom. At these times there is natural living with no understanding of dukkha or the fact that dhammas are not within the ego’s control at all. ... > Sara asked me to introduce myself a few replies back. I actually joined > this group a year ago, my name on here was 'christhedis' (some > default) until I finally got around to fixing it. I was born in the UK, > grew > up in Canada, and now wander around, currently have been in Thailand > for approaching 1 year. I've been interested in Buddhism for 10 years, > but only seriously in past year and a half, when I started Buddhist > meditation. Have done Goenka and Mahasi meditation courses, and > spent time in forest monasteries here in Thailand (actually staying at > one now). Been using anapanasati lately and getting interesting results. > > > Hope that's ok. Last name starts with H, so it's Chris H. or Christopher, > whichever works best. .... Chris H would work well for me, but I’ll follow your lead on how you sign off. Thanks, for re-introducing yourself. Maybe we should suggest this anytime anyone changes their email address. Actually you were one of the people I didn’t wish the new Chris to be confused with.;-) Of course I remembered you well. Are you still in Thailand? If so where? If you’re in Bangkok anytime you may like to meet up with friends like Sukin. Thanks again for the clarification and interesting questions. Metta, Sarah ======= 32698 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 2, 2004 11:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Do or not do something Hi Jack & All, As Nina is away for a while, I’ll just add a couple of comments here, hopefully to clarify a little: --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > Lodewijk said: without the Abhidhamma Vipassana makes no sense. Yes, the > two > go together. > Nina, > > Jack: >>I don't know who Lodewijk is or whether you attributed the quote > > above to him > to give it the weight of authority, but I think Lodewijk is overstating > it. .... S: Lodewijk is Nina’s husband. She has been posting some of their recent dhamma discussions on walks and this was a repeat of one or two lines of his. Jack, I’m quite sure Nina was just remembering his recent words and also trying to encourage him just as some of us might quote each other here. Lodewijk is quite elderly, not in the best of health and doesn’t have computer access, so Jon and I have encouraged Nina to include his comments (sometimes he writes them down for her to post too) and relay any feedback to him for consideration. We’ve known him for about 30 years and he’s a very fine, kind and modest man. It’s a way of sharing our discussions with family members and I’d encourage others to do the same. .... > Yes, the Abhidhamma can be useful. But, millions of people through the > centuries have gotten value out of vipassana teachings and practices and > made > sense of > it without any knowledge of the Abhidhamma.<< ..... S: There may be some confusion over terms here. For example, when you talk about the elements or about any other realities which are being experienced now, it is Abhidhamma whether or not we’ve ever opened an Abhidhamma text or not or whether or not we use this word. I don't think we'd be having the discussions we do unless you had quite some familiarity with 'Abhidhamma'. Similarly, vipassana refers to the development of wisdom or insight. Without any understanding of what there can be insight into, it can’t develop. Let me know if you disagree. .... > I want to be clear on this. I am not degrading the beliefs of anyone > else. > There are many useful and valid paths in Buddhism. .... S: I’m not sure about this. I think there’s really only the path of satipatthana, however we dress it up. .... >Abbidhamma, in my > opinion, is > useful and valid. I don't question that the interpretation of Abhidhamma > of > some on this list (which I don't consider a mainstream Abhidhamma view) > is a > valid and useful path to them. .... S: I’m not sure what a ‘mainstream Abhidhamma view’ would be, but I think it would be helpful to look at any aspects which seem to conflict and to check texts or discuss further. This is what I do with Htoo, RobM and others who have studied a lot of Abhidhamma and sometimes have different interpretations. I learn a lot from these discussions. Another friend wrote to me off-list wondering if there was anything in what Nina or some others of us write on Abhidhamma that ‘can be or has been refuted by Abhidhamma devotees who follow other approaches’. The friend gave kamma as an example that seems to be given different interpretations and also wondered if it’s taught differently in the suttas and the Abhidhamma. I think these are very valid questions - it’s easy to read the suttas to check for ourselves. It’s not at all easy to read the Abhidhamma texts. In response, I suggested that anyone should raise any comments or quotes that seem to give a different interpretation or understanding and then we can discuss and look at relevant texts further. Disagreements can lead to useful reflections. I haven’t come across anything on kamma or any other aspect that seems to conflict, but would be glad to look at any examples.I didn't know what was meant. My own approach has always been to check, test and question all the way along and I find it very helpful when others do the same. It is the Dhamma itself, not a person that is our guide and refuge. And as Sukin wrote before, pa~n~naa (wisdom) itself is our good friend in an ultimate sense. Metta, Sarah ======= 32699 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 2, 2004 11:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Suravira, --- Suravira wrote: > Sarah - do not believe we have ever meet before, I believe that you > are thinking of another friend of your's. .... S: I apologise for this and it’s not the first time. Checking back in escribe, I see now that there have been 3 Chucks from the USA - one whom some of us met from California in Bangkok, one from Philadelphia (I think) whom some of us nearly met on two occasions in Bangkok as well and yourself from N.Carolina, now Suravira. (There is also another friend, Charles with a couple of Pali names, so perhaps I may be forgiven for a little confusion at times when it comes to the 'C' names;-)). ... > The name Suravira is composed of two Pali words sura and vira (with > an long i). It is my understanding that sura is a synonym for deva. > Vira (with a long i not a short i (which would translate as > intoxicated)) means brave and courageous. According to > folklore/myth, Suravira enters into the hell realms and gives > teachings on compassion and wisdom, thereby aiding the beings in > those realms towards rebirth in more favorable realms. .... S: Thank you for this explanation and apologies again, Suravira. I also liked your question about the suttas and was impressed at how easily Larry managed to find the answer. I look forward to your further contributions and if I didn’t do so in my confused state, please let me welcome you here to DSG. Please share anything else on your background and interest in Buddhism if you’d care to. Metta, Sarah ===== 32700 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 3, 2004 0:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Larry, Thanks for your response. --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > If we look at dependent arising in the light of the 4 noble truths then > "formations" is essentially desire and the result of desire is dukkha. .... S: Formations are kusala and akusala kamma motivated by desire and ignorance. The result of kusala and akusala kamma is rebirth and all subsequent vipaka on account of which the other links depend. .... > So "consciousness" as the result of desire is dukkha. .... S: All conditioned dhammas are dukkha (in the 4NT meaning of dukkha). .... >Of course every > link in dependent arising is consciousness .... S: No. Only vipaka cittas are vi~n~naa.na (consciousness) in this D.O. sense. .... >and as such is characterized > by the three general characteristics but the consciousness link and the > becoming link are in particular conditioned by desire, and desire is the > cause of dukkha. The question is, how is desire the cause of dukkha and > how is resultant consciousness, in particular, dukkha? ... S: Desire for phenomena which are inherently impermanent and unsatisfactory. Seeing the permanent in the impermanent, the desirable in the undesirable , the self in the non-self, and the beautiful in the foul, desire for sense objects and futher becoming continues to bring its results. Ignorance of the truths means the defilements are not eradicated and hence the cycle continues. Resultant consciousness is dukkha like all other conditioned phenomena because of being impermanent and inherently unsatisfactory. .... >We might also ask > how is "consciousness" and "becoming" similar? Any thoughts? .... S: It’s a good question and I think consciousness is included in the ‘becoming’ link, but maybe better to just deal with consciousness now and look at this qu further when we get to ‘becoming’, don’t you think? Let me know if there is any disagreement on what I’ve said above. Metta, Sarah ====== 32701 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 3, 2004 0:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sabhava ... again! Hi Larry (& Abdrew), --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Andrew: "Thus, Harvey seems to concur with Jon, Sarah and others that > Nagarjuna's criticisms of sabhava have little relevance to Theravada." > > Hi Andrew, > > I agree. It seems as though India, Tibet, and China never even heard of > Theravada until very recently. Very surprising! The Vimuttimagga was > translated into Chinese but I don't know of anything else. .... S: I don't think the Vimuttimagga has ever been accepted by the Theras or Theravada Councils either to my knowledge. (Some different interpretations). .... > Also, ancient Theravada doesn't seem to be aware of any living > traditions or current issues outside of Ceylon. ... Perhaps this is because the Theravada teachings were preserved and put into writing in Ceylon (Sri Lanka). The preservation of the teachings was the main concern. In the Mahavamsa we can read about how bhikkhus travelled from all over Asia to pay respect and help preserve the teachings, so I'm sure there was plenty of knowledge about other living traditions in other areas. Buddhaghosa himself came from India. Andrew, hope to hear your report on the weekend....hope you got the accomodation and frogs sorted out;-) Metta, Sarah ======= 32702 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 3, 2004 0:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something Hi Jack, --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > You are making dualistic categories when you ask "who or what does this > selecting or choosing." There is just selecting and choosing without an > "I" as > subject or doer. An example that is often used to illustrate this point > is that > there is not the see-er and the seen. There is just seeing which is a > process. ... S: Would you agree that there is seeing consciousness and there is visible object which is seen? By ‘selecting’ and ‘choosing ‘, then, are you referring to thinking or to intention (cetana) which arises with all cittas? .... > Deciding and choosing are also processes. Anatta does not preclude > selecting > and choosing. .... S: Certainly not. I think you’re referring to kinds of thinking which may or may not lead to the desired result. For example, there may be thinking and deciding to turn right, but by conditions we may turn left anyway. In other words, such thinking and choosing is conditioned and so are the subsequent moments of thinking, seeing, hearing and so on as well. Any disagreement? .... > I'm getting a little frustrated trying to make myself understood on this > > point. What I tried to say in my earlier response below is there is no > idea of > watching in the "second phase." Just sitting there and observing doesn't > imply my > making any decision or having attachment to sitting and observing. > just let > my mind and body do what they will without my telling them to do > anything. > There is no "I" selecting anything. Awareness, watching, arises by > itself. .... S: I apologise for causing any frustration - it’s not my intention. I think you see awareness and watching as being synonyms whereas I don’t. Watching suggests there is some intention or wishing to have awareness or some idea that this activity will be conducive. Otherwise, what is the purpose of ‘sitting and observing’? .... >At > those moments when I become attached to a thought and lose awareness, > the > decision to bring my attention back is made by itself. .... S: I think decisions are always ‘made’ or brought about by conditions. .... > This is different from the "first phase." (I feel uncomfortable making > this > distinction between training and not training phases. I hope it makes my > view > more understandable.) In the first phase I might be consciously making > the > decision to note hardness, for example. This is part of the process of > training > my mind. In the second phase I am not consciously making this decision. .... S: I think you are implying that the conscious training to note various realities or focus on them is necessary for the second phase when they are ‘noted’ without any special wish or intention. I may be wrong here, but it sounds a little like the argument we often hear that there has to be a self to bring about a non-self or something to that effect. I would say, the path has to begin with detachment from the beginning so that any conditioned dhamma can be known (i.e not just primary rupas) from the outset. Apologies again if my posts leave you feeling frustrated and misunderstood, Jack. I assure you that you have plenty of good company here in that regard, no doubt reflecting my lack of skill in communication;-). Metta, Sarah ====== 32703 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 3, 2004 0:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] wrong view Hi Azita, --- gazita2002 wrote: > How seductive is the thought that to stay in BKK where I can hear > the true Dhamma each week, would be much better than being here. I > would then be wiser and have more understanding!! > > We can have the idea that if we are in a more conducive place to > hear and practise the true Dhamma then wisdom will grow more quickly. > Instead, this may be wrong view and actually have the opposite effect > and hinder the development of sati. > > Wisdom grows from detachment not from more attachment, and > thinking that one place is better than another could be attachment > not wisdom. No amount of trying, wishing, hoping for sati will make > it arise. Sati must arise naturally, by conditions. > Association with good friends - by conditions. > Hearing the true Dhamma - by conditions > Considering - by conditions > Practise in accordance with the true Dhamma - by conditions. .... S: You give yourself all the right reminders, so again to repeat Sukin, pa~n~naa is the good friend in the ultimate sense. There can be hearing, considering, right practising now at this very moment. Another place or time or company is mere wishful thinking or speculation, possibly with wrong view as you suggest. .... > Better that I see the aversion for what it is, a reality which can > be known as not me, not myself, not mine, that it is anicca, dukkha > [you bet] and anatta. > > May we all have patience, courage and good cheer .... S: You bet;-) Metta, Sarah p.s Hope your daughter Abby is doing OK....?? ===== 32704 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 3, 2004 1:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi RobM (Mike, TG, Howard & All), Great discussions and thank you for sharing your latest reflections. Your cave and shadow analogy reminder me of Thein Nyun’s description of the shadows on the cinema screen which he uses in his preface to his translation of the Discourse on Elements (Dhaatu-Kathaa), the 3rd book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka (PTS). ..... “The material and mental elements may be compared to the shadows on the cinema screen, which appear and disappear in rapid succession. The mind-consciousness element (of what is conventionally said to be the spectator) takes the actors, actressess, rivers, mountains, etc., as objects, and a drama is built up from them. This is due to a perverted belief that the actors, etc., exist, and the shadows serve as stimuli for imagining them. Similarly the material and mental elements arise and cease in rapid succession and the mind-consciousness element takes men, women, trees, mountains, etc., and a drama of a world of animate and inanimate things is built up from them. This is due to the perverted belief in the existence of a living world of persons and things and the elements serves as stimuli for imagining them. Here the difference from the cinema is that there are no spectators as the mind-consciousness element is also like the shadow on the screen, i.e. it is always arising and ceasing. If the mind-consciousness element is not seen in this manner according to reality it will be believed that it permanently resides in the body and that it is the same mind-consciousness element that 1) seeks and takes objects; 2) is present throughout the day; 3) was present yesterday, is present now and will be present tomorrow - in other words, that from birth to death the mind-consciousness element is the same and is conscious of all daily actions, speech and thoughts.” ***** Of course we also read about ‘shadows of ultimate things’ in the Abhidammattha Sangaha. From CMA,ch V111, Bodhi transl: ..... “All such different things [S: e.g land, mountain, cave, kasina sign etc], though they do not exist in the ultimate sense, become objects of consciousness in the form of shadows of (ultimate) things. They are called concepts (pa~n~nattii) because they are thought of, reckoned, understood, expressed, and made known on account of, in consideration of, with respect to, this or that mode. This kind of concept is so called because it is made known.” ***** You and others like TG & Howard have also been discussing the conditions for seeing consciousness including light and I thought of this quote from Summary and Exposition of Topics ch 4 (Abhidammatthavibhaavinii, comy to the text above, PTS): ..... “Seeing, beholding directly. But since it is said that ‘one sees visible forms with the eye’ (Vibh 248) is it not the eye-faculty itself that performs the function of seeing, and not consciousness? Not so. Materiality, being blind, has no capacity to see the visible form. And if it were the eye-faculty that saw visible form, then it would also be possible for someone experiencing a consciousness other [than eye-consciousness] to see visible form. Yet if one attributes the function [of seeing] to consciousness, then, since consciousness has no obstacles, one would see concealed visible objects. One can allow the seeing of something concealed when it is placed behind crystal, etc., and there is no obstacle to light, but when it is something concealed by a wall, etc., there is an obstacle to light, and in the absence of this condition consciousness does not arise and eye-consciousness does not apprehend the object. But in the above quotation ‘by the eye’ means ‘by the eye-door which is the means [of seeing]’.” ***** Finally, at the risk of over-doing the quotes, I’d like to give this one from Dispeller 228(Sammohavinodanii, PTS) which stresses the conditioned nature of all these elements: ..... “Likewise [they should be regarded] as inactive and unoccupied. For it does not occur to the eye and visible-datum and so on: ‘Would that consciousness might arise from our concurrence.’ And they are not active nor do they occupy themselves as door, basis and object for the purpose of arousing consciousness; but rather it is the rule (dhammataa) that eye-consciousness and so on come into being with the concurrence of eye-visible-datum and so on. Therefore they should be regarded as inactive and unoccupied.” ***** Metta, Sarah p.s Rob, you may also like to review this post and quotes I wrote before and see if we are more in agreement now: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/20043 Also see others under ‘visible object’ in U.P. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts ================================= 32705 From: Philip Date: Mon May 3, 2004 1:41am Subject: Re: Understanding aggregates and annata (was Video Games) Hello James, and all J :> Thank you for the lovely e-mail. I am glad that you feel > comfortable enough with me, and with this group, to explore your > feelings and thoughts out loud. That is a good thing and I > encourage you to do it quite frequently. Ph: Yes, I do feel very comfortable here, and inspired to be more diligent in my practice. (I have to use that word though I can see why some don't think it's quite right.) I do feel particularly comfortable with you, for some reason. Perhaps because I've already been openly cranky with you and have talked about bikinis and speedos so our dhamma friendship feels more familiar to me than the more refined dhamma friendship I am forming with other members - not that a feeling of familiarity is necessarily a good thing. > Phil: Haven't "stream-enterers" and "once returners" had direct > knowledge of annata? That's not a rhetorical question. I have no > idea what goodies go with those stages of enlightenment. > > James: I don't think it is important to memorize these various > stages and what is achieved in each. Without a practical context, > like being a member of a Bhikkhu Sangha, this knowledge will only > lead you to believe that you know something you don't. Instead, I > would just focus on the first stage of Enlightenment, Stream Entry. Ph: Still thinking about a stage of enlightenment that could come before sotapahnna (sp?) I thought of "sortapahnna" (lol) Seriously, when we have gained an intellectual understanding of annata, and have experienced a kind of earth-shifting moment of insight based on this understanding, life is not the same again. There is a kind of non-going-back to believing in self after that moment. I have sort-of been awakened in a real way. I don't insist on a new stage of pre-enlightenment, but I am grateful to ahve reached it. It took 15 years or so since I first came across the Buddha's teaching, 15 years of occasionally reading passages of dhamma (along with various christian mystics and hindu and new age stuff) and taking them in a way that was just feeding and comforting self. I guess I was on the road to having a substantial understanding, but I think coming across this group and the Abhidhdmma is what really did it. I have that thoughtful inquiry from Sarah to thank for that! I wonder if making statements about one's own progress always points at conceit or wrong view. It could potentially, of course. And probably usually does. But for beginners, who have taken a big first step, I think it's justified. I think what will happen now is frustration from expecting progress to continue to happen in big steps, which it won't. I know this from the ESL classroom, as I think I've said before. Language learners have a steep learning curve at the beginning, then hit a plateau that frustrates them. I should be prepared for a plateau, because right now, to tell the truth, I am expecting to continue to make progress at understanding realities and uprooting defilements, and that expectation is unwise. > J: LOL! I also suffer strongly from sensual desire (though > bikinis don't do it for me!...if you know what I mean ;-)) Ph: Whether bikini or speedo they plant the seedo of desire or deedo - it's flesh we needo!!! haha seriously, I've always assumed sensual lust to be my grossest hindrance, and it has been in the past, but these days my biggest obstacle to overcome is hostility towards Bush and his crew. Hostility towards them is fed by checking news pages just as surely as lust was ...oops, would theoretically be.. fed by checking out bare naked ladies and the gentlemen with whom they consort. I am quite proud today that I haven't checked the news yet. (I was successful on this for three weeks back in January, but had a backslide.) Schadenfreude is a very interesting phenomenon. I think it is a kind of human nature, and I don't know why. It may be the distant enemy of mudita. I was getting pleasure out of America's trouble in Iraq, and getting pleasure out of that is much more unwholesome than checking out boo-tay, I'd say. Best to do without both, of course. J:> Actually, this may surprise you to know, but right now my goal in > this lifetime isn't to become enlightened. Ph: I doubt anyone in this group aims to become enlightened in this lifetime, if we take enlightenment as Nibbana. One thing I appreciate in this groups is the patient approach towards enlightenment during countless lifetimes. J: > I used to have the goal > to become enlightened, and even went to Thailand to become a monk to > achieve this goal, but realized that I was not going to be able to > find the right company of `admirable friends' to achieve > enlightenment (BTW, I was severely depressed after this > realization). Ph: I hope you will keep looking for that company of "admirable friends." I haven't found it in real life, or in other internet groups until this one. No, that's not true. I have admirable friends in other groups as well. I assume that by admirable friends you mean friends with whom you can share discussion of the true dhamma. People are admirable in many ways that don't have anything to do with Buddhism, of course. Anyways, I'm very grateful to have your dhamma friendhsip, and that of the rest of the group. Metta, Phil 32706 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 3, 2004 1:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi Howard, We're very much on the same page on this one: --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Phenomenologically, however - that is, in terms of direct > experience, > whether or not there is an external world independent of experience, and > > whether or not photons are part of it, seeing is not the experience of > photons, it > is the experience of visual objects, and phenomenologically, sights are > not > "out there" (nor are they "in here") - they just "are", or better, they > just > "occur". A photon is not the object of sight but of thought. This is the > > distinction that I make. It is my perspective alone - I'm not a dealer > or pusher. ;-)) .... S: My perspective too. I also agreed with Mike's comments on not confusing science to RobM. Time for a break.... Metta, Sarah p.s Mike, TG, KKT - good to see you around:-) ================== 32707 From: Philip Date: Mon May 3, 2004 2:06am Subject: Frying pan sound and citta/cetasika Hello all With help from Rob M and Howard, I have been able to undestand more clearly the difference between citta and cetasika, and why there is more emphasis here on citta being kusala or akusala rather than the cetasika, but I'll pose another question that will help me continue to work it out. The other day I was sitting reading when my wife (I'll call her Naomi from now on) started to cook something. I heard a sizzling of something in the frying pan - rupa of sound followed by citta of hearing consciousness - and a moment later smelled garlic - rupa of small followed by citta of smelling-consciousness. At some point in there, maybe even before I smelled the garlic, I guess an akusala cetasika arose, because the sound of frying usually means the smell of garlic is on its way in this house - or at least when I cook it almost always is. I say akusala because garlic makes me greedy and I overeat. Now according to Abhidhamma in Daily Life, when we hear something pleasant or unpleasant it is the result of a wholesome or unwholesome deed we performed. I have trouble understanding why Naomi's decision to cook something is the result of my deed (certainly asking her to cook when she doesn't want to doesn't work, so I don't see how my khamma could do it ! :) ) but I'll leave that aside for now. My point is that it seems to me that it is not the citta that is akusala here, but my greedy consumption of food in the past that conditions lobha, an akusala cetasika, to arise. The citta (hearing consciousness) just happened because it was supper time. It seems to me that it is the cetasika that arose conditioned by past cetasika that is where the real understanding needs to arise. I wonder why I am insisting on this? Maybe there is something in me that wants to insist on citta (e.g hearing consciousness) being random, and cetasika being more our responsibility. But I guess it's good that I am really trying to get my understanding of citta/cetasika sorted out. I am posting this without having reread Rob M and Howards's posts first. My apologies for that. I will go and reread them now. Metta, Phil 32708 From: bodhi2500 Date: Mon May 3, 2004 2:09am Subject: Breathing Beings Hi Christine and all, Chris, during the weekend you wondered if `breathing beings' included creatures still inside an egg, i.e.: cane toad eggs. I found this in the Metta Sutta, Khuddakapatha and its commentary, translation by Bhikkhu Nanamoli. Metta Sutta Whatever breathing beings there are, No matter whether frail or firm, With none excepted, long or big Or middle-sized or short or small Or thick, or those seen or unseen, Or whether dwelling far or near, That are or that yet seek to be, Let every creature's heart rejoice. Commentary> "That are or that yet seek to be" > Or alternatively, in the case of the four kinds of womb generation, creatures that are egg-born or uterus-born are called those `that yet seek to be' as long as they have not broken the egg-membrane or the caul-membrane [respectively]; but when they have broken the egg-membrane or the caul-membrane and have come out, they are called those `that are'. Take care Steve P.S. Thanks again Andrew and Sandra. 32709 From: Philip Date: Mon May 3, 2004 2:24am Subject: Mai pen rai in Pali? Hello all As I mentionned in a post to James, I have been having trouble overcoming my addiction to the news, which is causing a lot of hostility to arise in me. When I am having success in resisting the urge to check out news, I find myself saying "it doesn't concern me, it doesn't concern me" which probably came about because of my growing interest in examining my susceptibility to the eight worldly concerns. This morning as I was washing the dishes, I thought of the Thai expression "mai pen rai" for the first time in about 10 years. Many in this group are very familiar with it but if anyone isn't I guess it could be translated as "don't worry about it" or "it doesn't matter" and it is a very common phrase and has even been called a kind of daily life philosophy in Thailand. Today, as I was cycling, I found "mai pen rai" coming into my head again and again when I found my mind wandering on to some kind of worldly concern. So I can see that it will be a new kind of mini- mantra to bring me back to examining present realities for the next little while. I have two questions for the Thaiophiles in the group. 1) Does "mai pen rai" have any Buddhist etymological roots? I know that in Japan some everday expressions actually have Buddhist etymolgical origins that people aren't aware of. (In case Rob K or anyone else interested in Japanese is reading this, did you know that "hidoi" - a catchphrase word for "terrible" - comes from hi- dou?i"ñ "¹?j , as in "not of the way?") 2) How would you say "mai pen rai" in Pali? Or what term or phrase in the canon would you say catches its meaning? I think "mai pen rai" is very helpful if we take it to mean not letting ourselves get caught up in worldly concerns. On the other hand, there is samvega, which means that we should have a sense of urgency. Maybe samvega for examining present realities, and mai pen rai for the eight worldly concerns. Metta, Phil 32710 From: Philip Date: Mon May 3, 2004 2:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cittas and cetasikas (basic question!) Hello Nina, and all My gosh! I just came across this. Somehow I missed it the first time. (I don't get the e-mails, only read at the board and sometimes miss things.) I will read it with great interest, but my apologies if it answers any questions I just asked in the "Frying pan" thread. And I will be more careful about checking for responses to my posts. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Philip, > op 28-04-2004 06:08 schreef Philip op plnao@j...: > Well, I guess it seems to me that > > there are so many references to kusala and akusala citta, but from > > what I read about the definition of citta, and from thinking > > logically, it seems to me that it is the cetasikas rather than the > > cittas that are wholesome or unwholesome. > > > > Aren't cittas pure consciousness, and the cetasikas the mental > > factors such as attachment and aversion that would seem the more > > likely candidates for conditioning more-of-the-same in the future? > N: The cetasikas such as attachment and aversion and ignorance are roots, > foundation of the akusala citta, that is right. Citta's task is cognizing an > object, that is right. But cetasikas arise with the citta and condition it. > They are very closely connected with it. They are the helpers, advisers, so > that citta can perform its task of cognizing an object. In the Patthana it > is said that they condition one another by way of conascence condition and > reciproxity condition, association-condition and others. > We can verify this. Take pleasant feeling with kusala citta and pleasant > feeling with attachment, they still have different qualities. The pleasant > feeling with attachment has restlessness, and the one with kusala citta is > more of a calm nature. > The first words of the Matika of the first Book of the Abhidhamma, the > Dhammasangani are: kusala dhamma, akusala dhamma, indeterminate dhamma. > Kusala citta and beautiful cetasikas are kusala dhamma. The same for > akusala dhamma. Indeterminate dhamma: this includes vipakacitta. When we say > vipakacitta also vipaka cetasikas that accompany citta are included. It is > always implied, but for convenience we say vipakacitta. > Ph:The citta which sees perceives only visible object; there is > > not yet like or dislike. The feeling which accompanies this type of > > citta is indifferent feeling. After seeing-consciousness has fallen > > away, other cittas arise and there may be cittas which dislike the > > object." > > > > But isn't the khanda that "dislikes the object" dosa (aversion) > > which is a cetasika, rather than the citta which "perceives only > > visible object"? > N: The akusala citta is contaminated by the accompanying dosa (not lobha, I > corrected), it also finds the object unwelcome. Here there is no question of > seeing, but this is after the seeing has fallen away. Citta and all the > accompanying cetasikas are affected by dosa and the feeling is unhappy. > Ph: It seems to this beginner that citta refers to consciousness of > > object, whether it's visible object, hearing object or even mental > > object (?) but the wholesome or unwholesome factors come with the > > cetasikas. > N: the wholesome or unwholesome factors are the akusala cetasikas. But as > said, they contaminate citta, make it sick. Akusala citta is ill- adviced by > them and everything goes wrong. Also the universals that accompany each > citta are doing everything the wrong way: sanna remembers in the unwholesome > way, there is wrong concentration, unwise attention to the object. > > > Ph: , I > > came across reference to Bodhicitta (sp?) which I guess is like "the > > Buddha mind" and is not a concept we find in Theravada. (Or is it?) > > Nevertheless, it surely refers to beautiful cetasikas such as > > compassion and loving-kindness. I wonder why it isn't called > > bodhicetasika? > N: Cetasikas are always implied whenever we speak about citta, citta cannot > arise without cetasikas. > Ph: I'm kind of itching to read Nina's "Cetasikas" because it seems to > > me that cetasikas is where all the hot khamma gets created! ;) > N: Kamma is cetana cetasika. When citta is kusala, cetana is kusala and it > wills, intends kusala > I learnt that mostly kusala citta has the intensity of kusala kamma, unless > it is very weak. As to akusala kamma, certain factors make it into a > completed action. Not every akusala citta is akusala kamma. > Ph: And > > that cittas is more related to sense organ-consciousness. But I've > > clearly got that wrong. > N: Some cittas are sense-cognitions and these are vipakacittas. Many, many > other types, and not only of the sensesphere. You will learn about them in > due time. > Nina. > > 32711 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon May 3, 2004 4:10am Subject: Re: Breathing Beings Hello Steve, and all, Thank you for this reference - that clears it up for me. So .. if I can't drag the eggs out of the dam to dry out on the bank before having a chance to hatch, I guess I'll keep on with my old method of catching them after birth and transporting them up the road to the street light at the church. Two are sleeping in the dog's dinner dish at the moment, and I don't want them poisoning his water. Happy Vesak tomorrow, enjoyed your contributions on the weekend,:-) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi2500" wrote: > Hi Christine and all, > Chris, during the weekend you wondered > if `breathing beings' included creatures still inside an egg, i.e.: > cane toad eggs. I found this in the Metta Sutta, Khuddakapatha and > its commentary, translation by Bhikkhu Nanamoli. > > Metta Sutta > > Whatever breathing beings there are, > No matter whether frail or firm, > With none excepted, long or big > Or middle-sized or short or small > Or thick, or those seen or unseen, > Or whether dwelling far or near, > That are or that yet seek to be, > Let every creature's heart rejoice. > > Commentary> > "That are or that yet seek to be" > Or alternatively, in the case of > the four kinds of womb generation, creatures that are egg-born or > uterus-born are called those `that yet seek to be' as long as they > have not broken the egg-membrane or the caul-membrane [respectively]; > but when they have broken the egg-membrane or the caul-membrane and > have come out, they are called those `that are'. > > Take care > Steve > > P.S. Thanks again Andrew and Sandra. 32712 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Mon May 3, 2004 3:25am Subject: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! Friends: Happy Vesak tomorrow 4/5 2004! On this very day 2534 years ago on the fulmoon night of May, the Gotama Buddha was Perfectly Self-Awakened! Such was this mighty & quite rare event! The Great Enlightenment of the Buddha: At that time a girl named Sujata Senani lived in Uruvela. When adult she prayed before a certain Banyan tree, that she might get a husband equal to herself in caste and that her firstborn may be a son. If so, she promised to offer the perceived tree deity the value of 100.000 yearly. Her prayer was successful, since so indeed did it happen! Six years after the Buddha-to-be had started his severe asceticism, she desired to pay back the perceived tree deity on the full moon day of the month of Vesak. First she put 1000 cows on good grass in the forest. The milk from them, she fed to 500 cows and the milk from these 500 cows, she gave to 250 and so on down to feeding such ultra pure milk from 16 cows to 8 cows. This process called "Working the milk in & in" made the milk more sweet, thick, protein rich & nutritious. At the full moon day of the Vesak month, she rose at early dawn & made the 8 cows to be milked. As soon as new buckets were placed under the cows, their milk poured forth in streams spontaneously all by itself. Seeing this miracle Sujata collected the milk herself in a new pot and began to cook milk-rice (Kiribath). Seeing the milk boil immediately while rotating right with large bubbles, yet not spilling over & the fire burn without trace of smoke, she knew something special was going on. On this auspicious occasion the 4 guardian Kings stood guard, Maha Brahma held the white umbrella of state & Sakka tended the fire. Just a man squeezes honey out of a honeycomb, so did these deities by their superhuman power collect the vital nectar from all 4 great continents & their 2000 islands. They then infused this fine nutrient into the milk-rice. At other events deities infuse this nectar into each mouthful, but here on the day of Awakening to Buddhahood and on the day of Decease, they place it in the vessel itself. When Sujata saw so many miracles appear, she said to her servant girl Punna: "Punna, dear girl, the tree deity is very well disposed towards us today. Never have I seen so many wonders. Run quickly to the Holy tree and get everything clean, neat & ready. "Yes, my lady," answered the girl and ran in hot haste to the foot of the tree. Now at that very night the Future Buddha had 5 specific dreams that made him conclude after thorough consideration: "Certainly, without doubt, today is the very day, I will reach Enlightenment!" When the night had passed, he cleaned himself and came early before dawn to that very Bo tree and sat down facing east, to await the suitable time for going the begging round. His 5 colored radiance illuminated the whole tree. Then Punna came. When she saw the streaming radiance from his body lighting up the whole tree in a golden color, she became highly excited and said to herself: "Our deity, methinks, have come down from the tree and has seated himself in order to receive our offering with his own hands!". So she ran in great speed back to Sujata & told all about it. When Sujata heard this news, she became both thrilled & jubilant! So elated, she rewarded the slave Punna by saying: "From this very day you may be here as my eldest daughter," and gave Punna all such jewelry appropriate for that position. Since all Buddhas on the day of Buddhahood receive their food on a golden dish, the idea occurred to Sujata to put the milk-rice and a golden plate worth 100.000. The milk-rice poured out from the pot as water from a lotus leaf & filled exactly the golden dish. Covering it with another golden dish and wrapping it in a white cloth, she adorned herself with all her ornaments and proceeded with the dish on her head to the foot of the Banyan tree. As soon as she caught sight of the Future Buddha, she became exceedingly overjoyed & ecstatic. Expecting him to be the tree deity, she approached while constantly bowing. She took down the golden dish from her head & uncovered it. Advancing close to the Buddha-to-be she put down a golden vase with flower scented water. His long kept earthenware bowl given by Maha Brahma Ghatikara vanished at that moment, so when stretching down his hand attempting to find his bowl, he got hold of the golden vase. Sujata then placed the golden plate in the hands of the Great Being. He gazed at her & she perceived that he was a Holy Man. Doing a reverential obeisance she said: "Lord, please accept my donation & take it wherever you see fit." Adding "May your wishes come through like mine." she raised and departed as disinterested in her golden plate as had it been a withered leaf. The Future Buddha then raised and circulating the tree right-wise he proceeded down to the Neranjara river, and descended into its waters just as many thousands of Future Buddhas before him, had here bathed on the day of their complete enlightenment. This place is even today a pilgrimage called Suppatitthita. Coming out of the water, he dressed in the simple hempen dress of Saint-ship also common to all the Noble Bodhisattvas before him. Sitting down on the bank, he then rolled the entire dish of thick sweet milk-rice into 49 small pellets and ate them. Thereafter he took no further food in the 49 days of the 7 weeks he spent enraptured in the bliss of Awakening. During all that time the Buddha neither bathed, rinsed his mouth nor eased himself, but was fully absorbed into the ecstasy of the trance of Buddhahood. When he had consumed the milk-rice he took the golden dish and said: "If I am to become a Buddha today, let this golden dish go up-stream." He then threw it into the water, and cleaving the stream as a fleet horse it went up-stream in the middle of the river for 160 meters. Then it dived into a whirlpool & sank into the submerged palace of the black Snake King, where it hit "Click! Clack!" against the top of the stack of golden dishes, used by the 3 prior Buddhas of this Eon. When the black Snake King heard this particular sound he exclaimed: "Yesterday another Buddha lived. Today a new One has been born!" repeating several hundred admiring verses. As the time from yesterday did this immense time lapse between two Buddhas appear to him. At these rare occasions his body raised up into the air to several km. Then the Future Buddha rested at the riverbank between Sal trees in full bloom. At nightfall when the flowers closed, he raised like a lion & went towards the Bodhi Tree along a path prepared by the deities. The nagas, fairies, angels, deities, birds, & various other beings did the Seer homage with flowers, perfumes, & other splendid offerings. Divine music was heard, so that all of the ten thousand worlds were vibrantly excited with expectation & shouts of acclaim. Just then a grass-cutter came going with his harvest from the other side. He offered the Great Being 8 handfuls of Kusa grass, when he saw that this Sage was a Holy Man. The Future Buddha accepted the grass and proceeded to the foot of the Bodhi-tree. There, the Expert of worlds surveyed the site standing on the Southern side. This instantly sank down, while the opposite side raised up. "This cannot be the site for the attainment of supreme wisdom". So he went around the tree to the Western & Northern sides, but also there did the ground sink down. Reaching the imperturbable Eastern side, where all Buddhas take their seat, he sat down saying to himself: "This is indeed the immovable spot where all the Buddhas have seated themselves! This is the very place for destroying this net of passion!" Shaking out the grass it spontaneously arranged itself into a suitable & symmetric seat. Then the Future Buddha leaned his back against the trunk and was thus faced East. Right there he then made this mighty decision: "Let all blood & flesh of this body dry up & let just the skin & sinews fall from the bones. I will not leave this seat before having attained the absolute & supreme Freedom!" So determined, did he seat himself in this unconquerable seat, which not even a 100 strikes of lightning could make him waver from. At this very moment the rebel deity Mara -the Evil One- raised exclaiming: "Prince Siddhattha will pass beyond my power, but I will never allow it!" and sounding the Mara's war shout, he prepared his army & went out for battle. Mara's army extended 102 km in front & to the sides of him. Behind it extended to the limits of the world & it towered 77 km up high. The sound of it was like the rumbling roar of an earthquake. Mara mounted his mountain-like Elephant carrying a 1000 different weapons. Not two in his army carried the same weapon and this immense mass of warriors swept forward as a flood to overwhelm the Blessed Bhagava. There Deities of the 10 thousands worlds of this galaxy were singing the praises of the Great Being. Sakka - the King of the 33 gods - was blowing the conch horn, which could sound for four months after a single blow. The black Naga King was reciting the 100 laudatory verses & the mighty Maha-Brahma was holding the white umbrella aloft. But when Mara's army came close, no one dared stay put. They all fled, trembling like a caught rabbit. The black Naga King dived into the earth and reaching his submerged home, he covered his face with both hands & lay down. Sakka threw the conch right over his shoulder & took up a safe position at the rim of the world. Maha-Brahma left the white umbrella at the end of this world & fled into his fine-material plane. Not a single deity was able to stand his ground, so they all left the Great Being sitting cross-legged all alone only protected by the consummation of his perfections. Then Mara said to his militia: "This Siddhattha, son of king Suddhodana, is far greater than any other man, so we will never succeed to fight him up front. We will therefore attack him from behind." Looking towards the North the Kinsman of the sun perceived that Mara's Army was approaching like a great flood and noted: "Here come this mighty gang putting up all their forceful power against me alone. Neither my parents, family nor friends are here. But I have these great accumulated perfections at my side. These will be my shield and the force, that will crush this mighty evil & armed gathering. And so he remained all still inwardly focusing on the 10 great perfections. Wanting to drive away the Future Buddha Mara, then whirled up a great storm, which could tear away mountain peaks, uproot trees and pulverize entire cities into scattered powder. Yet, when this immense energy reached the Future Buddha, it could not even make the corner of his robe flutter. Such was the power of the Great Being's long accumulated merit. Intending then to drown this Bull among Seers Mara caused a great rain to pour down until the wild torrents of water flooded even the treetops. But on reaching the Future Buddha, this immense flood could not even wet his robe to the extent of a dewdrop. Infuriated, Mara, yielding power over even the creation of others, then caused a showering bombardment of flaming rocks & smoking boulders. Yet these turned into celestial flowers reaching the Great Being. So also did a veritable assault by a cascade of burning spears, swords, arrows & axes hurled through the air. Enraged, Mara then whirled forth an attack of burning red coals. These also, however, feel gently as flowers at the feet of the Foremost of all humans. Seething mad, Mara then tried white ashes & sand glowing like fire, but this fell as sandal wood powder at the feet of the Caravan leader. A shower of boiling mud became a delighting balm. Feverishly attempting to frighten the Great Seer, Mara then caused a dense fourfold darkness to spread out, but reaching the Dispeller of darkness it disappeared, like darkness is lighted up in the radiance of the sun. Frustrated, being unable even to touch the Wielder of Power with these nine mighty hurricanes of wind, rain, rocks, weapons, red coals, hot ashes, sand, mud, & darkness Mara somewhat in panic commanded his army: "Why do you stand still? Seize, kill & drive away this prince". Armed with a discus, he drew near the Future Buddha on his elephant & yelled: "Siddhattha, leave this seat. It is not yours, but mine!" Hearing this the Well-gone One replied: "Mara, neither have you fulfilled the 10 perfections to the third degree, nor have you given the 5 great donations. Neither has you striven for insight, for the welfare of the world, nor for enlightenment! Therefore does this seat not belong to you, but indeed to me." Unable to control his fury the enraged Mara hurled his discus, which could cut stone pillars like bamboo shoots. But as the Great Being reflected on the perfections, it changed into a canopy of flowers, which remained suspended over his head. Mara's army then threw enormous mountain like boulders saying: "This will make him get up & flee!" but they also fell to the ground as flowers. Meanwhile the gods were standing on the rim of the world & craning their necks to see, they mumbled: "Oohh what a day... This handsome prince will certainly be smashed! What will he do to save himself?" The Conqueror then confidently continued: "Mara, who is your witness to have given the great donations ?" Mara responded: "As many as you see here!" and instantly all in his army roared "I am his witness, I am his witness" as with one voice. Mara then asked the Great Being: "Siddhattha, who is your witness to have given the great donations ?" The Future Buddha answered: "You have alive witnesses at your side while I have none. However the great seven-hundred-fold donation, which I gave at my existence as Vessantara, shall now be testified by this great earth, how inanimate she may be. And at the exact moment he touched the earth with his hand, it erupted into a tremulous earthquake. When he gladdened remembered his prior great donation, Mara's elephant crouched down before him on its knees. Suddenly overpowered by fear Mara's followers fled helter-skelter in all directions. Not two went the same way, but leaving their weapons in a chaos all behind, they fled terrified by panic. Seeing them flee, the great assembly of deities triumphantly shouted: "Mara is defeated. Prince Siddhattha has conquered. Let us celebrate the Victory!" The snakes then urged the snakes, the birds urged the birds, the deities urged the deities, the Brahmas urged the brahmas and they all approached the great wisdom seat of the Supreme Teacher carrying perfumes, flowers, garlands, and offerings, while they sang: "The Victory has this illustrious Buddha Won. The Evil One, The End-maker is defeated & done. Thus they jubilantly circled the wisdom throne, the band of snakes singing their praises of the Seer, the flocks of birds singing their praises of the Sage, the assembly of Deities singing their praises of the Conqueror, the group of Brahmas singing their praises of the Worthy One." It was before the sun had set that the Tathagata thus conquered Mara & defeated his army. Then at the same night, while the Bo tree rained red sprigs on his robe, the Consummate One acquired knowledge of his previous existences in the first watch of the night: "With the mind thus concentrated, purified, bright, intact, unified, focused, tractable, compliant, steady & imperturbable, I directed it to remembrance of my past lives. I recollected numerous 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: There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan & species, had such a body. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There I had such name, belonged to such a sort & family, had such a form. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here. Thus I remembered my various past lives in all their various modes & details. This was the first knowledge I attained in the first watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose as happens in one who is mindful, keen, & determined... But the pleasant feeling, that arose in this way did not invade my mind nor remain. With the mind thus still, concentrated, purified, bright, intact, pliant, malleable, steady & imperturbable, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. I saw by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human eye beings passing away & re-appearing, and I realized how & why they are high & low, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate, all in accordance with the kamma of their prior actions: These beings, who were endowed with bad behaviour of body, speech, & mind, who reviled the Noble Ones, held wrong views and acted under the influence of wrong views with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of misery, the bad destination, the lower realms, even in hell. But these beings, who were gifted with good behaviour of body, speech & mind, who did not revile the Noble Ones, who held right views and acted under the influence of right views with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in happy destinations, even in a divine world. Thus, by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human, I saw beings passing away & re-appearing and I could see directly, why they are high & low, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate all in accordance with their particular mixture of good & bad kamma. This was the second knowledge I attained in the second watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose as happens in one who is mindful, keen, & determined... But the satisfaction that arose in this way did not invade my mind nor remain. With the mind thus concentrated, absorped, bright, intact, purified, pliant, malleable, steady & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. I realized how it actually develops, that: Caused by Ignorance, Mental Construction emerges. Ceasing of Ignorance, therefore ceases Mental Construction. Caused by Mental Construction, Consciousness emerges. Ceasing of Mental Construction, therefore ceases Consciousness. Caused by Consciousness, Name-&-Form emerge. Ceasing of Consciousness, therefore ceases Name-&-Form. Caused by Name-&-Form, the Six Senses emerge. Ceasing of Name-&-Form, therefore ceases the Six Senses. Caused by The six Senses, Contact emerges. Ceasing of The six Senses, therefore ceases Contact. Caused by Contact, Feeling emerges. Ceasing of Contact, therefore ceases Feeling. Caused by Feeling, Craving emerges. Ceasing of Feeling, therefore ceases Craving. Caused by Craving, Clinging emerges. Ceasing of Craving, therefore ceases Clinging. Caused by Clinging, Becoming emerges. Ceasing of Clinging, therefore ceases Becoming. Caused by Becoming, Birth emerges. Ceasing of Becoming, therefore ceases Birth. Caused by Birth, Ageing, Sickness & Death emerge. Ceasing of Birth, therefore ceases Ageing, Sickness & Death. Caused by Ageing, Sickness & Death, Misery emerge. Ceasing of Ageing, Sickness & Death, therefore ceases all Misery! So seeing: Such is Misery... Such is the cause of Misery... Such is the end of Misery... Such is the way leading to the end of Misery... Such is mental fermentation... Such is the cause of fermentation... Such is the end of fermentation... Such is the way leading to the end of fermentation. When my mind saw that, realized that, it was freed of the fermentation of sensuality, released from the fermentation of becoming, unobstructed by the fermentation of ignorance. With that release, there was the knowledge; Released! I realized that: Birth is ended, this Holy life is fulfilled, this mission is completed. There is no further state in this or any other world... Such was the third knowledge, I attained in the third watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; certainty arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose as it happens to one who is mindful, keen, & determined... But the satisfaction that so arose, did not obsess my mind nor remain! At this very moment of attainment of Omniscience, the 10 thousand worlds quaked 12 times & became gloriously adorned. Throughout this galaxy flowering trees bloomed, lotuses blossomed, and wines & trees bore fruit, the dark spaces of the hells and between the worlds became illuminated by a flooding blitz of radiance surpassing even that of 7 suns!!! Fully & perfectly Enlightened - The Buddha - perceiving this immense glory spoke these solemn 2 verses, which never has been omitted by any of countless thousands of prior Buddhas: Through this round of countless existences have I searched yet failed to find the Creator who framed this formation: What Misery! - Endless Birth, Death & Pain ! Now I see that 'the Constructor' of this structure is Craving. Never shall this construction be build again as all the rafters are shattered and the main beam is both busted & broken. At the elimination of Craving, this mind is all Stilled… Then, friends, I myself a subject birth, ageing, sickness, death, pain, sorrow & mental degradation, having fully comprehended the danger in all what is subject to birth, ageing, sickness, death, pain, sorrow & mental degradation, searching the unborn, unageing, immune, deathless, unburning, happy, pleasant, pure & supreme security from the oppressing bondage of craving, of becoming, of views, and of ignorance, entered this unbecome, unborn, uncreated, unconstructed, undiverse, unformed, unchangeable, unconditional, unimaginable, undecaying, unageing, unending, undeceiving, universal unity, this supremely safe, immune, death & painless state called Nibbana. This vision of certainty arose in me: This release is irreversible, this is the last birth. This endless reappearance is finally ended... --oo0oo-- All yours in the Dhamma. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.msn.com/DirectDhamma/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/TrueDhamma 32713 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 3, 2004 7:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (again) Rob Ep This is just to say hello and welcome back. Great to see you on the list again, and thanks for coming in on this thread. By coincidence I started on a post to you last night, but was too tired to finish and post it. I'm afraid my mid-week posting time is severly limited, but I'll try to respond on this and your other post as soon as possible. Jon PS For some reason your other (longer) post has not come through to my inbox; probably just one of those glitches that seems to happen. --- Robert Epstein wrote: ... > Hi Jon. > Okay, here is Thich Nath Hanh's translation. Somebody ought to > sort > out who's got the literal meaning and who doesn't: > > 1. Breathing in a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a long > breath." Breathing out a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing > out a > long breath." > > 2. Breathing in a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a > short > breath." Breathing out a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing > out > a short breath." > > Jon, this is how the sutta starts, the first two stanzas. There is no > other substantive way to translate this, as there is no other > object > of mindfulness mentioned here other than the breath. So the breath is > indeed the object of discernment or contemplation here, what I > would call "meditation." ... 32714 From: Date: Mon May 3, 2004 4:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Frying pan sound and citta/cetasika Hi, Phil (and Rob) - In a message dated 5/3/04 5:09:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, plnao@j... writes: > > > Hello all > > With help from Rob M and Howard, I have been able to undestand > more clearly the difference between citta and cetasika, and why there > is more emphasis here on citta being kusala or akusala rather than > the cetasika, but I'll pose another question that will help me > continue to work it out. > > The other day I was sitting reading when my wife (I'll call her > Naomi from now on) started to cook something. I heard a sizzling of > something in the frying pan - rupa of sound followed by citta of > hearing consciousness - and a moment later smelled garlic - rupa of > small followed by citta of smelling-consciousness. At some point in > there, maybe even before I smelled the garlic, I guess an akusala > cetasika arose, because the sound of frying usually means the smell > of garlic is on its way in this house - or at least when I cook it > almost always is. I say akusala because garlic makes me greedy and I > overeat. > > Now according to Abhidhamma in Daily Life, when we hear something > pleasant or unpleasant it is the result of a wholesome or unwholesome > deed we performed. I have trouble understanding why Naomi's decision > to cook something is the result of my deed (certainly asking her to > cook when she doesn't want to doesn't work, so I don't see how my > khamma could do it ! :) ) but I'll leave that aside for now. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: If I may, I'd like to address this now, as I think it is important. Now, to some extent, volitional actions of yours in the past may well be conditions affecting the actions of others in the present, because we are not in this "game" alone - there is interaction among mindstreams, with many namarupic streams "reflected", as it were, in each other. Our "world" is a shared one by means of mutual reflection as I see it. More centrally, however, it is not so much that your past intentions and actions influenced the actions of another, but rather that they influenced the character of dhammas that arise in your mindstream. The rupa that is the odor of the saut'eing of oil and garlic that I experience is pleasant, whereas the rupa that arises in your mindstream is unpleasant. As I understand it, that distinction is a kammically determined. Whether it is that the rupas themselves that differ or that the rupas are the same but the vedanic responses alone differ has been an issue previously discussed on the list. I believe the Abhidhammic position is that it is the rupas themselves, each with their own associated vedana, that differ. Whether this is so or not doesn't strike me as being critically important. What is important, I think, is that prior kamma is a condition for the vedanic flavor of what arises in a namarupic stream. --------------------------------------------------- > My point is that it seems to me that it is not the citta that is > akusala here, but my greedy consumption of food in the past that > conditions lobha, an akusala cetasika, to arise. The citta (hearing > consciousness) just happened because it was supper time. It seems to > me that it is the cetasika that arose conditioned by past cetasika > that is where the real understanding needs to arise. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Calling a volitionally active mindstate wholesome or unwholesome is purely a commentary on its cetasikas, and calling a resultant mindstate wholesome or unwholesome is purely a commentary on the "moral" status (wholesome or unwholesome) of the volitionally active mindstates that were conditions for the arising of the resultant state. This is purely derivative and definitional. ------------------------------------------------- > > I wonder why I am insisting on this? Maybe there is something in me > that wants to insist on citta (e.g hearing consciousness) being > random, and cetasika being more our responsibility. But I guess it's > good that I am really trying to get my understanding of > citta/cetasika sorted out. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Nothing is random, though not everything must have a significant kammic origin within one's own mindstream. Whatever arises does so due to "causes and conditions", but it is possible in some cases that none of the more immediate of these conditions be one's prior kamma. (Of course, everything that arises in ones mindstream is affected by the fact that one is operating in a particular realm of experience, the "earth plane" for us, and that is a (favorable) kammic resultant.) -------------------------------------------------- > > I am posting this without having reread Rob M and Howards's posts > first. My apologies for that. I will go and reread them now. > > Metta, > Phil > =========================== 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) 32715 From: Date: Mon May 3, 2004 6:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Do or not do something > Yes, the Abhidhamma can be useful. But, millions of people through the > centuries have gotten value out of vipassana teachings and practices and > made > sense of > it without any knowledge of the Abhidhamma.<< ..... S: There may be some confusion over terms here. For example, when you talk about the elements or about any other realities which are being experienced now, it is Abhidhamma whether or not we" "ve ever opened an Abhidhamma text or not or whether or not we use this word. I don't think we'd be having the discussions we do unless you had quite some familiarity with 'Abhidhamma'. Similarly, vipassana refers to the development of wisdom or insight. Without any understanding of what there can be insight into, it can’t develop. Let me know if you disagree. jack: I believe the suttas are self-contained. Nothing else including the Abhidhamma is needed. Vipassana to me refers to the realization that all phenomena is transient, non-self and unsatisfactory. Teachings addressed those issues and putting forth techniques to train one's mind to experience these realities is contained in the suttas. I don't think experiencing realites is exclusively Abhidhamma. .... > I want to be clear on this. I am not degrading the beliefs of anyone > else. > There are many useful and valid paths in Buddhism. .... S: I’m not sure about this. I think there’s really only the path of satipatthana, however we dress it up. jack: I think we disagree on what the path of satipatthana is. jack>Abbidhamma, in my > opinion, is > useful and valid. I don't question that the interpretation of Abhidhamma > of > some on this list (which I don't consider a mainstream Abhidhamma view) > is a > valid and useful path to them. .... S: I’m not sure what a ‘mainstream Abhidhamma view’ would be, but I think it would be helpful to look at any aspects which seem to conflict and to check texts or discuss further. This is what I do with Htoo, RobM and others who have studied a lot of Abhidhamma and sometimes have different interpretations. I learn a lot from these discussions. Another friend wrote to me off-list wondering if there was anything in what Nina or some others of us write on Abhidhamma that ‘can be or has been refuted by Abhidhamma devotees who follow other approaches’. The friend gave kamma as an example that seems to be given different interpretations and also wondered if it’s taught differently in the suttas and the Abhidhamma. I think these are very valid questions - it’s easy to read the suttas to check for ourselves. It’s not at all easy to read the Abhidhamma texts. In response, I suggested that anyone should raise any comments or quotes that seem to give a different interpretation or understanding and then we can discuss and look at relevant texts further. Disagreements can lead to useful reflections. I haven’t come across anything on kamma or any other aspect that seems to conflict, but would be glad to look at any examples.I didn't know what was meant. jack: Many people read the Abhidhamma and come up with different interpretations. I think that is evident on this list. The majority of these people who study the Abhidhamma in my opinion believe in having a meditation practice, to take one example. That makes your view whether correct or incorrect in the minority and not mainstream. You bring up Htoo and RobM. I consider their views as mainstream in that they are shared by most who study the Abhidhamma. This isn't to say they are either correct or incorrect. Jack 32716 From: Date: Mon May 3, 2004 7:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something jack> You are making dualistic categories when you ask "who or what does this > selecting or choosing." There is just selecting and choosing without an > "I" as > subject or doer. An example that is often used to illustrate this point > is that > there is not the see-er and the seen. There is just seeing which is a > process. ... S: Would you agree that there is seeing consciousness and there is visible object which is seen? Sarah, I believe that there is just seeing. (I don't deny that there is something out there apart from us that is seen.) Seeing consciousness and visible object is a dualistic and useful way to break up this non-dualistic process. Another way of saying it is that if we don't have an "I" sense, there is no more subject (I) or object (that which is seen), there is just seeing. The Buddha, in my opinion, broke unified processes into many different categories as teaching tools. For instance, in some teachings he broke a person into 5 aggregates. This was arbitrary in the sense that a person could be broken into other categories. The Buddha used these dualistic concepts to communicate and teach. Sometimes he did not use concepts. s: By ‘selecting’ and ‘choosing ‘, then, are you referring to thinking or to intention (cetana) which arises with all cittas? Jack:> Deciding and choosing are also processes. Anatta does not preclude > selecting > and choosing. .... S: Certainly not. I think you’re referring to kinds of thinking which may or may not lead to the desired result. For example, there may be thinking and deciding to turn right, but by conditions we may turn left anyway. In other words, such thinking and choosing is conditioned and so are the subsequent moments of thinking, seeing, hearing and so on as well. Any disagreement? jack: No disagreement if there is also room for self determination, i.e., choices to be made. One can make decisions out of unconditioned mind. .... > I'm getting a little frustrated trying to make myself understood on this > > point. What I tried to say in my earlier response below is there is no > idea of > watching in the "second phase." Just sitting there and observing doesn't > imply my > making any decision or having attachment to sitting and observing. > just let > my mind and body do what they will without my telling them to do > anything. > There is no "I" selecting anything. Awareness, watching, arises by > itself. .... S: I apologise for causing any frustration - it’s not my intention. I think you see awareness and watching as being synonyms whereas I don’t. Watching suggests there is some intention or wishing to have awareness or some idea that this activity will be conducive. Otherwise, what is the purpose of ‘sitting and observing’? jack: I do use awareness and watching as synonyms. When one is "just sitting" without defilements, one is aware naturally and without purpose. One has to have a lot of practice under one's belt in order to "just sit" without defilements. >At > those moments when I become attached to a thought and lose awareness, > the > decision to bring my attention back is made by itself. .... S: I think decisions are always ‘made’ or brought about by conditions. jack: I think there is a personal responsibility and ability to make decisions. Throughout the suttas, the Buddha is talking about decisions and training one's mind. .... > This is different from the "first phase." (I feel uncomfortable making > this > distinction between training and not training phases. I hope it makes my > view > more understandable.) In the first phase I might be consciously making > the > decision to note hardness, for example. This is part of the process of > training > my mind. In the second phase I am not consciously making this decision. .... S: I think you are implying that the conscious training to note various realities or focus on them is necessary for the second phase when they are ‘noted’ without any special wish or intention. I may be wrong here, but it sounds a little like the argument we often hear that there has to be a self to bring about a non-self or something to that effect. I would say, the path has to begin with detachment from the beginning so that any conditioned dhamma can be known (i.e not just primary rupas) from the outset. jack: Yes I am saying there has to be conscious training/practice in order to reach a stage where there is no special wish or intention. I am clear what your position is. After all this, I hope you are clear on my position. S: Apologies again if my posts leave you feeling frustrated and misunderstood, Jack. I assure you that you have plenty of good company here in that regard, no doubt reflecting my lack of skill in communication;-). I usually always understand your posts. My frustration has been having to repeat my postion several times in order that it be understood. I must not be saying it very well. jack 32717 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon May 3, 2004 1:43pm Subject: Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! Hello Ven. Samahita, All, I think there could be some confusion about Vesak. I also thought it was in May this year, but according to Accesstoinsight it is on June 2. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/uposatha.html metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Bhikkhu Samahita wrote: > > Friends: > > > Happy Vesak tomorrow 4/5 2004! > On this very day 2534 years ago on > the fulmoon night of May, the Gotama > Buddha was Perfectly Self-Awakened! > Such was this mighty & quite rare event! 32718 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon May 3, 2004 2:19pm Subject: Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! Dear Bhikkhu Samahita, Christine and all, Now, I have checked what Vesak day means at the site Christine linked. In the calendar Vesak day is today 3.5.04. According to accesstoinsight Vesak day is The Buddha's birthday, day of enlightenment and day of Mahaparinibbana. It is full moon day of the second month in the calendar. According to Astrology, on 17 April the sun goes into Aries which is the first zodiac sign. Full moon day around that is the first month of the calendar. In the second month when the moon is full, it means that the sun is directly opposite to the moon. In that month when the moon is full it arises in parallel with nakkhatta called Visakha. Whether the year is a leap year or not, The Buddha birth day is always the same. But when there has to be corrected an extra month is added between 3rd and 4th month and this causes the day of The First Buddha Discourse moves a month away from Birth Day. The web site that Christine linked definitely shows Vesak is 2.6.04. It must be a wrong statement. With Metta, Htoo Naing PS: It is not 4th May but 3rd May today. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Ven. Samahita, All, > > I think there could be some confusion about Vesak. I also thought > it was in May this year, but according to Accesstoinsight it is on > June 2. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/uposatha.html > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Bhikkhu Samahita > wrote: > > > > Friends: > > > > > > Happy Vesak tomorrow 4/5 2004! > > On this very day 2534 years ago on > > the fulmoon night of May, the Gotama > > Buddha was Perfectly Self-Awakened! > > Such was this mighty & quite rare event! 32719 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon May 3, 2004 2:47pm Subject: Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: Dear Bhikkhu Samahita, Christine and all, > > Now, I have checked what Vesak day means at the site Christine linked. > > In the calendar Vesak day is today 3.5.04. > > According to accesstoinsight Vesak day is The Buddha's birthday, day > of enlightenment and day of Mahaparinibbana. > > It is full moon day of the second month in the calendar. > > According to Astrology, on 17 April the sun goes into Aries which is > the first zodiac sign. > > Full moon day around that is the first month of the calendar. In the > second month when the moon is full, it means that the sun is directly > opposite to the moon. In that month when the moon is full it arises > in parallel with nakkhatta called Visakha. Whether the year is a leap > year or not, The Buddha birth day is always the same. But when there > has to be corrected an extra month is added between 3rd and 4th month > and this causes the day of The First Buddha Discourse moves a month > away from Birth Day. > > The web site that Christine linked definitely shows Vesak is 2.6.04. > It must be a wrong statement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear All, 2.6.04 is Mahasamaya day. It is the day on which Mahasamaya Sutta was preached. Vesak day is today May the 3rd 2004 Monday. The day of The First Buddha Discourse will be on 31st July 2004 Saturday instead of 1st july 2004 Thursday because of leap year, when an extra month is added between the 3rd month and 4th month of the routine calendar months. With Metta, Htoo Naing PS: I have some knowledge of orbits of planets and astrology. The Buddha was born in the 2nd zodiac sign Taurus. When he was born, the moon was in the 8th house that is Scorpio. When the moon was in the Scorpio, the zenith was Leo the 4th zodiac sign. In that Leo, there is a stellar sign called Visakha. It can now be seen in the unobstructed sky. So today is Vesak day. 2nd June is Mahasamaya day. 1st July becomes null day while 31st July becomes the Day of The First Buddha Discourse. The statement 2.6.04 is Vesak day at the accesstoinsight must be a mistake. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > With Metta, > > Htoo Naing > > PS: It is not 4th May but 3rd May today. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 32720 From: Date: Mon May 3, 2004 3:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! Hi, Htoo, Jon and Sarah - In a message dated 5/3/2004 5:47:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: > PS: I have some knowledge of orbits of planets and > astrology. The > Buddha was born in the 2nd zodiac sign Taurus. ============================= Hey, Jon, that's good news for you and me! :-)) Is Sarah a Taurean also? [I don't follow this astrology stuff.] With astronomical metta, Howard 32721 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon May 3, 2004 3:42pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! Dear All, Astrology is not to follow. But from planetary calendars are calculated and leap years are made. And memory of our Great Teacher can be celebrated depending on calendar. This memory adds extra kusala. There is 365 days in a year. But to be exact, it is more than 365 days but less than 366 days. Lunar calendars are used by calculating the orbit of moon around the earth. It is roughly round about 27 day to 30 days. So leap years have to made after some 30 days were lept. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Htoo, Jon and Sarah - > > In a message dated 5/3/2004 5:47:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: > > > PS: I have some knowledge of orbits of planets and > > astrology. The > > Buddha was born in the 2nd zodiac sign Taurus. > ============================= > Hey, Jon, that's good news for you and me! :-)) Is Sarah a Taurean also? [I don't follow this astrology stuff.] > > With astronomical metta, > Howard 32722 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon May 3, 2004 3:52pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! Is it 3rd May 2004 Monday Dear All, As Buddhists, all Buddhists should have known when The Buddha was born, when He was enlightened, and when he did mahaparinibbana. 4th May is the first waning day and it is not Vesak day. 2nd June 2004 which is stated as Vesak day at accesstoinsight is a mistake. 2nd June 2004 is Mahasamaya day and it is not Vesak day. It is the day when Mahasamaya Sutta was preached. Some time people follow wrong track because of their interest or likeness or craving or clinging. May all being be free from suffering and see real things as real on The Buddha Day 3rd May 2004 Monday. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Dear All, > > Astrology is not to follow. But from planetary calendars are > calculated and leap years are made. And memory of our Great Teacher > can be celebrated depending on calendar. This memory adds extra > kusala. > > There is 365 days in a year. But to be exact, it is more than 365 > days but less than 366 days. > > Lunar calendars are used by calculating the orbit of moon around the > earth. It is roughly round about 27 day to 30 days. So leap years > have to made after some 30 days were lept. > > With Metta, > > Htoo Naing 32723 From: Date: Mon May 3, 2004 4:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Sarah, What is dukkha? I would say dukkha is desire. As such the second noble truth is that suffering is the cause of suffering and this is equivalent to saying desire is the cause of desire. How can desire be kamma result? Larry 32724 From: Date: Mon May 3, 2004 3:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/3/04 7:32:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Sarah, > > What is dukkha? I would say dukkha is desire. As such the second noble > truth is that suffering is the cause of suffering and this is equivalent > to saying desire is the cause of desire. How can desire be kamma result? > > Larry > > ========================== As I see it, dukkha isn't desire. In the "person", dukkha is mental pain or suffering, and it is has desire as condition. With regard to dhammas, dukkha is their unsatisfactoriness - their inability to be sources of satisfaction. That is, dhammas do not satisfy desires, or at least not for long, resulting in dukkha in the first (personal) sense. With the ending of desire comes the ending of dukkha in both senses. 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) 32725 From: Date: Mon May 3, 2004 9:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Howard, If dukkha is mental unpleasant feeling how does that fit into dependent arising? Larry 32726 From: robmoult Date: Mon May 3, 2004 9:10pm Subject: Re: Frying pan sound and citta/cetasika Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Philip" wrote: > The other day I was sitting reading when my wife (I'll call her > Naomi from now on) started to cook something. I heard a sizzling of > something in the frying pan - rupa of sound followed by citta of > hearing consciousness - and a moment later smelled garlic - rupa of > small followed by citta of smelling-consciousness. At some point in > there, maybe even before I smelled the garlic, I guess an akusala > cetasika arose, because the sound of frying usually means the smell > of garlic is on its way in this house - or at least when I cook it > almost always is. I say akusala because garlic makes me greedy and I > overeat. > > Now according to Abhidhamma in Daily Life, when we hear something > pleasant or unpleasant it is the result of a wholesome or unwholesome > deed we performed. I have trouble understanding why Naomi's decision > to cook something is the result of my deed (certainly asking her to > cook when she doesn't want to doesn't work, so I don't see how my > khamma could do it ! :) ) but I'll leave that aside for now. > My point is that it seems to me that it is not the citta that is > akusala here, but my greedy consumption of food in the past that > conditions lobha, an akusala cetasika, to arise. The citta (hearing > consciousness) just happened because it was supper time. It seems to > me that it is the cetasika that arose conditioned by past cetasika > that is where the real understanding needs to arise. > > I wonder why I am insisting on this? Maybe there is something in me > that wants to insist on citta (e.g hearing consciousness) being > random, and cetasika being more our responsibility. But I guess it's > good that I am really trying to get my understanding of > citta/cetasika sorted out. ===== Let us go through this event and analyze what happened from an Abhidhamma perspective (in this sequence, I am using the term "billionth of a second" to represent the duration of a citta; in reality it is much faster than this). 1. A sound rupa (the amount of sound that might fit into seventeen billionths of a second) impinged upon the ear door. At this moment, the mind was in a bhavanga mental state. 2. A billionth of a second later, the bhavanga mental state was disturbed by this impingement. 3. A billionth of a second later, the flow of bhavanga mental states ended. 4. A billionth of a second later, the mind takes the sound rupa as its object. This is the adverting mental state. It is functional (kiriya); not producing kamma and not the result of kamma. At this point the sound has been taken as the object of the mental state but "hearing" has not taken place. 5. When the adverting mental state falls away, one of two possible "ear-consciousness" mental states will arise. If the sound rupa is inherently undesireable (anittha) then an ear-consciousness mental state which is the kammic result of past akusala kamma will arise (akusala vipaka). If the sound rupa is inherently desirable- neutral (itthamajjhatta) or if the sound rupa is inherently extremely desirable (ati-ittha) then an ear-consciousness mental state which is the kammic result of past kusala kamma will arise (kusala vipaka). Note that the "inherent quality" of the rupa is distinct from the mind's reaction to that rupa. I suspect that the sound rupa in question was inherently desirable-neutral and therefore a kusala vipaka ear-consciousness mental state will arise. If the sound rupa had come from fingernails on a blackboard, I suspect that the sound rupa would have been anittha. This ear-consciousness mental state performs the function of hearing. 6. The falling away of the kusala vipaka ear-consciousness mental state is a condition for the arising of a kusala receiving mental state. The falling away of the kusala receiving mental state is a condition for the arising of a kusala investigating mental state. In fact, there are two kusala investigating mental states, one for rupas that are inherently desirable-neutral (itthamajjhatta) and one for rupas that are inherently extremely desirable (ati-ittha). To keep this post short, I am skipping the details of these mental states. Please note that even though these mental states are called "kusala", this does not mean that they are wholesome themselves; they are the result of past wholesome actions. 7. The falling away of the investigating mental state is a condition for the arising of a determining mental state. It is functional (kiriya); not producing kamma and not the result of kamma. 8. The falling away of the determining mental state is one of the conditions supporting the arising of javana mental states (the mental states which create kamma). There is only one type of determining mental state but there are twenty kinds of javana mental states and each kind has multiple varieties. So which javana will arise? It depends on accumulations. Since you have not yet reached the third stage of sainthood (Anagami), you still have an accumulation of being attached to sensory data (this type of accumulation is called a defilement). This type of defilement will cause a mental state rooted in attachment to arise. Alternatively, conditions may be conducive for a mental state rooted in delusion associated with restlessness to arise. Accumulations will also act as conditions for the strength of the volition associated with the javana mental state (and thereby the strength of the kamma created). 9. The seven javana mental states will be followed by two registration mental sates. 10. After the ear-door process, there will be a few bhavanga mental states followed by a mind-door process taking the same rupa as object. 11. After an ear-door process and its associated mind-door process, the mind may go and deal with other sense doors before coming back and grabbing another sound from the ear-door. 12. There is then a process of grasping the "sound as a whole" (samudayagahika) involving many mind-door processes. This process "glues together" many sound rupas (each sound rupa is seventeen billionths of a second) into what I will call a "whole sound". In your case, it is a "sizzle sound". There is then a process of grasping the "whole sound" (vatthugahika), grasping the name (namagahika) and recognizing the name (namasallakkhana). At this point, there is a name of "sizzle sound" in your mind. 13. So far, the kamma created by these mental processes is quite weak. We now reach the stage of "mental proliferation". This is when we associate the current "sizzle sound" with past "sizzle sounds". This is where the serious kamma is created because the level of attachment, both to the present and the past, is very great. You remember past meals that started with that sizzling sounds and you may even start salivating! Here is how the Buddha described it in the Honeyball Sutta (MN18): "What one names, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one mentally proliferates. Based on what a person mentally proliferates, the perceptions and categories of mental proliferation assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future rupas cognizable via the ear." 14. A similar sequence occurs when the smell of garlic presents itself at the nose door. Phil, does this make sense or does it confuse further? Metta, Rob M :-) 32727 From: Date: Mon May 3, 2004 6:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/4/04 12:02:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > If dukkha is mental unpleasant feeling how does that fit into dependent > arising? > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: It comes at the end. See for example the synoptic formulation in SamyuttaNikaya XII.2 (Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta/Analysis of Dependent Co-arising): ********************************************************* And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-& -form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering. ******************************************** In any case, it appears to me that there is little question that the primary senses of 'dukkha' are that of being unsatisfied, this ranging from mild dissatisfaction to extreme emotional distress, for sentient beings, and in being unsatisfying for dhammas. This is made clear I think in the discussion of the four noble truths incorporated in the PTS dictionary's entry on dukkha as follows: "The first of the four gives certain universally recognised cases of it, & then sums them up in short. The five groups (of physical & mental qualities which make an individual) are accompanied by ill so far as those groups are fraught with asavas and grasping. (Panc' upadanakkhandha pi dukkha; cp. S III.47). The second Sacca gives the cause of this dukkha (see Tanha). The third enjoins the removal of this tanha. And the fourth shows the way, or method, of doing so (see Magga)." ************************************************** > > 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) 32728 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon May 3, 2004 10:08pm Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Rob, > Thank you for your very complete answer to my post. I appreciate all > your points, even those I have a different view about, and I am sorry > for repyling so many days later. Likewise, I appreciate your points too and the effort you put into replying. However, just thinking about responding to all your points is making me feel apprehensive :-(, and so I have decided to cop out. No, just kidding ;-). But I think it is better that we start from the beginning and go slowly, because I think I am being caught in a trap and we are both in a way, missing the point. I think there is no need to place `study' against `formal practice'. If we remember from the perspective of development of panna, that the path involves the relationship between pariyatti (intellectual understanding), patipatti (practice or satipatthana) and pativedha (realization), then placing `study' and `practice' against each other, is I think not right. I could start discussing what is meant by `patipatti' or practice, keeping in mind that your idea of it is different to mine. However as you state below: > > :-) I too have such thoughts that those who stick around dsg must > > have some degree of `right view'. Though I believe there are others > > who leave the group thinking that most of us have the opposite. > > I guess that goes to the point that we can't put too much stock in > views! : ) I think we have a different understanding also of what pariyatti means. And because of this difference, I think only one (or neither) of us can be said to be following the Teachings correctly. So I think we should carefully discuss this, so that any wrong understanding can be corrected. What do you think? And here I would like to invite other members to join in. So what is Pariyatti? From the Nyanatiloka Dictionary: pariyatti: 'learning the doctrine', the 'wording of the doctrine'. In the 'progress of the disciple' (q.v.), 3 stages may be distinguished: theory, practice, realization, i.e. (1) learning the wording of the doctrine (pariyatti), (2) practising it (patipatti), (3) penetrating it (pativedha) and realising its goal. (App.). The above does not say much. But what do you think? I think it refers to a level of understanding, that which at the very least appreciates the meaning of the words and the general thrust of the Teachings. This contrasts with not understanding and any appreciation at all, but instead being attracted to other philosophies and teachings. And this also the difference between Right and Wrong View. Hope you don't mind that I didn't respond point by point to your post which I think you must have put much thought into and taken the time to write. :-) Metta, Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > Hi Sukin. > Thank you for your very complete answer to my post. I appreciate all > your points, even those I have a different view about, and I am sorry > for repyling so many days later. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" > wrote: 32729 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon May 3, 2004 10:17pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Question Still Remains/Cooran Hi Sarah (and Rob M), Thanks for this message, which you began by suggesting topics for discussion at Cooran: ------------- > > On this note you may prompt Chris to talk more about when she bumped her knee. This was one of the first topics during our recent discussions in Bangkok. We tend to think that when we bump a knee on a table that the discomfort and anguish is a lot of akusala vipaka (unfortunate result of kamma). K.Sujin gave a good response. She said to `take all the names out, then it's realities'. ------------- Christine's trips to Bangkok certainly boost the quality of our discussions. I forgot to prompt her about the knee incident and, would you believe it, she hadn't written down her usual page of memory joggers. ---------- S: > In other words, when we think about knee and pain and coffee table and so on, these are terms and concepts which mask the realities. ------------------ I understand you to be saying; if, at the intellectual level, concepts aren't differentiated from realities, then, at the ultimate level, realities will not be known for what they are. That prompts me to ask, "What is meant by, `at the intellectual level?'" I think you and Nina would maintain that the intellectual level is not solely at the mind door with concepts as objects. There are a lot of sense-door and mind-door processes intermingled. Who knows, perhaps some of them have a little direct understanding of the very dhammas that are being conceptualised. ------------------- S: > In truth there are the briefest moments of akusala vipaka through the body sense, when hardness, heat or motion are experienced with unpleasant (bodily) feeling. Subsequently in the sense and mind door processes there is bound to be aversion and other unwholesome mental factors including unpleasant mental feeling accompanying the javana cittas over and over again . One moment of akusala vipaka and then so many moments of akusala cittas. In between these processes there are also bound to be other sense door processes when visible objects, sounds and so on are experienced as well. ------------ I think you are saying that our intellectual understanding should not overreach itself. Better to have a helpful, general idea than a misleading, specific asumption. ------------- S: > As I understand, papa~nca (proliferation or `diffuseness') extends to all sixfold sense-impressions through all doorways. In just the same way the vipallaasa (perversions) of sa~n~naa and citta vipallasa arise with each akusala citta (including the 5 sense- doors)- only eradicated by the arahant. We also read in the texts about visible object craving (ruupata.nhaa) being `craving in respect of a visible datum' and so on for the other sense objects. Too much speculation is not very helpful though, I find. > ------------ Thanks for that; there is obviously a lot of important activity at the sense-doors -- not just at the conceptualising mind-door. Thanks, also, for retyping your favourite quote about improper visitors in the eye-door process (partly snipped): --------------------- > "And as it is improper for a visitor who has entered another's house to ask for something, to give orders, when the owners of the home sit in silence, so lusting or hating or becoming deluded in the eye door which is the home of adverting, etc. is improper when adverting, etc. do not lust or hate or become deluded. Thus should `clear understanding through non-delusion' be understood by way of `visiting'." > -------------- So, even adverting consciousness can be trained. By conditions, of course. --------------- > I also agree with your comments on the description of visible objects (and sounds) and also find it more helpful just to describe them as `just that which appears through the eyes', > -------------- I have only quickly caught up with the weekend's posts: it seems Rob M has had a change of heart. (Or whoever it was started that `dot of light' rumour :-) ) ------------- S: > I also thought your comments on the `Illusion of Control' were pretty good ------------------------- Thank you, I won't snip that :-) It made me think; after spending so much time nutting-out posts for dsg, why should I double up with discussion papers for Cooran? So, I followed your advice and presented the `Illusion of Control' post. I think I got away with it. -------------------- S: > Look forward to the reports. ----------- So do I. The extra day made the weekend even better than usual. Sometimes, my insistence that everyone should agree with me got a little taxing, but the others were very tolerant. (That's Buddhists for you.) I think we all feel enlightened, but not quite to the extent advertised :-) Kind regards, Ken H 32730 From: Date: Mon May 3, 2004 6:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi again, Larry - In a message dated 5/4/04 12:02:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > If dukkha is mental unpleasant feeling how does that fit into dependent > arising? > > Larry > =========================== Please see the following sutta for an explanation of dukkha from the affective perspective. With metta, Howard ****************************************************************************** ********** Samyutta Nikaya XXXVI.6 Sallatha Sutta The Dart Translated from the Pali by Nyanaponika Thera. For free distribution only. Read an alternate translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu From Contemplation of Feeling: The Discourse-grouping on the Feelings (WH 303), translated from the Pali by Nyanaponika Thera (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1983). Copyright ©1983 Buddhist Publication Society. Used with permission. "An untaught worldling, O monks, experiences pleasant feelings, he experiences painful feelings and he experiences neutral feelings. A well-taught noble disciple likewise experiences pleasant, painful and neutral feelings. Now what is the distinction, the diversity, the difference that exists herein between a well-taught noble disciple and an untaught worldling? "When an untaught worldling is touched by a painful (bodily) feeling, he worries and grieves, he laments, beats his breast, weeps and is distraught. He thus experiences two kinds of feelings, a bodily and a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart and, following the first piercing, he is hit by a second dart. So that person will experience feelings caused by two darts. It is similar with an untaught worldling: when touched by a painful (bodily) feeling, he worries and grieves, he laments, beats his breast, weeps and is distraught. So he experiences two kinds of feeling: a bodily and a mental feeling. "Having been touched by that painful feeling, he resists (and resents) it. Then in him who so resists (and resents) that painful feeling, an underlying tendency of resistance against that painful feeling comes to underlie (his mind). Under the impact of that painful feeling he then proceeds to enjoy sensual happiness. And why does he do so? An untaught worldling, O monks, does not know of any other escape from painful feelings except the enjoyment of sensual happiness. Then in him who enjoys sensual happiness, an underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feelings comes to underlie (his mind). He does not know, according to facts, the arising and ending of these feelings, nor the gratification, the danger and the escape, connected with these feelings. In him who lacks that knowledge, an underlying tendency to ignorance as to neutral feelings comes to underlie (his mind). When he experiences a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling or a neutral feeling, he feels it as one fettered by it. Such a one, O monks, is called an untaught worldling who is fettered by birth, by old age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is fettered by suffering, this I declare. "But in the case of a well-taught noble disciple, O monks, when he is touched by a painful feeling, he will not worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. It is one kind of feeling he experiences, a bodily one, but not a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart, but was not hit by a second dart following the first one. So this person experiences feelings caused by a single dart only. It is similar with a well-taught noble disciple: when touched by a painful feeling, he will no worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. He experiences one single feeling, a bodily one. "Having been touched by that painful feeling, he does not resist (and resent) it. Hence, in him no underlying tendency of resistance against that painful feeling comes to underlie (his mind). Under the impact of that painful feeling he does not proceed to enjoy sensual happiness. And why not? As a well-taught noble disciple he knows of an escape from painful feelings other than by enjoying sensual happiness. Then in him who does not proceed to enjoy sensual happiness, no underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feelings comes to underlie (his mind). He knows, according to facts, the arising and ending of those feelings, and the gratification, the danger and the escape connected with these feelings. In him who knows thus, no underlying tendency to ignorance as to neutral feelings comes to underlie (his mind). When he experiences a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling or a neutral feeling, he feels it as one who is not fettered by it. Such a one, O monks, is called a well-taught noble disciple who is not fettered by birth, by old age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is not fettered to suffering, this I declare. "This, O monks, is the distinction, the diversity, the difference that exists between a well-taught noble disciple and an untaught worldling." Revised: Sun 19-Oct-2003 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn36-006a.html /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) 32731 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 4, 2004 2:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: <...> >To > summarize, so that we are both on the same page: The goal of > Buddhism is enlightenment, not knowing namas and rupas. Simply > understanding namas from rupas in everyday life is still mundane > knowledge. ... S: Yes. Mundane right knowledge/view which leads to supramundane right knowledge. See Mahaacattaariisaka Sutta, MN117 which describes right view with taints and right view which is noble and taintless. The satipatthana Sutta is also discussing the development of mundane knowledge and awareness and the namas and rupas to be known. ..... >Knowing namas and rupas as anatta won't occur until > enlightenment, which is of a supramundane consciousness. .... S: On the contrary, there will be no supramundane consciousness unless namas and rupas are clearly known as anatta first over and over again with more and more refined right view. By the time supramundane consciousness arises, the tendency to wrong view of self has been completely worn away. Chachakka Sutta, MN148, ~Naa.namoli & Bodhi transl: “...I shall teach you the Dhamma that is good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end......... that is the six sets of six..... “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... six classes of feeling....six classes of craving....” The six sixes are then explained in detail as anatta to be understood. Then the way leading to the cessation of self-view and underlying tendencies (anusaya) is shown before these are eradicated and final knowledge and enlightenment occurs. ... > Additionally, this supramundane consciousness won't occur until the > defilements are eradicated. Am I the only one to see the necessity > for meditation practice to achieve this goal? (Don't answer that…I > already know your answer! ;-)) One must purify the mind and this > cannot be done (`that well'…I hate to give you even an inch! ;-)) in > this midst of defilements. .... S: No self to do it and nothing to be done. Right view (pa~n~naa) performs its task directly with the assistance of awareness which is aware of the distinct characteristics of different dhammas. Even defilements are anatta, to be seen with understanding and detachment for what they are. .... >It would be like trying to dry your > clothes in a rainstorm, it just can't be done. .... S: When pa~n~naa arises there is no doubt or concern about the rain storm. There are bound to be doubts and running for cover or looking for a short cut at other times because that’s how it’s always been. .... >It is incorrect to > say that meditation practice should not be practiced because of the > idea of self because even the knowing of namas and rupas in the > present moment has the idea of self present! .... S: We may have different understandings of what constitutes ‘meditation practice’ or how anything is ‘practiced’, that’s all. Any time there is the idea of self it (the erroneous thinking at that moment) can be understood too, regardless of the 'activity' at the time. It’s another conditioned dhamma to be known. In the Chachakka Sutta, the emphasis is just on the realities to be understood - no concern about getting out of the rain storm or finding a special place or occasion first. If there is the knowing of a nama or rupa now as it appears (not watching...), then there is no idea of self present at that moment of right view. The next moment there may again be attachment or clinging to self view. Gradually, right view can distinguish these different wholesome and unwholesome moments, even when we seem to be getting soaked. ..... >Your approach reminds > me of the Zen story ... S: I enjoyed the story and also your discussion with Philip;-). Metta, Sarah ==== 32732 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 4, 2004 2:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! Hi Howard, --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hey, Jon, that's good news for you and me! :-)) Is Sarah a Taurean > also? [I don't follow this astrology stuff.] ... S: Yes! James too, I believe;-). Best wishes in advance, James and many thanks for the good wishes I received from a few friends on and off-list. By the way, the birthday dana I gave for bhikkhus that Nina recalled so clearly was 27 years ago! Her memory is far better than mine;-). ... > > With astronomical metta, .... S: ;-) I'm a little curious about the discrepancy over the 3rd and 4th for Vesak and wonder if it may be related to different time zones, Htoo? Metta, Sarah ===== 32733 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue May 4, 2004 2:54am Subject: [dsg] Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! Dear Sarah, May be. May well be. Buddha day is in the Southern Island. If time zone difference is more than 12 hours it may be significant. But I just looked at the Myanmar Calendar whose time zone is quite close to Nipal where The Buddha was born. Actually 100 % full moon is at a specific time around the calendar day of full moon day. If you see full moon on the calendar full moon day it may not be as that of 1st waning day if 100 % full takes place in the early hours like 00.00 hours to 6.00 hours. But 2004 calendar says 3rd May 2004 is full moon day, 2nd June is full moon day, 1st July is full moon day, 31st July is full moon day and so on. Time zone will only says the accurate state of fullness of the moon but not the calendar. I am a bit confused while such cases happened. First Bhikkhu Samahita with his Great Good Wish preached very attractive Dhamma with only dated 4th May 2004 Happy Wesak day. Second accesstoinsight which is my favourite site states 2nd June is Vesak day. I did not know Vesak day. At first, I thought 2 years ago it meant to be the full moon day of The First Buddha Discourse. But accesstoinsight states that Vesak day is The Buddha birthday, Enlightened day, and Mahaparinibbana day. Then 3rd May cannot be wrong. Soon after I saw Vesak 4/5/2004 I checked many calendars and they all say 3rd May. Again someone says at another discussion group that 2nd June is Thai Vesakha day. I do not know Visakha day. If it is the Enlightened day when Visakha offered food to The Live Buddha then 3rd May 2004 must be Visakha day. Just wondering. With Metta, Htoo Naing PS: 2nd June is Mahasamaya day when Mahasamaya Sutta was preached. If it is said that Visakha day it may be right. But The Enlighten day is on the full moon day when Visakha Nakkhatta ( constellation of stars ) sign in the sky at zenith which lies in the Leo. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Howard, > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > > Hey, Jon, that's good news for you and me! :-)) Is Sarah a Taurean > > also? [I don't follow this astrology stuff.] > ... > S: Yes! James too, I believe;-). Best wishes in advance, James and many > thanks for the good wishes I received from a few friends on and off- list. > > By the way, the birthday dana I gave for bhikkhus that Nina recalled so > clearly was 27 years ago! Her memory is far better than mine;-). > ... > > > > With astronomical metta, > .... > S: ;-) I'm a little curious about the discrepancy over the 3rd and 4th for > Vesak and wonder if it may be related to different time zones, Htoo? > > Metta, > > Sarah > ===== > > > 32734 From: Andrew Date: Tue May 4, 2004 3:37am Subject: Cooran Thanks Hello everyone at DSG A very useful weekend of discussion was had by myself, Christine, Steve (Bodhi2500), Reg, Ken H and some other Dhamma friends who were able to stop by briefly. Christine provided me with a copy of Nina's Conditions book donated by Betty. I thank Betty for her generosity and Nina for her work. I am already studying the book. May panna arise! We briefly reflected upon the impact of the internet on our Dhamma study - so different to the past when materials were not readily available. DSG itself is now a precious resource and place of good companionship. Thank you Jon and Sarah for moderating the list and sharing your insight so generously. Right Understanding was a major theme of the weekend's discussions but we also looked more closely at Stream-entry. My thoughts are still "churning" and I hope to write some more posts later with the benefit of time. In the interim, I think Christine may have jotted down some queries that arose in the discussions that list members may like to consider - I may be wrong there, though. To satisfy Sarah, I should point out that the frogs were few but Christine did have an encounter with a snake. And Ken H nearly froze when the temperature dropped to about 8 degrees centigrade overnight. These paramattha dhammas can be quite severe at times! My best wishes to all Andrew 32735 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue May 4, 2004 4:02am Subject: Re: Cooran Thanks Hello everyone, Many thanks to Andrew and Sandra for their generosity in inviting the Dhamma Discussion group to stay on their beautiful property, in various sheds, for their preparations that make us so comfortable, and for their companionship that makes us feel so welcome and supported. The Cooran meeting was the usual delightful experience. King Parrots raided the nectar from the flowering shrub next to the Discussion area, Paper Wasps built a nest in the Down Pipe, Whip birds called to each other down in the gully, Swamp Hens called in the evening when we were sitting around the camp-fire, and a quite confused Crow started caw-ing at two o'clock in the morning. Wending my way down for a shower one night, I stopped to let what (I hope) was a tree snake or small python undulate across the road in front of me. Perhaps that was what the crow was caw-ing about a few hours later. I had the honour of sharing the shed with the cats - one of whom is equivalent to a 90 year old human in age. She did two or three patrols up the stairs to the upper floor and round its perimeter - sounding like a soldier in army boots. In the darkness, with the sound of a rising westerly wind in the trees, and odd bumps in the night, I suppose I should have noted 'sound' 'sound' - instead, I was noting 'not Count Yorga', 'not Count Yorga'. There were a few questions - the oldies but goodies - Someone wondered how people can agree that there is no control over ultimate realities, but still think that there is control over concepts. e.g. "I am doing this", "You are doing that", and explained again how formal meditation is wrong view of a self that can sit and direct attention, a ritualised behaviour showing a belief in control. Yet others responded with the question, "If one gives up formal sitting and walking meditation to focus on Dhamma Study, isn't that the same type of mind state ... maybe with extra conceit added of "now I'm on the right track." One of us wondered, "Is Right View a synonym for Panna in ALL cases? What kind of Right View arises outside the Buddha's dispensation? e.g. in Jhana practitioners before the Buddha? There was a sidetrack into discussing whether people who had never heard of the Dhamma could realise the annata-ness of everything. A couple of people quoted books or conversations where individuals had suddenly lost all sense of self permanently and couldn't find anyone to explain within their own religious tradition what it meant. One lady was told by a Catholic priest "What you are telling me has happened to you is theologically impossible!". Some need information on where to find references: (i) When discussing the 'dispelling of three things' the term "Immobility of Mind" was mentioned. What does this mean? (ii) Has the proximate cause of Right Understanding been previously discussed? Can anyone point us to the past posts? (iii) According to the sutta discussing the 'factors for Stream Entry' - what is a Superior Person? (iv) Does Right View Affected By Taints mean Satipatthana? (hope that question is phrased correctly) There was some debate on how to have a Dhamma discussion with people of widely different levels of understanding. Do the 'just about perfected ones' :-) need to keep telling the 'sad examples to others' :-) that they have 'wrong understanding'? Shouldn't those who understand on 'less than a mundane level' be allowed to have a whole conversation, or present a paper, without someone pointing out their ignorance, or reducing everything to paramattha dhammas? What do you reckon, KenH? :-) Is a surfboard just a concept? All answers, question, comments will be very welcome. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" 32736 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue May 4, 2004 4:36am Subject: ** Nina - Ajahn Jose, Bkk, and dogs was(Re: to Christine) Dear Nina, Achaan Jose had his surgical operation on Monday 3rd May at John James Memorial Private Hospital in Canberra. Perhaps Suan will know more? I had an email from Ajahn Jose stating that he had enjoyed his most recent trip to Bangkok and would say more later. My dog was overjoyed to see me when I returned from Thailand - but certainly didn't appreciate returning to the kennels when I went to Cooran for a three day weekend. I may consider taking him next time ... all those cats! I have included a post below that I previously posted elsewhere on the Bangkok trip - KenH was correct, I didn't keep any notes this time. It is probably because I usually stay by myself out at the Mariott near the Foundation. When I am by myself, I consider and reflect on what I've heard, and write notes. This time I was at the Holiday Inn and five other Dhamma friends were staying there and for half the time, Azita and I shared a room - so discussions took the place of writing. Memory is such a fleeting thing, and when I got home I found I could recall very little of the discussions, mostly just sense impressions. ================================ THE POST: "On the last evening I was in Bangkok, watching the red sun set behind the surrounding buildings, I was conscious of a yearning that there be many more such nights. I'm always more conscious of such Lobha (attachment) [and its synonyms raga (lust, greed) tanha (craving) upaadaana (intensified craving, clinging), covetousness (abhijja)] when I'm in Thailand. It's not so much Thailand itself - although some of the experiences I have there, I don't have at home - e.g. standing on a street at 5.30 a.m. (perspiring in the heat) to watch and wait for monks on alms round. At this time, during Songkran, many young men still at school ordain for short periods. Drifts of six or eight with senior monks at head and tail came past and were invited (by a wei) to approach for alms. All had heads shaven and wore 'the banner of the arahants' with dignity. After they had all received alms from our group they stood in line, chanted in Pali, and departed. The occasional adult monk came past and the same procedure occurred (with much shorter chanting). Being included (caught up in) Thai festivals is another experience. Songkran Festival April 12-15, is the traditional Thai New Year (one of three New Years celebrated in Thailand). This is the time for Thais to pay homage to Buddha images, clean their houses, and sprinkle water on their elders in a show of respect. Anyone who ventures out on the streets is likely to get a thorough dousing of water, which can be quite welcome at the peak of the hot season. Buses, tuk-tuks, taxis, and any living creature was fair game. Mostly just good fun. But it has its down- side - I've since read news reports that because of drink driving, and the difficulty of controlling a motorcycle at speed when doused with buckets of water and white paste from roaming pickup trucks filled with revellers, a total of 579 people were killed throughout Thailand, and 40,000 were injured during those four days. One person coming back to the Hotel summed it up with 'Man, it's war out there!'. Makes New Years Eve in Oz seem quite tame. Still - the worst that happened to us was that we had to cross a road a couple of times when we saw a footpath suspiciously wet at the mouth of a Soi; and when a mob of eight year olds with water pistols looked ready to pounce on me, a twelve year old with the world's biggest water gun leapt out and deluged them amid shrieks and screams and a grateful smile and 'thank-you' from the farang. There were all the usual coarse attachments - to the flavours, smells (mostly), sights and sounds unique to Bangkok, and to being away from the daily grind and dynamics of the workplace - but there was also the subtle clinging to the contentment of discussing dhamma with those who understand the world in the same way. There was an attachment to feeling calm and supported; to the arising of mindfulness (sati) and the wishing for more. There was the wish that led to proliferations about 'somehow' finding a way to live and work in any place where I could continue to receive teaching and not have to go back to relying on occasional discussions, my own understandings and practice, and the internet. There was even awareness of yearning for a cool shower, soft towels, and a comfortable bed after being out in the 39C heat of Bangkok, and the wishing I had bought my mother just that silk cushion cover that a friend was displaying. Lobha appears in many and varied forms. Attachment and its synonyms like clinging, craving, desire, lust, greed, and covetousness occurs much more often than I used to realise. It doesn't arise with every mind moment but certainly with lots of them, and accumulates. We are told that so long as there is clinging there will be birth, old age, sickness and death. Desire is the second noble Truth, the origin of dukkha. In MN 141.21, it says: "And what, friends, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering? It is craving, which brings renewal of being, is accompanied by delight and lust, and delights in this and that; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for being, and craving for non-being. This is called the noble truth of the origin of suffering." metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Christine, > You are having your Cooran weekend and I hope to hear about it after one > week, since I am away. Perhaps Sarah will save it. > I wrote to you, but your computer broke down. Here it is: > How is Achaan Jose? We often think of him. > How was your dog on your return? I liked the description of his aversion > when you went. Typical. > What was your impression about the sessions in Bgk? I hope you found them > useful. What impressed you most? > Nina. 32737 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Tue May 4, 2004 0:47am Subject: Beyond Being! Friends: What are You ? Seeing some strangely wheel-marked foot-prints in the dusty road deliberately left there by the Buddha, the Brahmin teacher Dona once approached & asked the Buddha: Sir, are you a God ? No ! replied the sitting Buddha. Sir, are you a Ghost ? No ! Sir, are you a Demon ? No ! Sir, are you a Human ? No ! Sir, What are you ? Enlightened ! 40 years later - after the Buddhas death - the same Brahmin Dona divided the bone relics remaining after the funeral fire & received the Buddha's begging bowl. The collar bone still is here on Sri Lanka in a mighty Stupa of the Holy ancient northern city Anuradhapura. Source: The Numerical Sayings of the Buddha; AN 37-30 All yours in the Dhamma. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.msn.com/DirectDhamma/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/TrueDhamma 32738 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Tue May 4, 2004 2:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] The 6 Great Councils ! Dear Nina: > Thank you very much for the six Councils. Appreciated. Happy Vesak : - ] 32739 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Tue May 4, 2004 2:21am Subject: Vesakha dating... > but according to Accesstoinsight it is on June 2. The ancient Indian month Vesakha is in April/May. It ends on the fullmoon day of May. So Vesak can never ever be in June! Im aware of the ATI date, which may be either a mistake or a special Thai tradition. Both here on Sri Lanka, in Burma and in Malaysia Vesak falls around today. samahita 32740 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Tue May 4, 2004 2:55am Subject: Unborn & Traceless... Friends: Unconditional Independence: There is, friends, what is a unborn, unbecome, uncreated & unconstructed state... If, friends, there was not this unborn, unbecome, uncreated & unconstructed state, no escape from what is born, become, created & constructed, could ever be realized. But since there indeed is, what is unborn, unbecome, uncreated & unconstructed, the escape from this born, become, created & constructed state, is known... The Udana inspirations 83 Happy Vesak! bhikkhu samahita Sri Lanka. 32741 From: robmoult Date: Tue May 4, 2004 6:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Frying pan sound and citta/cetasika Hi Howard (and Phil), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Phil (and Rob) - > > In a message dated 5/3/04 5:09:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > plnao@j... writes: > > > > > > > Hello all > > > > With help from Rob M and Howard, I have been able to undestand > > more clearly the difference between citta and cetasika, and why there > > is more emphasis here on citta being kusala or akusala rather than > > the cetasika, but I'll pose another question that will help me > > continue to work it out. > > > > The other day I was sitting reading when my wife (I'll call her > > Naomi from now on) started to cook something. I heard a sizzling of > > something in the frying pan - rupa of sound followed by citta of > > hearing consciousness - and a moment later smelled garlic - rupa of > > small followed by citta of smelling-consciousness. At some point in > > there, maybe even before I smelled the garlic, I guess an akusala > > cetasika arose, because the sound of frying usually means the smell > > of garlic is on its way in this house - or at least when I cook it > > almost always is. I say akusala because garlic makes me greedy and I > > overeat. > > > > Now according to Abhidhamma in Daily Life, when we hear something > > pleasant or unpleasant it is the result of a wholesome or unwholesome > > deed we performed. I have trouble understanding why Naomi's decision > > to cook something is the result of my deed (certainly asking her to > > cook when she doesn't want to doesn't work, so I don't see how my > > khamma could do it ! :) ) but I'll leave that aside for now. > > > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > If I may, I'd like to address this now, as I think it is important. > Now, to some extent, volitional actions of yours in the past may well > be conditions affecting the actions of others in the present, because we are > not in this "game" alone - there is interaction among mindstreams, with many > namarupic streams "reflected", as it were, in each other. Our "world" is a > shared one by means of mutual reflection as I see it. ===== I'm still not comfortable with your "interacting namarupic streams" (we've had this discussion before). In my earlier reply to Phil, I went through a fairly detailed description of how the mental states flow according to my understanding of the Abhidhamma. You will note that Naomi's namarupic stream does not enter into the description. ===== > More centrally, however, it is not so much that your past intentions > and actions influenced the actions of another, but rather that they influenced > the character of dhammas that arise in your mindstream. The rupa that is the > odor of the saut'eing of oil and garlic that I experience is pleasant, whereas > the rupa that arises in your mindstream is unpleasant. As I understand it, > that distinction is a kammically determined. ===== The odour of garlic (rupa) frying in inherently itthamajjhatta (desireable-neutral), however the nature of the javana cittas (nama) that arise will be conditioned by accumulations (not kamma, but close). ===== > Whether it is that the rupas themselves that differ or that the rupas > are the same but the vedanic responses alone differ has been an issue > previously discussed on the list. I believe the Abhidhammic position is that it is the > rupas themselves, each with their own associated vedana, that differ. ===== Rupas are the same. Rupas do not have vedana, only nama has vedana. In almost all cases, the vedana that accompany the vipaka mental states that advert, sense, receive, investigate and determine will be neutral. The exceptions are when dealing with body sense or with an extremely desireable object (i.e. seeing a Buddha). It is important not to confuse the following (they are quite distinct): - Intrinsic nature of rupas (undesireable, desireable-neutral, extremely desirealble) - Types of vedana (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral) - Types of javana (desire/attachement, aversion, delusion, seeing things as they truly are) ===== > Whether > this is so or not doesn't strike me as being critically important. What is > important, I think, is that prior kamma is a condition for the vedanic flavor of > what arises in a namarupic stream. ===== Not sure about this... (see my earlier post for details) Metta, Rob M :-) 32742 From: Date: Tue May 4, 2004 3:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Frying pan sound and citta/cetasika Hi, Rob (and Phil) - In a message dated 5/4/04 9:23:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > >Howard: > > If I may, I'd like to address this now, as I think it is > important. > > Now, to some extent, volitional actions of yours in the past > may well > >be conditions affecting the actions of others in the present, > because we are > >not in this "game" alone - there is interaction among mindstreams, > with many > >namarupic streams "reflected", as it were, in each other. > Our "world" is a > >shared one by means of mutual reflection as I see it. > > ===== > > I'm still not comfortable with your "interacting namarupic streams" > (we've had this discussion before). In my earlier reply to Phil, I > went through a fairly detailed description of how the mental states > flow according to my understanding of the Abhidhamma. You will note > that Naomi's namarupic stream does not enter into the description. > =========================== Well, one thing that is certain is that conventional "beings", like you and I, and like Phil and his wife, interact and effect each other through their actions. People "appear in each other's world" as it were. One may choose to view the underlying facts of this in terms of an objective universe "out there" or in phenomenalist terms, but however it is viewed, it is clear that we are "in this together", that we interact, and that the actions of one are conditions that effect what arises in one's own namarupic stream. This is *not* a matter of separate, non-interacting, isolated, near-solipsistic, experiential streams. 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) 32743 From: Date: Tue May 4, 2004 6:06am Subject: An Interesting Pali Sutta Portion Hi, all - On another list, none of the three to which I'm posting this, a participant pointed out that in the Ekapuggalavaggo (AN I, 22), there can be found the following: ________________________________________ 170. Bhikkhus, a certain person is born in the world for the welfare and pleasantness of gods and men. Who is it? It is the Thus Gone One, worthy and rightfully enlightened, born out of compassion for the world. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The poster then noted that this could be seen to suggest a Buddha choosing to be born into the world out of compassion, which would fit well with the Mahayana perspective. I'm not maintaining that this is necessarily the proper way to interpret these words, but it is interesting at the very least as a possible source for the Mahayana perspective. 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) 32744 From: robmoult Date: Tue May 4, 2004 1:33pm Subject: Re: An Interesting Pali Sutta Portion Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, all - > > On another list, none of the three to which I'm posting this, ===== I really admire you, Howard. I barely have time to maintain a presence on DSG and I have never even looked at another list. You on the other hand, maintain a presence on THREE lists and still have time to read more postings on other lists. ===== > a > participant pointed out that in the Ekapuggalavaggo (AN I, 22), there can be found > the following: > ________________________________________ > 170. Bhikkhus, a certain person is born in the world for the welfare and > pleasantness of gods and men. Who is it? It is the Thus Gone One, worthy > and rightfully enlightened, born out of compassion for the world. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- --- > > The poster then noted that this could be seen to suggest a Buddha > choosing to be born into the world out of compassion, which would fit well with > the Mahayana perspective. I'm not maintaining that this is necessarily the > proper way to interpret these words, but it is interesting at the very least as a > possible source for the Mahayana perspective. Here are some "Theravada" quotes which touch upong compassion: At the time of the Dipankara Buddha, Sumedha the Hermit realized that if he were to become a monk that he would become an Arahant in that life. Sumedha the Hermit also realized that his spiritual faculties (faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration and wisdom) were very strong. Out of compassion for mankind, Sumedha the Hermit decided not to become an Arahant but rather he decided to develop the ten perfections (paramis) so that he could be reborn as a Buddha and spread the Dhamma in a future life. Sumedha the Hermit committed himself to countless rebirths and suffering and he eventually became our Lord Buddha. Once He achieved enlightenment, the Buddha could have spent the rest of His life enjoying Nibbana, but out of compassion, the Buddha embarked on a long and difficult life of teaching. It is the Buddha's greatest deed of compassion to teach Dhamma since in this way beings' greatest suffering, their being in the cycle of birth and death, can be overcome. It is due to the Buddha's great compassion that we today can develop the way leading to the end of suffering. There are six kinds of knowledge that can only be achieved by a Buddha and not Arahants: 1. Knowledge of the great compassion induced by ecstatic meditation (Mahakarunasamapatti-nana): this is the great compassion for beings in the heart of a Buddha who fully understands the conditions to which beings are subjected 2. All knowing wisdom 3. Wisdom that dispels all obstructions in the way of "all knowing wisdom" 4. Understanding the "depth of knowledge" of other beings 5. Understanding the accumulations of other beings 6. Power to create the double miracle (simultaneously create flame from one part of the body and water from another part of the body) Compassion is one of the four brahma-viharas. It seems to me that compassion is also a part of the Theravada tradition but receives less emphasis than it does in the Mahayana tradition. Metta, Rob M :-) 32745 From: Date: Tue May 4, 2004 10:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Interesting Pali Sutta Portion Hi, Rob - In a message dated 5/4/04 4:35:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > It seems to me that compassion is also a part of the Theravada > tradition but receives less emphasis than it does in the Mahayana > tradition. > ====================== Yes, there are some differences in emphasis, particularly as regards compassion and emptiness, though Theravada is quite strong on each of these. But a distinct doctrinal difference exists as well: The Mahayanists accept the possibility of a Buddha-to-be holding off on complete enlightenment virtually indefinitely - more than seven lifetimes - for the purpose of compassionately helping sentient beings, whereas Theravada seems to accept seven lifetimes as a maximum for any stream enterer, including a bodhisatta. There is even the implication of Mahayana accepting the possibility of a Buddha choosing further births, even births in hell realms, impelled not by desire, but by compassion. It is that notion that, with a big stretch, one might see as being suggested in the sutta portion that says "Bhikkhus, a certain person is born in the world for the welfare and pleasantness of gods and men. Who is it? It is the Thus Gone One, worthy and rightfully enlightened, born out of compassion for the world." 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 ph antom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 32746 From: Date: Tue May 4, 2004 3:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Howard, You wrote, "In any case, it appears to me that there is little question that the primary senses of 'dukkha' are that of being unsatisfied, this ranging from mild dissatisfaction to extreme emotional distress, for sentient beings, and in being unsatisfying for dhammas." L: Dukkha is caused so dukkha must be a reality. What reality is "unsatisfactoriness"? Also, you said dukkha comes at the end of dependent arising. Nowhere else? Desire is the cause of dukkha and desire arises three times, as formations (sankhara), craving (tanha), and clinging (upadana). Does desire not directly cause dukkha? Also, what about mental unpleasant feeling? Are you withdrawing that as dukkha? Larry 32747 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue May 4, 2004 3:59pm Subject: Betty's Books Dear Betty, Christine has handed me two Dhamma books courtesy of your good self. Thank you, you are very kind. They happen to be very appropriate choices: my Buddhist Dictionary, to which I refer every other day, has recently fallen to bits and I was wondering where to find a replacement. Also, Nina's "Conditions" has become increasingly relevant to me. I have been reading it on-line, of course, but this hardcopy makes it much more accessible. Thanks again. Kind regards, Ken H 32748 From: icarofranca Date: Tue May 4, 2004 6:07pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Dear Larry: > > L: Dukkha is caused so dukkha must be a reality. What reality is > "unsatisfactoriness"? > > Also, you said dukkha comes at the end of dependent arising. Nowhere > else? Desire is the cause of dukkha and desire arises three times, as > formations (sankhara), craving (tanha), and clinging (upadana). Does > desire not directly cause dukkha? Sometimes one ought to step threadly on these labyrinthic remarks on Abhidhamma! The very core of ALL buddhistic doctrine lays on the Four Noble Truths: Dukkha, Sammudha, Niroddha and Magga. All lives, feelings, vedanas, javanas, cittas, Dhammas, Paccayas, etc that are raised up on desire (Tanha) ARE DUKKHA. It´s because the origin of all dukkha lays on desire, as one can see. Even when one keep your personall affairs, feelings, realities as a thought subject inside his skull - as a Balzac´s bourgeois that keeps his family, friends and affairs as a "Thought Private Property" as real and objective as his business - even at these realm Dukkha has the rule. > > Also, what about mental unpleasant feeling? Are you withdrawing that as > dukkha? IMHO, I think so. Mettaya, Ícaro 32749 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue May 4, 2004 6:27pm Subject: Re: Cooran Thanks Hi Christine, Good to see you in person again on the weekend. Hope you're settling in well with your new position at work. You wrote: --------------------- > There was some debate on how to have a Dhamma discussion with people of widely different levels of understanding. --------------------- Oh yes, I seem to remember some pointed looks in my direction. :-) ---------------------- C: > Do the 'just about perfected ones' :-) --------------------- Your words, not mine, but who am I to argue? :-) -------------------- C: > need to keep telling the 'sad examples to others' :-) ----------------- :-) Now I'm sure I didn't say that! ------------------- C: > that they have 'wrong understanding'? ------------------ Might have said that. :-( --------------------- C: > Shouldn't those who understand on 'less than a mundane level' be allowed to have a whole conversation, or present a paper, without someone pointing out their ignorance, or reducing everything to paramattha dhammas? What do you reckon, KenH? :-) -------------------- You're right, of course, and I do try, but what stumps me is the assertion (implied or explicit) that the Middle Way is easy – that anyone can follow it. When people say this, it is because they have attached their own, simplistic beliefs to the Dhamma. I've done the same and probably still do. Given a chance to speak at a Dhamma meeting, many of us will ramble on as if we're on a psychiatrist's couch: "Sometimes, I sit quietly and let all this monkey mind come to the fore and I see what a load of garbage it is and I realise that the same stuff is happening all day at the office and it helps me that I realise this and (so on and so forth)." This is well and good – good therapy for most people and I wish them well with it -- BUT the problem comes when they get to the end: "And so, that is what the Buddha taught us to do." The Buddha taught nothing of the sort! Usually (sometimes), I can discuss this calmly without becoming an overbearing pain in the neck, but when people stick to their guns – insisting the Buddha taught the same, commonsense philosophy everyone else teaches – then who is going to back down first? Not me! ----------------------- C: > Is a surfboard just a concept? ------------- :-) Well, all right, maybe one day I'll have to admit that it is. But we're only human; we all need something to cling to. Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Many thanks to Andrew and Sandra for their generosity in inviting > the Dhamma Discussion group to stay on their beautiful property, 32750 From: Philip Date: Tue May 4, 2004 6:30pm Subject: Appreciating Abhidhamma (was abhidhamma and citta #2206) Hello all I am working my way through some files I filled with posts gleaned from Useful Posts and in order to firm up my understanding of them, I'll be sharing some of them with you, with my questions and/or comments. It's a way of exploring my beginner's appreciation of Abhidhamma. This is from #2206, from Kom in an exchange with Michael Olds. This is a section in which Kom lays down an interesting argument about the benefits of Abhidhamma and why it's important to understand it in order to better appreciate sutta. I have inserted my own questions/comments. *** Kom: I think we are in agreement here that knowing the fundamentals about dhammas is the only way to proceed. I think the difference here is whether the Sutta and the Abhidhammas are "better" ways to know the fundamentals. I would like to present the following comments based on my understandings: 1) The suttas are concise teachings exactly fitting the accumulations/outlooks of the recipient. It is deep, profound, intricate, and subtle, as all the Master's teachings are. The receiver that became an ariya disciple succeeded not because of that teaching alone, but because of the dhamma/panna accumulations done in countless previous lives. The Buddha himself had accumulations for the englightenment for 4 asangayas (sp?) 100,000 kappa. Maha-mogalana and Sali-puttra each accumulated for 1 asangayas, 100,000 kappa. Ph: I'd assumed that the suttas were taught by the Buddha to a variety of people, including "beginners". That probably comes from my short interest in the Christian Gospel, in which Christ teaches the masses, so to speak, without any consideration of whether or not they have sufficient accumulations. Of course in Buddhism there are no beginners, because of accumulations from countless past lives. So if the Buddha were to teach a shepherd, or a prince, there would be no inherent distinction between their ability to understand based on their social rank in that one lifetime, is that right? On the other hand, the Buddha surely used technical language that only those trained in certain meditation etc practices at that time could understand. Did the Buddha tailor his language in some suttas in a way that they could be appreciated by people who had the right accumulations to understand, but no knowledge of the necessary technical terms in that lifetime? I think of the AN sutta about "letters written in water" as an example of a sutta that would help anyone to get rid of anger, and is not really open to dispute as it its true meaning. I mean, I think there are some suttas that can be understand easily by anyone, without a knowledge of Abhidhamma, but I don't know what percentage of the canon falls into that "easy to be understood, and understood properly, by anyone" category. Kom: 2) Without the needed accumulations, just a few short and medium teaching alone cannot get a person to become an ariya disciple. 3) The abhidhammas are the books where all the deep, profound, intricate, and subtle details are expounded upon. This is for the venuyasatta (slow learner, one who needs lengthy study) and other people with no hope to become enlightend in this life, who, without the explicit details, cannot grasp even the most fundamentals of dhammas. The abhidhammas are thus for the persons who did not have enough accumulations to understand the truth based on the short teachings, without the explicit details, alone. In this sense, people who need to study abhidhammas to correctly understand dhammas have in fact "inferior" accumulations than the people who can understand it based on the suttas alone. Ph: I am feeling this is true these days. I printed out the entire Anguttara Nikaya with its numerical lists, and read through them, and was profoundly inspired by some of them – and some of them are indisputably clear, such as the one about "letters written in water" – but I always felt aware that I was kind of trying to amass "my" wisdom by beginning to have a lot of knowledge of suttas that I could impress people with by referring to at just the right point in a discussion to prove my point. I was never grabbed at the root of my mind the way I was when I came across the Abhidhamma. I never became feverish the way I did when I came across the Abhidhamma. I never woke up in the middle of the night eager to read more like I did with "Abhidhamma in Daily Life." I don't know why that is but I think the idea of "inferior accumulations" that made it necessary for me to read Abhidhamma in order to begin to have understanding of dhammas is very interesting. Kom: 4) Because of the explicitness of the abhidhammas, there are less leeway to interpret dhammas as one pleases. Because of this reason, if the abhidhammas in fact teach the truth, it may lead a person with certain kind of accumultations less astrayed from the truth. Because the suttra is not as explicit, we have more tendency to interpret it anyway we like. Ph: I am still fighting a tendency to want to interpret Abhidhamma the way I like, thus my questions (complaints?) about citta being not considered more random/by chance. Also, since Abhidhamma and practice based on understanding dhammas in the present is new to me, I have some resistance, and will continue to have some resistance. For example, I will wonder why NAG denies the value of meditation. It's sensible for me to resist at this point. But I suspect that the more I learn about understanding rupa and nama, and the more experience I have in examining them, the less room there will be for interpretation of their nature. The interpretation/creativity will come from finding daily life examples of the received abhidhamma truths arise rather than studying abhidhamma on paper and trying to decipher it in a way that fits with my theories. Kom: 5) The elements of abhidhammas are in fact within the sutta itself. I have only personally seen a section of the sutta which explicitly mentions the dhammas in the abhidhammas manner. However, I have heard that the abhidhammas are in fact, extracts from the suttas. Ph: I would like to know more about this. The passage from the Honeyball Sutta that Rob M shared a couple of weeks back seems to be an example of this. If anyone could provide more passages/links, I'd be grateful. It's probably not something that can be boiled down to a few references or links, of course. 6) The main teacher from whom we quote frequently, Tan A. Sujin, repeated time and time again that what we must compare the teachings from all the three tipitikas: the meanings of the teachings must match in order for us to have any kind of confidence that what we understand is the truth. We, as somebody who studies abhidhammas, do not hold abhidhammas to be the ultimate authority: we hold all three tipitikas to be the authority. Ph: Thus when I read Nina's books, there are helpful sutta references. I appreciate that. I would appreciate more of them, if I speak honestly off the top of my head. Would they distract from the flow of the books? Maybe. Her books have a rhythm that urge us again and again to begin to try to understand nama and rupa in the moment. The steady flow of her insistence on that point is one reason I enjoy reading her books so much. Abhidhamma brainwashing? Nah. Kom :7) Hence, I think the main argument for studying the Abhidhammas first, is to make sure that we correctly grasp the fundamentals of buddhism (anicca, dukkha, and perhaps most importantly, anatta) before we wander on from there. Ph: I feel this way too, especially with result to annata. I feel the Abhidhamma lays out a detailed roadmap to understanding annata. In my opinion, annica is easy to understand by looking at our daily experience, and dukkha is easier than annata. But beginning to undertand annata needs an analytical approach, in my opinion. Kom: 8) I agree with you that learning and understanding the intricate details of the teachings alone doesn't allow one to progress toward becoming enlightened. In fact, I am sure other people in this group agreed to this as well. Only directly knowing the truth can one progress. A. Sujin said as much. However, we still need to differentiate what is the truth and what isn't. (snip a question from Michael olds) I have neither mastered the vinaya, the sutta, nor the abhidhamma. I am actively engaging in the studies of both the sutta and the abhidhammas. In fact, I totally agree that if I can master the teachings based on the sutta alone, there is no need for me to study abhidhammas. Ph : I am looking forward to ordering (still haven't got around to it!) my Bkihhku Bodhi MN anthology and I anticipate "mind gripping" enthusiasm when I get my hands on it. I'm very grateful that I had the good fortune to come across the Abhidhamma before getting deeper into sutta study. I am confident my beginner's knowledge of Abhidhamma will make my future sutta study more rewarding. Thank you, Kom, wherever you are, for your helpful post. Metta, Phil 32751 From: Ken O Date: Tue May 4, 2004 6:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Do or not do something Hi Jack and Sarah > .... J: Yes, the Abhidhamma can be useful. But, millions of people > through the centuries have gotten value out of vipassana teachings and practices and made sense of it without any knowledge of the Abhidhamma.<< > ..... > S: There may be some confusion over terms here. For example, when > you talk about the elements or about any other realities which are being experienced now, it is Abhidhamma whether or not we’ve ever opened an Abhidhamma text or not or whether or not we use this word. I don't think we'd be having the discussions we do unless you had quite some familiarity with 'Abhidhamma'. Similarly, vipassana refers to the development of wisdom or insight. Without any understanding of what there can be insight into, it can’t develop. Let me know if you disagree. k: When Buddha talk abouts about five aggregates, Dependent Origination and Eye and form, eye consciouness arise, Anatta etc - all these are also Abhidhamma. Many people are doing it without realising it. In fact, IMHO without Abhidhamma or commentaries, no scholar would have been able to translate the words correctly as in the sutta. Ken O 32752 From: m. nease Date: Tue May 4, 2004 7:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cittas and cetasikas (basic question!) Hi Nina, This is a great example of bits of Dhamma I can hear again and again and still be struck by their relevance. Also a great example of the way the Abhidhamma illuminates the other pi.takas. Thanks again. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "nina van gorkom" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 9:16 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cittas and cetasikas (basic question!) > Hi Howard, > When citta is akusala, all cetasikas are also akusala. Remember: citta and > cetasika are of the same jati (kusala akusala, vipaka or kiriya), arise at > the same base, experience the same object and fall away together. Some > cetasikas, the universals, accompany each citta, some, the particulars, > accompany cittas of the four jatis but not all of them. Now, when they > accompany akusala citta, all of them are akusala. They do everything in the > wrong way. 32753 From: Date: Tue May 4, 2004 3:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/4/04 6:39:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > You wrote, "In any case, it appears to me that there is little question > that the primary senses of 'dukkha' are that of being unsatisfied, this > ranging from mild dissatisfaction to extreme emotional distress, for > sentient beings, and in being unsatisfying > for dhammas." > > L: Dukkha is caused so dukkha must be a reality. What reality is > "unsatisfactoriness"? > ------------------------------------------ Howard: Dhammas don't satisfy. Satisfaction, except of the most temporary sort, is not to be found in them. This, I suppose, is a matter of relation as opposed to a property. As far as reality or not, I admit straight out, Larry, I don't know what's real. But I'll let you know when I do! ;-)) ------------------------------------------- > > Also, you said dukkha comes at the end of dependent arising. Nowhere > else? > ------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, it probably occurs at more places, but most people describe the wheel of dependent origination as explaining the arising (and cessation) of dukkha, and that is *explicitly* mentioned at the end. However, there is much repetition in the cyclic scheme. For example I see the sankhara link and the bhava link as repetition, and I wouldn't argue with the idea of dukkha appearing at two or three places. I'll say a bit more about this later on in this post. ------------------------------------------- Desire is the cause of dukkha and desire arises three times, as > > formations (sankhara), craving (tanha), and clinging (upadana). Does > desire not directly cause dukkha? > ------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes - desire causes it. That is, it is the main cause. As we know, nothing arises from a single condition. But suffering is not the same thing as desire. Suffering is mental pain. -------------------------------------------- > > Also, what about mental unpleasant feeling? Are you withdrawing that as > dukkha? > --------------------------------------------- Howard: If mental unpleasant feeling is the same thing as mental pain - which I do think is basically so - then I am not withdrawing it. That is exactly what I think suffering is - mental pain. It is the second, unnecessary, dart. I do think that one could make a fair argument that suffering/mental pain includes not only mental unpleasant feeling (which has a rather weak sound to it in English), but also the negative emotional reaction growing out of that feeling, an emotive, sankharic embellishment (papa~nca) of that feeling. On this basis, we see dukkha occuring not only at the end of the dependent-arising chain/cycle, but also within vedana and, more so, within sankhara. --------------------------------------------- > > 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) 32754 From: Date: Tue May 4, 2004 7:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Icarro, Long time no see. Where have you been? What is dukkha ultimately? How is it conditioned by desire in dependent arising? Larry 32755 From: Date: Tue May 4, 2004 7:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Howard, I don't want to pick at your reply so let's leave it for now. I would like a clearer picture of what is dukkha and how dukkha and desire work in dependent arising. Larry 32756 From: Date: Tue May 4, 2004 3:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi again, Larry - Thinking further on this topic, I do see that it is a subtle one. I do agree that dukkha is very close to craving. Dukkha in the "person" is very close to dissatisfaction. Now what is dissatisfaction? Well, as I consider it, it seems that it is *wanting* things to be other than the way they are, that is - desiring presence of what is absent or absence of what is present or both (replacement). Yet I don't think that this dissatisfaction, itself, is dukkha. I think that dukkha is the unhappiness or distress resulting from, and usually immediately following upon, that dissatisfaction. They are certainly close. 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) 32757 From: Date: Tue May 4, 2004 3:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/4/04 10:40:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I don't want to pick at your reply so let's leave it for now. I would > like a clearer picture of what is dukkha and how dukkha and desire work > in dependent arising. > > Larry > ======================= I just sent another post on this thread that I think may clarify my thoughts on this matter. At least I hope so. 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) 32758 From: abhidhammika Date: Tue May 4, 2004 8:00pm Subject: Good News : Ajahn Jose Update ** Nina - Ajahn Jose, Chris Dear Nina, Chris, Sarah and all How are you? I have good news update regarding Ajahn Jose. I had a telephone chat with Ajahn Jose a few minutes ago (around 12.50 p.m in Canberra). He is feeling very well, and going home tomorrow to his monastery. I believe he will fill in more soon. With regards, Suan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: Dear Nina, Achaan Jose had his surgical operation on Monday 3rd May at John James Memorial Private Hospital in Canberra. Perhaps Suan will know more? I had an email from Ajahn Jose stating that he had enjoyed his most recent trip to Bangkok and would say more later. My dog was overjoyed to see me when I returned from Thailand - but certainly didn't appreciate returning to the kennels when I went to Cooran for a three day weekend. I may consider taking him next time ... all those cats! I have included a post below that I previously posted elsewhere on the Bangkok trip - KenH was correct, I didn't keep any notes this time. It is probably because I usually stay by myself out at the Mariott near the Foundation. When I am by myself, I consider and reflect on what I've heard, and write notes. This time I was at the Holiday Inn and five other Dhamma friends were staying there and for half the time, Azita and I shared a room - so discussions took the place of writing. Memory is such a fleeting thing, and when I got home I found I could recall very little of the discussions, mostly just sense impressions. ================================ THE POST: "On the last evening I was in Bangkok, watching the red sun set behind the surrounding buildings, I was conscious of a yearning that there be many more such nights. I'm always more conscious of such Lobha (attachment) [and its synonyms raga (lust, greed) tanha (craving) upaadaana (intensified craving, clinging), covetousness (abhijja)] when I'm in Thailand. It's not so much Thailand itself - although some of the experiences I have there, I don't have at home - e.g. standing on a street at 5.30 a.m. (perspiring in the heat) to watch and wait for monks on alms round. At this time, during Songkran, many young men still at school ordain for short periods. Drifts of six or eight with senior monks at head and tail came past and were invited (by a wei) to approach for alms. All had heads shaven and wore 'the banner of the arahants' with dignity. After they had all received alms from our group they stood in line, chanted in Pali, and departed. The occasional adult monk came past and the same procedure occurred (with much shorter chanting). Being included (caught up in) Thai festivals is another experience. Songkran Festival April 12-15, is the traditional Thai New Year (one of three New Years celebrated in Thailand). This is the time for Thais to pay homage to Buddha images, clean their houses, and sprinkle water on their elders in a show of respect. Anyone who ventures out on the streets is likely to get a thorough dousing of water, which can be quite welcome at the peak of the hot season. Buses, tuk-tuks, taxis, and any living creature was fair game. Mostly just good fun. But it has its down- side - I've since read news reports that because of drink driving, and the difficulty of controlling a motorcycle at speed when doused with buckets of water and white paste from roaming pickup trucks filled with revellers, a total of 579 people were killed throughout Thailand, and 40,000 were injured during those four days. One person coming back to the Hotel summed it up with 'Man, it's war out there!'. Makes New Years Eve in Oz seem quite tame. Still - the worst that happened to us was that we had to cross a road a couple of times when we saw a footpath suspiciously wet at the mouth of a Soi; and when a mob of eight year olds with water pistols looked ready to pounce on me, a twelve year old with the world's biggest water gun leapt out and deluged them amid shrieks and screams and a grateful smile and 'thank-you' from the farang. There were all the usual coarse attachments - to the flavours, smells (mostly), sights and sounds unique to Bangkok, and to being away from the daily grind and dynamics of the workplace - but there was also the subtle clinging to the contentment of discussing dhamma with those who understand the world in the same way. There was an attachment to feeling calm and supported; to the arising of mindfulness (sati) and the wishing for more. There was the wish that led to proliferations about 'somehow' finding a way to live and work in any place where I could continue to receive teaching and not have to go back to relying on occasional discussions, my own understandings and practice, and the internet. There was even awareness of yearning for a cool shower, soft towels, and a comfortable bed after being out in the 39C heat of Bangkok, and the wishing I had bought my mother just that silk cushion cover that a friend was displaying. Lobha appears in many and varied forms. Attachment and its synonyms like clinging, craving, desire, lust, greed, and covetousness occurs much more often than I used to realise. It doesn't arise with every mind moment but certainly with lots of them, and accumulates. We are told that so long as there is clinging there will be birth, old age, sickness and death. Desire is the second noble Truth, the origin of dukkha. In MN 141.21, it says: "And what, friends, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering? It is craving, which brings renewal of being, is accompanied by delight and lust, and delights in this and that; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for being, and craving for non-being. This is called the noble truth of the origin of suffering." metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Christine, > You are having your Cooran weekend and I hope to hear about it after one > week, since I am away. Perhaps Sarah will save it. > I wrote to you, but your computer broke down. Here it is: > How is Achaan Jose? We often think of him. > How was your dog on your return? I liked the description of his aversion > when you went. Typical. > What was your impression about the sessions in Bgk? I hope you found them > useful. What impressed you most? > Nina. 32759 From: Date: Tue May 4, 2004 9:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Howard, I agree with what you wrote (below) but the problem is that feeling doesn't seem to be conditioned by desire in dependent arising. I don't have a good answer to this question so I can't take this discussion much further. Here are a few sketchy thoughts: what is desire? a dualistic imbalance, a sense of incompleteness...? dukkha is kamma result (result of desire). what is kamma result? identity...? identity is an ongoing formation never complete. incomplete = dukkha, incomplete = desire...??? Larry ------------------ H: Hi again, Larry - Thinking further on this topic, I do see that it is a subtle one. I do agree that dukkha is very close to craving. Dukkha in the "person" is very close to dissatisfaction. Now what is dissatisfaction? Well, as I consider it, it seems that it is *wanting* things to be other than the way they are, that is - desiring presence of what is absent or absence of what is present or both (replacement). Yet I don't think that this dissatisfaction, itself, is dukkha. I think that dukkha is the unhappiness or distress resulting from, and usually immediately following upon, that dissatisfaction. They are certainly close. 32760 From: Ken O Date: Tue May 4, 2004 9:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something Hi Jack > I believe that there is just seeing. (I don't deny that there is > something out there apart from us that is seen.) Seeing consciousness and visible object is a dualistic and useful way to break up this non-dualistic process. k: Could u kindly explain what do you mean by dualistic and non dualistic and how is this teach in the sutta? Ken O 32761 From: Ken O Date: Tue May 4, 2004 9:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran Thanks Hi Christine > There was a sidetrack into discussing whether people who had never > heard of the Dhamma could realise the annata-ness of everything. A > couple of people quoted books or conversations where individuals > had suddenly lost all sense of self permanently and couldn't find > anyone to explain within their own religious tradition what it meant. One lady was told by a Catholic priest "What you are telling me has happened to you is theologically impossible!". k: I read it (i think Dispeller of Declusion), only Buddha is able to realise anatta and teach it. No other beings can do it. the rest of your questions will be usually answer by our wonderful moderator ;-) Ken O 32762 From: gazita2002 Date: Tue May 4, 2004 10:09pm Subject: Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! To Bhikkhu Samahita, thank you so much for this timely post. I have read it with much joy, it has given me a 'spiritual lift'. "Through this round of countless existences have I searched yet failed to find the Creator who framed this formation. 'What misery - endless birth, death and pain.' Now I see that 'the constructor ' of this structure is Craving." This passage esp. emphasises the uncontrollability of life. Craving is there before 'we' even recognise it. Happy Vesak to you also, altho. it is now 5/5 - May we all have patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. p.s. I can imagine how great the Buddha's patience must have been to withstand Mara's onslaught! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Bhikkhu Samahita wrote: > > Friends: > > > Happy Vesak tomorrow 4/5 2004! > On this very day 2534 years ago on > the fulmoon night of May, the Gotama > Buddha was Perfectly Self-Awakened! > Such was this mighty & quite rare event! > The Great Enlightenment of the Buddha: > > > At that time a girl named Sujata Senani lived in Uruvela. ......... 32763 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue May 4, 2004 10:21pm Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Sukin. I am deeply disappointed that you did not respond to each of my specific points at length ;-( but what can I do? Conditions portend against it.... Seriously though, I think you have a worthwhile point and your question is a valid one. A couple of general responses: 1/ I think it is important not to confuse the nature of activities with our concepts about them. It may be that in the theoretical scheme of things that contemplating sutta is not a "practice," but in the ordinary sense of the word, it is. It is an activity, a task, with a specific purpose. That is how I would define practice. In a sense, I think you are confusing two different meanings of the same word, one a technical term in the Buddhist path, distinguishing between intellectual study and the accomplishment or presence of full mindfulness, which you are calling the "practice;" and the ordinary sense in which "practice" merely means a directed activity. Surely, in that sense, both intellectual study of sutta and meditation are "practices." At the same time, you do have a valid point in that you are saying that meditation purports to grant direct insight, which pariyatti does not. You could say that pariyatti is a preliminary practice, while paripatti is the actual practice. In that sense, what is the preliminary practice prior to meditation, if meditation is the practice? What is the preparation, which would be the meditator's equivalent of pariyatti? I suppose it would also be the basic comprehension of sutta or appropriate scripture. And then putting it into practice through mindfulness meditation. In that sense the paths seem somewhat similar. I am still confused however, if paripatti is your equivalent of meditation in our comparison, what exactly does paripatti entail as a practice? If one does not meditate, what exactly is the practice of satipatthana? I suppose it is the discernment of arising moments of everyday life, which to me is basically the same thing as meditation, except that you have the stipulation that one must not do it as a specific purposeful practice, as one does in meditation. But this too is confusing: If one practices mindfulness as a stage following pariyatti, then it seems like it really is a purposeful practice to gain the result of full mindfulness of the object, and so it is just as intentional as meditation. And the distinction seems even more artificial when you imagine that the only real difference between paripatti and meditation is that the meditator is "assuming a sitting position," while the practitioner of paripatti practices his "meditation" wherever and under whatever conditions happen to arise. Surely, the physical positioning of the practitioner cannot create such a great theoretical rift? Even more confusing is the fact that every meditation practice includes both walking meditation, and the admonition that the practice of mindfulness should be extended into a 24-hour a day operation, where one is always conscious of both the breath and whatever is arising for consciousness. In many ways, both paths seem to come around to the same place by a different route. So what exactly does paripatti entail? And if it is indeed a practice, how is this not a "doing" with a doer involved? I am sincerely interested in the answer to this. Well that's all point #1. Here's 2: 2/ I do not believe that anyone practices the path in a purely linear fashion, accomplishing full intellectual understanding through pariyatti and then neatly moving on to full time paripatti, leading to realization. Obviously one reads and understands; has moments of discernment of one level or another; goes back to read again, informed by these experiences; perhaps has new insights into sutta; then goes off and has new moments of discernment, perhaps more clear, more frequent kusula moments; then more reading; etc. Human life and practice is cyclical, not linear, so one cannot really, except theoretically for purposes of understanding, separate pariyatti and paripatti. Perhaps one can separate them by result: if the understanding is intellectual concept or direct insight into the arising moment of rupa or nama. So the path is a bit more complex and "sloppy" then the three stages would have it seem. In meditation also, one reads and cognizes about it, goes out and looks at the arising moment through the lens of sutta or scripture; goes to sit in meditation and continues the process; reads and reflects, goes into life, meditates, etc. They are not really separate activities either. My point: the path is the path. Once one is committed to discernment and awakening, the path manifests and it manifests in the way that it does. If conditions allow for reading sutta, one reads; for meditation, or for discernment of the moment. Why make the distinction? To me all of the above is "the practice." Now if one is *not* discerning, but hallucinating, and going down an akusala path without knowing it, well, that's a big problem. But I would like to know, Sukin, how is one to know this anyway, if one does not trust his own sense of whether detachment, insight, clarity of discernment, etc. are developing? Who do you trust to tell you you are seeing the real moment arising, if you yourself are not training your own citta to do this? I think without development of faith in one's own evaluation of what is occurring on the path, the path must be lost. I will appreciate your response, hoping that these points are not also too far flung to give the basis for a good exchange. : ) Best, Robert Ep. ============================== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Rob, > > > Thank you for your very complete answer to my post. I appreciate all > > your points, even those I have a different view about, and I am sorry > > for repyling so many days later. > > Likewise, I appreciate your points too and the effort you put into > replying. > However, just thinking about responding to all your points is making me > feel apprehensive :-(, and so I have decided to cop out. No, just > kidding ;-). But I think it is better that we start from the beginning and > go slowly, because I think I am being caught in a trap and we are both > in a way, missing the point. > I think there is no need to place `study' against `formal practice'. If we > remember from the perspective of development of panna, that the path > involves the relationship between pariyatti (intellectual understanding), > patipatti (practice or satipatthana) and pativedha (realization), then > placing `study' and `practice' against each other, is I think not right. > I could start discussing what is meant by `patipatti' or practice, keeping > in mind that your idea of it is different to mine. ... 32764 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue May 4, 2004 10:25pm Subject: Re: Video Games? Hi Sarah, Thank you for the post. I won't go into a detailed analysis because, really, we are starting to rehash old issues. Your view of Buddhism supposes that people don't really exist because of the teaching of anatta and, thus, people are not an ultimate reality. I find this to be a radical position that isn't very useful to Buddhist practice. I believe that people exist and other living beings exist. I believe that they suffer, that their suffering is real, and that they should receive compassion—from one living being to another. Therefore, we aren't really going to see eye-to-eye on this issue. Let me ask you some questions: When you look in the mirror, do you think "I exist" or "I don't exist"? When you have a feeling do you think "I am having this feeling" or "I am not having this feeling"? Do you view the universe as impersonal namas and rupas or as beings with kamma traveling through samsara? You write, "No self to do it and nothing to be done." Honestly, and I am not judging you negatively, but I find your view of Buddhism rather depressing and hopeless. Nothing can be done? No one exists? Then what's the point? Sarah, I want you to know that I think you do exist and I think you are a lovely person. I wish you all the world has to offer. I hope that you think I exist also and that you wish me well. ;-) Metta, James 32765 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue May 4, 2004 11:13pm Subject: Re: Video Games? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Thank you for the post. I won't go into a detailed analysis > because, really, we are starting to rehash old issues. Your view of > Buddhism supposes that people don't really exist because of the > teaching of anatta and, thus, people are not an ultimate reality. Friend Sarah, I wanted to add one more thing: I am not saying that your view of Buddhism is wrong and that mine is right. Actually, I struggle everyday to have the `right view' of Buddhism...and of life. I don't believe that this is an easy task which should be taken for granted. And then, occasionally, when I think I do have the `right view', it will quickly slip away because of pride and arrogance. ;- )) It is very difficult to be selfless; especially in a world that doesn't value selflessness. But, even if I do have the wrong view, I am going to continue to proceed to have it. Why? Because it makes me happy and gives me hope. Maybe that is the difference in our approaches: I emphasize happiness and contentment while you emphasize wisdom. Maybe your approach is superior to mine? Maybe one is not superior to the other, they are just different approaches? If your approach works for you, I think that is great!! But we will find it difficult to discuss what is important in Buddhism when we are both coming from different angles. Okay, I have rambled on enough… ;-) Metta, James 32766 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 5, 2004 1:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran Thanks Hi Christine and all Cooranites, Good to read all the reports and also your beautifully written piece on lobha in Thailand. (I’ll make sure Nina sees any posts addressed to her on her return). --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hello everyone, >In the > darkness, with the sound of a rising westerly wind in the trees, and > odd bumps in the night, I suppose I should have > noted 'sound' 'sound' - instead, I was noting 'not Count > Yorga', 'not Count Yorga'. .... S: I asked my Aussie translator for help but he was just as stumped as I was. Maybe a new kind of yoga done in one’s sleep without a need to count breaths? .... > There were a few questions - the oldies but goodies - .... S: A few off the cuff comments to start the ball rolling only - .... >Someone > wondered how people can agree that there is no control over ultimate > realities, but still think that there is control over concepts. > e.g. "I am doing this", "You are doing that", .... S: Anatta - anyone (or those pesky cittas rather ) can believe anything! .... ,>and explained again > how formal meditation is wrong view of a self that can sit and > direct attention, a ritualised behaviour showing a belief in > control. Yet others responded with the question, "If one gives up > formal sitting and walking meditation to focus on Dhamma Study, > isn't that the same type of mind state ... maybe with extra conceit > added of "now I'm on the right track." .... S: It may well be (the same type of mind state) if it also becomes a ritualised behaviour with an idea of control and self. Only panna can know whether there is understanding, conceit, attachment or any other reality at such times. If panna knows what is right, there is no conceit at such moments. .... > One of us wondered, "Is Right View a synonym for Panna in ALL > cases? What kind of Right View arises outside the Buddha's > dispensation? e.g. in Jhana practitioners before the Buddha? .... S: Good qu! Usually Right View is a transl of sammaa-di.t.thi (pa~n~naa), the first factor of the 8FP. Panna then has a wider meaning to refer to right understanding not just in the development of satipatthana but also the development of samatha. So panna arises outside the B’s dispensation as you suggest. It could be translated as R.V. but we need to be careful here. ... > > There was a sidetrack into discussing whether people who had never > heard of the Dhamma could realise the annata-ness of everything. ... S: No - see Ken O’s post. From: The Dispeller of Delusion(Sammohavinodani),Classification of Bases, 242f: "The characteristics of impermanence and pain are made known with or without the arising of the Tathagatas. The characteristic of no-self is not made known without the arising of the Englightened Ones; it is made known only on the arising of the Enlightened ones. For such wanderers and ascetics (taapasa) as the master Sarabhanga are mighty and powerful and are able to express "the impermanent and painful": (but) they are unable to express "no-self". For if they were able to express "no-self" in a present assembly there would be penetration of path and fruition in the present assembly. For the making known of the characteristic of no-self is not the province of anyone else; it is the province of the Fully Enlightened Ones only. ... >A > couple of people quoted books or conversations where individuals had > suddenly lost all sense of self permanently and couldn't find anyone > to explain within their own religious tradition what it meant. One > lady was told by a Catholic priest "What you are telling me has > happened to you is theologically impossible!". .... S: This a different (conventional) meaning of ‘loss of sense of self’. No understanding of namas and rupas. ... > Some need information on where to find references: > (i) When discussing the 'dispelling of three things' the > term "Immobility of Mind" was mentioned. What does this mean? .... S: ?? .... > (ii) Has the proximate cause of Right Understanding been previously > discussed? Can anyone point us to the past posts? .... S: Discussed at length. Rt concentration as prox cause for rt understanding and vice versa, arising together. Jim found an error in the translation of Atthasalini referred to erroneously as a result in CMA & Cetasikas as wise attention. http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m20948.html Also see proximate cause in UP. ..... > (iii) According to the sutta discussing the 'factors for Stream > Entry' - what is a Superior Person? .... Sappurisa - lit. good or great person, i.e Buddhas & Ariyans. Does this mean one has to ‘meet’ and ‘hear’ an ariyan or the Buddha face to face? No. “Dogs and jackals,etc., see Ariyans by the eye, but are not perceivers of the Ariyans.” (Expositor, The Triplets). I’d like to write more on this and will do so separately when I have time. it always come down to understanding and appreciating and considering the truth and noble qualities. .... > (iv) Does Right View Affected By Taints mean Satipatthana? (hope > that question is phrased correctly) ... S: Yes, mundane R.V./understanding. The latent tendencies (anusaya) are still ‘carried’ with the cittas. .... > There was some debate on how to have a Dhamma discussion with people > of widely different levels of understanding. Do the 'just about > perfected ones' :-) need to keep telling the 'sad examples to > others' :-) that they have 'wrong understanding'? Shouldn't those > who understand on 'less than a mundane level' be allowed to have a > whole conversation, or present a paper, without someone pointing out > their ignorance, or reducing everything to paramattha dhammas? ... S: ;-). Just thank your paramattha stars to have friends who’re not afraid to point out the truth! Azita asked a qu in Bkk about hearing wrong view and whether there must be conceit involved or sth along those lines. The answer was that when panna has developed, sanna still knows who is who and what is what. So the Buddha and ariyans (with no self view) still know when someone speaks with wrong view etc, just no taking for self. We know conceit slips in easily, but not necessarily at such times. Knowing the right time to speak, patience, compassion and so on - well it all depends on accumulations. Let’s just appreciate the good intentions and reflect on the good qualities of those ‘just about perfected ones’....;-). .... What > do you reckon, KenH? :-) Is a surfboard just a concept? ... S: See Ken H’s reply;-). Even ‘just abouts’ have their weak spots, especially when longboarders are involved or forgetting conceptual common-sense such as needing blankets and a hat at Cooran;-). Excellent questions. I’m hoping to add more on sappurisa today or tomorrow. There’s a good passage in the Atthasalini. Metta, Sarah p.s Chris, hope you were able to retrieve your material from your old computer?? ====== 32767 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed May 5, 2004 2:14am Subject: Not Count Yorga, Not Count Yorga ([dsg] Re: Cooran Thanks) Hello Sarah (and Jon), Clearly, thirty years ago, you didn't have a predilection for Midnight Horror Movies at the Drive-in on long summer weekends. 'Count Yorga, Vampire' was a dreadfully weak movie that scarred my consciousness way back when... I only remember it when I'm alone at night in a strange place. And then it doesn't seem so dreadfully weak at all - it seems quite possible ... even probable. :-) I guess when we're unsettled in the dark we can regress - therefore the noting 'not Count Yorga' 'not Count Yorga'. A synopsis of the movie is - 'Count Yorga Vampire is a film about a Bulgarian vampire who departs the old world for sunny southern California. He settles in suburbia, in a stone and cobweb gothic mansion, and starts biting the local wives. This new-born blood sisterhood quickly loses all interest in bridge, spouts fangs and sucks blood from dead cats.' You may well heap scorn on me, but, as I remember, the boyfriend at the time found a number of reasons to convince my mother that he should sleep-over on the couch rather than go home in the dark. :-) metta and peace, Christine --- The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Christine and all Cooranites, > > Good to read all the reports and also your beautifully written piece on > lobha in Thailand. (I'll make sure Nina sees any posts addressed to her on > her return). > > --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hello everyone, > >In the > > darkness, with the sound of a rising westerly wind in the trees, and > > odd bumps in the night, I suppose I should have > > noted 'sound' 'sound' - instead, I was noting 'not Count > > Yorga', 'not Count Yorga'. > .... > S: I asked my Aussie translator for help but he was just as stumped as I > was. Maybe a new kind of yoga done in one's sleep without a need to count > breaths? > .... 32768 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 5, 2004 2:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi James (& Phil - see*), You raise many important and helpful points for consideration. Thank you. --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Sarah, >I believe that people exist and other living > beings exist. >I believe that they suffer, that their suffering is > real, and that they should receive compassion—from one living being > to another. ... S: Understanding dhammas as dhammas (i.e anatta) does not preclude having compassion for living beings. Quite the opposite. .... >Therefore, we aren't really going to see eye-to-eye on > this issue. Let me ask you some questions: When you look in the > mirror, do you think "I exist" or "I don't exist"? .... S: It depends on any right or wrong view at the time of looking;-) Usually there’s no thought about it either way. .... >When you have a > feeling do you think "I am having this feeling" or "I am not having > this feeling"? .... S: Even if there’s a thought about ‘my feeling’, it doesn’t necessarily mean there is wrong view at the time. An arahant may think about ‘his feeling’ as opposed to another’s, but no idea that in reality there is anything other than a feeling, a dhamma, not a person, at such times. Life continues as normal. .... >Do you view the universe as impersonal namas and > rupas or as beings with kamma traveling through samsara? .... S: It’s beginning to sound like one of those impossible quizes. I’ll opt for a). b) is O.K. if we know we’re just talking about beings conventionally. .... > You write, "No self to do it and nothing to be done." Honestly, and > I am not judging you negatively, but I find your view of Buddhism > rather depressing and hopeless. Nothing can be done? No one > exists? Then what's the point? .... S: The point is to understand these conditioned dhammas for what they are and develop detachment from the idea of self. Not ‘depressing and hopeless’ but ‘inspiring’ and eventually ‘enlightening’ as such understanding develops. Nothing that can be done by a self, I should add, but plenty that can be done by undestanding or seeing those objects in the lake clearly for what they are. .... >Sarah, I want you to know that I > think you do exist and I think you are a lovely person. I wish you > all the world has to offer. I hope that you think I exist also and > that you wish me well. ;-) ... S: Thanks, James. I wish you very well indeed as you know. I don’t explain things very well, but it’s very obvious to me that understanding and detachment lead to more wholesome states such as metta and compassion for others, rather than the reverse. For a start, we are less likely to be fooled by the near and far enemies as these states are seen for what they are and it’s not ‘my’ kindness or caring, but conditioned dhammas that again are not worthy of being clung to or conceited about at all. 2] > Friend Sarah, > > I wanted to add one more thing: I am not saying that your view of > Buddhism is wrong and that mine is right. Actually, I struggle > everyday to have the `right view' of Buddhism...and of life. I > don't believe that this is an easy task which should be taken for > granted. .... S: James, I fully agree with you....it’s not an easy task at all and I think these words of yours reflect your deep commitment and honesty. What is ‘right’ is ‘right’ and doesn’t belong to anyone at all. .... >And then, occasionally, when I think I do have the `right > view', it will quickly slip away because of pride and arrogance. ;- > )) It is very difficult to be selfless; especially in a world that > doesn't value selflessness. ... S: Again, we’re all in the same boat so to speak and these are fine words. It’s not easy at all and ‘right view’ will only arise momentarily. It’s not the world that’s the problem (*take note Phil;-)), but ‘our’ accumulated ignorance. .... >But, even if I do have the wrong view, > I am going to continue to proceed to have it. Why? Because it > makes me happy and gives me hope. .... S: Exactly! Well said. It arises with attachment and has no wish or intention to see things any other way. It grasps at false straws seeing happiness in them. Like in the sutta about the darts which Howard quoted, even when the going is tough and we’re being pierced by the darts, there is the idea that pleasant experiences and feelings is the solution to our problems. .... >Maybe that is the difference in > our approaches: I emphasize happiness and contentment while you > emphasize wisdom. Maybe your approach is superior to mine? ... S: There doesn’t need to be a conflict. There are different kinds of happiness and contentment. But it has to be a path of detachment from what is experienced, slowly and gradually. Not easy. ..... >Maybe > one is not superior to the other, they are just different > approaches? If your approach works for you, I think that is > great!! But we will find it difficult to discuss what is important > in Buddhism when we are both coming from different angles. Okay, I > have rambled on enough… ;-) .... S: I know you’re considering, reading and reflecting a lot. The path of understanding doesn’t mean the path of misery. It doesn’t mean one has to change one’s lifestyle or try to be ‘selfless’ in anyway. It just means seeing those shells and pebbles a little more clearly for what they are. Thank you for these fine and honest comments, James. Metta, Sarah ====== 32769 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 5, 2004 2:43am Subject: Re: Not Count Yorga, Not Count Yorga ([dsg] Re: Cooran Thanks) Hi Chris, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hello Sarah (and Jon), > > Clearly, thirty years ago, you didn't have a predilection for > Midnight Horror Movies at the Drive-in on long summer > weekends. .... Thanks for filling in the blanks....we did try but were way off;-) Let's see - 30 yrs ago, I was travelling overland to India and Jon was already living in Thailand after a year of so in Indonesia so that may explain his cultural ignorance Down Under at the time too. (Reminds me of clients/students brought up during the cultural revolution in China who emerged totally ignorant of anything that had happened in the world outside for that period). What other wonders have we missed, I wonder? Now attachment to horror movies is one I've never been able to appreciate;-) Hope that last sentence on attachment to fear is enough to justify posting this reply. Metta, Sarah ======= 32770 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed May 5, 2004 2:51am Subject: Chittapala Hello Azita,Jon, Sarah, Chittapala has a mention on Buddhistnews.tv http://www.buddhistnews.tv/current/au-vesak-040504.php cheers, Chris 32771 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Wed May 5, 2004 0:59am Subject: Representation without Observer ! Friends: Neither 'in' nor 'by' experience is any "experiencer" per se created: 'Here, friend, regarding things seen, heard, sensed or conceived: Within the seen is only the seen.. Within the heard is only the heard.. Within the sensed is only the sensed.. Within the conceived is only the conceived.. When you, friend, regard the seen as merely seeing, regard the heard as merely hearing, regard the sensed as merely sensing, regard the conceived as just conception, then friend, you will not be or exist 'by that' ... When not being 'by that', you will neither be 'therein' ... When not being 'therein', you will neither be 'here' nor 'there', nor 'beyond' nor 'in between' ... This itself is the End of Suffering ...' --oo0oo-- The grouped sayings of the Buddha: Samyutta Nikaya IV 73 Comments: Detached, quite aware & clearly comprehending, seeing a form with the eye creates a momentary sensation, but do not thereby fabricate, conceive or construct neither an ego, observer, subject nor any external substance! Only this fact of a passing visual experience is noted: 'There arised & ceased another experience!' This radical empiricism...: Only the directly observed experience itself is granted transient existence. One cannot conclude that any subject or 'Me' is created, just because there is an object projected! Exactly like one cannot conclude that any photographer exists, just because a photo is taken (ex. a space-telescope is without any Ego!) When experience is rightly known & seen as just this flux of discrete impersonal momentary sensing, it just passes, without inducing any craving nor clinging. If all perceivable objects pass thus just mindfully noticed, without provoking any flaming lust nor any aversive disgust, no suffering is accumulated. Thereby frustration is gradually exhausted. The mental freedom of Nibbana is thus close by ... All yours in the Dhamma. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.msn.com/DirectDhamma/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/TrueDhamma 32772 From: Date: Wed May 5, 2004 1:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/5/04 12:08:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I agree with what you wrote (below) but the problem is that feeling > doesn't seem to be conditioned by desire in dependent arising. I don't > have a good answer to this question so I can't take this discussion much > further. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Let me interject a couple thoughts here in reply to the foregoing, and in anticipation of the following of yours. It seems to me that desire falls under sankharakkhandha, which puts it into the second link (after ignorance), and vedana follows later in the cycle. It seems to me that dependent origination is extraordinarily complex, involving cycles within cycles at several levels, and tanha actually occurs at several points besides the point at which it is explicitly mentioned. The becoming link at the end involves craving once again, which leads to rebirth (physical and rebirth of sense of self), which then leads back to ignorance restarting the cycle and, in a bit, to vedana again. The entire scheme can be correctly (I believe) looked at on many levels including the three-lifetime level, various shorter duration levels multiply repeated, and even at the level of dukkha arising in the moment, which is perhaps the most important of all. I suspect that the scheme of dependent origination contains amazing depths within it that elude us, and that were we to truly and directly see the fullness of it we might have to be even more than arahants. It seems to me that dependent origination in its fullness is the purview of Buddhas. ----------------------------------------------- > > Here are a few sketchy thoughts: what is desire? a dualistic imbalance, > a sense of incompleteness...? dukkha is kamma result (result of desire). > what is kamma result? identity...? identity is an ongoing formation > never complete. incomplete = dukkha, incomplete = desire...??? > > Larry > ========================== With metta, Howard > ------------------ > H: Hi again, Larry - > Thinking further on this > topic, I do see that it is a subtle one. I do agree that dukkha is very > close to craving. Dukkha in the "person" is very close to > dissatisfaction. Now what is dissatisfaction? Well, as I consider it, it > seems that it is *wanting* things to be other than the way they are, > that is > - desiring presence of what is absent or absence of what is present or > both (replacement). Yet I don't think that this dissatisfaction, itself, > is dukkha. I think that dukkha is the unhappiness or distress resulting > from, and usually immediately following upon, that dissatisfaction. They > are certainly close. > /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) 32773 From: Philip Date: Wed May 5, 2004 6:50am Subject: Global chaos or a cup of tea? HI Sarah, and all. S: >It's >not the world that's the problem (*take note Phil;-)), but `our >accumulated ignorance. Ph: I guess this would be referring to my confession at letting hostility run amok because of global events. This hostility is a very gross, crude defilement, but one that can be handled on the surface, at least, by cutting off the source. I'm back off the news for the last two days, and hopefully for days to come, and feeling much less troubled. Funny Sarah, but I receive Chinese characters on occasion in your messages, typos, that I've seen elsewhere on Yahoo. (For example, an apostrophe "s" becomes the character that's used in Japaense to refer to psychotic disorders! And the word in front of "accumulated" is partially blocked. It could be either "your" or "our" - but of course there's no difference there. There's an interesting proverb in Japanese. "Shiranu wa hotoke" which literally means "not knowing is the Buddha" - ie "Ignorance is bliss." We know that isn't true. The ignorance on the part of certain world leaders is on clear display, and my ignorance is allowing it in. What happens when lobha forms in response to dosa? Attachment to aversion is very unskilful indeed! I have a question related to panna and what comes next. If I feel the urge to check the internet news to get my morbid thrill from global chaos, but panna - if that's what plain old common sense could be called in this case - arises to remind me that it would be a very grossly unwholesome thing to do, what would the next part of the process be? What is it that gives me the strength to choose a cup of tea on the balcony instead? (It would seem like an easy choice to have the cup of tea, but addiction to unwholesome things can obviously be very strong.) Does panna have in itself a motivating energy to take that basic wisdom and carry through in a skillful action, or is there another kusala cetasika that activates will power? Something to do with virya (energy)? Thanks in advance for your feedback on this, Sarah or anyone else. I was going to write a "Dear Abbydhamma" about my morbid interest in the news, and lack of compassion for the people I see suffering in news reports on TV. I will continue to reflect on my gross lack of compassion for people I see on TV, which is peculiar because I am sometimes moved to tears by the sight of a stranger's hands folded on his or her lap while napping on the train and little things like that. I have such tender feelings for people in my immediate evironment, but am often quite unfeeling about people in the news. I guess it's the numbing effect of TV or something like that. Metta, Phil 32774 From: Date: Wed May 5, 2004 3:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Global chaos or a cup of tea? Hi, Phil - In a message dated 5/5/04 9:55:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, plnao@j... writes: > There's an interesting proverb in Japanese. "Shiranu wa hotoke" > which literally means "not knowing is the Buddha" - ie "Ignorance is > bliss." We know that isn't true. > ======================== Is another possible translation be "No-thought [Howard: meaning, perhaps, nonconceptualizing] is 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) 32775 From: Date: Wed May 5, 2004 3:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) In a message dated 5/5/04 5:33:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: evels, and tanha actually occurs at several points besides the point at which it is explicitly mentioned. The becoming link at the end involves craving once again, which leads to rebirth (physical and rebirth of sense of self), which then leads back to ignorance restarting the cycle and, in a bit, to vedana again. The entire scheme can be correctly (I believe) looked at on many levels including the three-lifetime level, various shorter duration levels multiply repeated, and even at the level of dukkha arising in the moment, which is perhaps the most important of all. I suspect that the scheme of dependent origination contains amazing depths within it that elude us, and that were we to truly and directly see the fullness of it we might have to be even more than arahants. It seems to me that dependent origination in its fullness is the purview of Buddhas. Howard, As you probably know, some teachers use the short form of Dependent Origination (DO) which starts with an event (phassa) and ends with rebirth. (Since it is a cycle, it doesn't really end anywhere.) They simplify DO into a very workable formula to guide one's daily life. In my opinion, this simple version is very powerful and doesn't deviate from the Buddha's intent. jack 32776 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed May 5, 2004 7:59am Subject: Re: Vesakha dating... Dear Bhikkhu Samahita, It is true that Vesak is not 2nd June. I have discussed at dhamma- list about this. Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bhikkhu Samahita" wrote: > > but according to Accesstoinsight it is on June 2. > > The ancient Indian month Vesakha is in April/May. > It ends on the fullmoon day of May. > So Vesak can never ever be in June! > > Im aware of the ATI date, which may be either > a mistake or a special Thai tradition. > > Both here on Sri Lanka, in Burma and > in Malaysia Vesak falls around today. > > samahita 32777 From: icarofranca Date: Wed May 5, 2004 8:45am Subject: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Dear Larry > Long time no see. Where have you been? As the usual japanese clerk could say at these occasions:"Issogashii...issogashii...", that means: "God in heavens! I have got a feel that I suddenly catch up a glimpse of a mind concerning about the fact that I am really very busy on these days!" Japanese is a very very hard language to tame up! > > What is dukkha ultimately? How is it conditioned by desire in dependent > arising? Following the newest reports on reality around me, Dukkha is not dwelling today at the Edinburgh Station or at the Firth of Forth, but only Buddha knows where is it just now! Mettaya, Ícaro 32778 From: robmoult Date: Wed May 5, 2004 9:01am Subject: Reverse Word Index to the Visuddhimagga Hi all, Today, I got an email from the Pali Text Society announcing: New Publication by the Pali Text Society: Index to the Visuddhimagga compiled by Professors Y. Ousaka and M. Yamazaki. ISBN 0 86013 414 8 26.50 pounds vi + 505 pp. I went to the website to get a better description but found none. I then did a Google search and discovered the following website: http://www.sendai-ct.ac.jp/~ousaka/1109F/RevWordVisud.pdf I opened up this .PDF document and it appears as though they have extracted every Pali word from the Visuddhimagga and sorted them in order of the last letters (i.e. it starts with words ending with " ' " followed by words ending in "a", followed by words ending in "a with an accent", followed by letters ending in "i"; in other words, it follows the Pali alphabet order of letters). For each word, it gives one or more (usually many more) references where this word appears in the Visuddhimagga in an unusual format. For example, the first two entries in the 500+ page list are: katthamukh' 367-32 nasikagg' 273-22 I have no idea why somebody would compile such a list in this order or how to interpret the references. Can one of our resident Pali scholars shed some light on this? Metta, Rob M :-) 32779 From: vellin michelle Date: Wed May 5, 2004 5:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hello, I'm a new member and intersting in answering your question. Dukkha is suffering. It is a state of mind. When your mind is attached to something, and if you can't achieve those things, it will cause suffering to yourself. Attachment here can also mean dependent. To eliminate the dukkha in ourself, we have to unattached to the things. I hope this brief explanation can help. Maybe others want to add... --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Icarro, > > Long time no see. Where have you been? > > What is dukkha ultimately? How is it conditioned by > desire in dependent > arising? > > Larry 32780 From: Date: Wed May 5, 2004 3:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Howard, One thought that occurred to me is that "formations" (sankhara) not only conditions consciousness (rebirth) but also contact. Contact is kamma resultant and so the feeling that arises with it is also kamma resultant. Hence, feeling is conditioned by desire and can therefore be included in dukkha. I would count both kinds of feeling, bodily and mental. Also, we could say the namarupa link is conditioned by sankhara since it arises together with the "consciousness" link. However, this doesn't single-out feeling as dukkha. I think we are still searching for clarity on what is dukkha in an ultimate sense and exactly how desire conditions dukkha. Larry ps: there is a problem with drawing a parallel between sankhara and becoming; that would make tanha conditioning upadana conditioning sankhara, 3 desires in a row. it might be better to parallelize consciousness/namarupa and becoming. 32781 From: Date: Wed May 5, 2004 4:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Michelle, Welcome to the group and thanks for coming in on this question of what is dukkha and how does it arise. "Attachment" is an interesting word. Is it real or imaginary? Larry ------------------------ M: "Hello, I'm a new member and intersting in answering your question. Dukkha is suffering. It is a state of mind. When your mind is attached to something, and if you can't achieve those things, it will cause suffering to yourself. Attachment here can also mean dependent. To eliminate the dukkha in ourself, we have to unattached to the things. I hope this brief explanation can help. Maybe others want to add..." 32782 From: Date: Wed May 5, 2004 4:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/5/2004 6:55:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > One thought that occurred to me is that "formations" (sankhara) not only > conditions consciousness (rebirth) but also contact. Contact is kamma > resultant and so the feeling that arises with it is also kamma > resultant. Hence, feeling is conditioned by desire and can therefore be > included in dukkha. I would count both kinds of feeling, bodily and > mental. Also, we could say the namarupa link is conditioned by sankhara > since it arises together with the "consciousness" link. -------------------------------- Howard: I agree completely with the foregoing. -------------------------------- However, this > doesn't single-out feeling as dukkha. I think we are still searching for > clarity on what is dukkha in an ultimate sense and exactly how desire > conditions dukkha. ------------------------------- Howard: No, it doesn't. But I think that is nonetheless exactly what 'dukkha' means: unhappiness, displeasure, mental unpleasant feeling. It is the opposite of sukkha. But to be dukkha in the "spiritual" sense, it must be specifically *mental* unpleasant feeling. The unpleasantness of a throbbing ache somewhere in the body is not dukkha in the spiritual sense. But the mental unpleasantness/suffering resulting from the aversion to that ache *is* dukkha in the spiritual sense. Experiencing the ache as unpleasant will occur even for a Buddha, but in a Buddha (or any other arahant) there will not be any *second* dart - there will not be the unhappiness resulting from aversion, for there will not be any aversion. It will be "just an ache" - impersonal, impermanent, insubstantial, not a problem. --------------------------- > > Larry > ps: there is a problem with drawing a parallel between sankhara and > becoming; that would make tanha conditioning upadana conditioning > sankhara, 3 desires in a row. it might be better to > parallelize > consciousness/namarupa and becoming. ----------------------------- Howard: You may be right. However, bhava may be an unfolding of fabrications other than desire. Bhava, it seems to me, represents a "gestation period". In the three-lives interpretation, it is determining (fabricating) the "choice" of realm of rebirth. In the momentary interpretation it is determining (fabricating) the nature of reconstituted self-sense or identity in the wake of the conditioning upadana. ============================= With metta, Howard 32783 From: Philip Date: Wed May 5, 2004 6:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Global chaos or a cup of tea? Hi Howard, and all Phil : > > There's an interesting proverb in Japanese. "Shiranu wa hotoke" > > which literally means "not knowing is the Buddha" - ie "Ignorance is > > bliss." We know that isn't true. Howard: > Is another possible translation be "No-thought [Howard: meaning, > perhaps, nonconceptualizing] is the Buddha"? Phil: Certainly when it's used by people in a colloquial way, it simply means if you don't know about something, it won't cause you any grief, so the ignorance is bliss meaning is the way it should be translated now. For example, a woman who doesn't want to know if her husband is being unfaithful might say "shiranu wa hotoke" - that's an example of how I heard it used in a TV drama. But it's interesting to think about the origin of the term, and how it was once, if ever, used in a stricter Buddhist sense. The folk religion aspects of Buddhism in Japan have dominated for a long time, I think and given a new twist to a lot of terms that originally had a stricter Buddhist meaning. I think your translation is very interesting and has provided me with a new angle on the very familiar expression. Thanks! I'm sure I'll eb thinking more about it, especially since I am holding on to a belief in the value of consciously generating wholesome concepts. But certainly your translation sounds correct from a Zen point of view with all their "Mu" (not, nothingness?) An alternative version of the proverb is "Mu chi wa hotoke", which is just as you said. "not - knowing" (And in passing, thanks for your and Rob's feedback on my "frying pan sound" question - I have printed it out and will be feeding it into the processor that is helping me to understand citta and cetasikas.) Metta, Phil 32784 From: Philip Date: Wed May 5, 2004 6:45pm Subject: Root cetasikas and minor cetasikas Hello all We have the (root) hetu cetasikas (formations), 3 kusala (wholesome) and 3 akusala (unwholesome.) The former are lobha (attachment), dosa (aversion) and moha (ignorance). The latter are alobha (generosity) adosa (non hate or loving kindness) and amoha (panna, or wisdom.) Are these called "root" because they give rise to variations? Can we think of cetasikas as a kind of family tree in reverse with minor cetasikas arising from the root cetasikas? (Come to think of it, I wonder why geneological family trees start from the top....) For example, conceit arising from ingorance? Or do they arise from a kind of parenting, for example attachment and ignorance giving birth to conceit. Or do all cetasikas contain either all three wholesome roots or all three unwholesome roots? Or do all cetasikas contains all 6? I will have to go back and look at Rob's diagrams again. I wonder if there is a kind of family tree of cetasikas in there... And does the fact that they are "root" mean that they are the primary ones that we should be looking at, and perhaps by looking at them and understanding them, the minor branches will be understood and pruned as a natural result? ie we don't have to work on them as long as we get at the root? I'm thinking more of the akusala cetasikas now - I think beginning to understanding them and working to remove defilements - I know that sounds too self-centred and self- active for some people! - is where that's where the progress lies for me now. Thanks in advance for any feedback on the importance of root cetasikas. Metta, Phil 32785 From: Philip Date: Wed May 5, 2004 6:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Global chaos or a cup of tea? Hi again Howard. Phil: > An alternative version >of the proverb is "Mu chi wa hotoke", which is just as you >said. "not - knowing is the Buddha" Oops. That's not what you said, that's what I said. You said "no thought", which is not the same thing. Funny how the mind (self?) works and leaps to confirm what it wants to believe is true. Metta, Phil 32786 From: Date: Wed May 5, 2004 3:30pm Subject: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi, Larry and all - I have defined dukkha in the "person", and in the spiritual sense, to be unpleasant mental feeling, and I think that is correct. On the other hand, the second of the tilakkhana is that all conditioned phenomena are dukkha. In particular, since pleasant feeling is a conditioned phenomenon, an instance of the second of the tilakkhana is that all pleasant feelings are dukkha!! So, we have the paradox: "All pleasant feelings are dukkha." How is this to be explained? I think there are these two senses of (spiritual) dukkha: 1) Dukkha as unpleasant mental feeling, or distress, and 2) Dukkha as the characteristic of phenomena to produce dukkha in the first sense (i.e., distress) when accompanied by clinging. All conditioned dhammas, when afflicted by clinging, produce distress. This includes pleasant feeling!! When pleasant feeling is clung to, unpleasant mental feeling is produced. ;-) With metta (which is mahasukkha), Howard P.S. Can one cling to metta? I suppose so! ;-)) /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) 32787 From: Philip Date: Wed May 5, 2004 11:19pm Subject: Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha HI Howard, and all Please allow me to slip in a beginner's pov on this. > All conditioned dhammas, when > afflicted by clinging, produce distress. This includes pleasant feeling!! When > pleasant feeling is clung to, unpleasant mental feeling is produced. ;-) Isn't it that "separation from the loved" is conditioned by the pleasant feeling, dissatisfcation from not having it next time? Or is the passage you quoted pointing at a much more immediate response? That would be a bit of a bummmer. If I'm going to feel dissatisfied I expect it to take a few hours at least! ;) I've become aware these days when I'm enjoying the sun (I'm a sun worshipper) that I'm planting the seed for feeling dissatisfaction on cloudy days, for example. > P.S. Can one cling to metta? I suppose so! ;-)) This is an interesting one! I was clinging to what I called "metta" and using it as a conceptual tool to try to paint "my" world in rosy colours and mmake it a cozier place to be, but now I am beginning to see- just beginning to see - metta as a dhamma that arises more as a result of defilements being cleared out of the way rather than intention to have it arise on my part. Eager to read what others will have to say about this. Metta (for want of a better word) Phil 32788 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 5, 2004 11:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Good News : Ajahn Jose Update ** Nina - Ajahn Jose, Chris Dear Suan & Chris, --- abhidhammika wrote: > > > Dear Nina, Chris, Sarah and all > > How are you? I have good news update regarding Ajahn Jose. I had a > telephone chat with Ajahn Jose a few minutes ago (around 12.50 p.m in > Canberra). > > He is feeling very well, and going home tomorrow to his monastery. > > I believe he will fill in more soon. .... Thank you for keeping us updated and it's very good news that the surgery seems to have gone well. Pls keep us informed and wish him a good rest and recovery from us all. I've f/w your messages and any others addressed to Nina for her to see on return. Metta, Sarah ======= 32789 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 5, 2004 11:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Reverse Word Index to the Visuddhimagga Hi RobM, --- robmoult wrote: > For each word, it gives one or more (usually many more) references > where this word appears in the Visuddhimagga in an unusual format. > For example, the first two entries in the 500+ page list are: > > katthamukh' 367-32 > nasikagg' 273-22 > > I have no idea why somebody would compile such a list in this order > or how to interpret the references. .... I'm lost too. It doesn't seem helpful to me and I'm not sure who'd use it. Presumably the refs are to the Pali. It sounds bizarre, but maybe I'm missing something. Metta, Sarah ====== 32790 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu May 6, 2004 0:13am Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Rob (and * for Ken H.), > A couple of general responses: > > 1/ I think it is important not to confuse the nature of activities > with our concepts about them. It may be that in the theoretical > scheme of things that contemplating sutta is not a "practice," but in > the ordinary sense of the word, it is. It is an activity, a task, > with a specific purpose. Sukin: I think this is why we must differentiate and come to determine exactly what the reality is and what we mean by them in the conventional sense. I don't think we can rely on the latter, since it is based on the idea of `self', `situations' and `activity', none of which have any ultimate status and all of which are infused with our personal and distorted understandings. > That is how I would define practice. In a > sense, I think you are confusing two different meanings of the same > word, one a technical term in the Buddhist path, distinguishing > between intellectual study and the accomplishment or presence of full > mindfulness, which you are calling the "practice;" and the ordinary > sense in which "practice" merely means a directed activity. Surely, > in that sense, both intellectual study of sutta and meditation are > "practices." Whatever it means by `practice' in the conventional sense, and how we ever create situations out of our experience through the six doorways, through ignorance or through panna, in the end if we are to come to appreciate the Buddha's teachings, we must be able to determine what behind all this, the `ultimate realities' are. I believe otherwise, we will not make any progress. > At the same time, you do have a valid point in that you are saying > that meditation purports to grant direct insight, which pariyatti does > not. You could say that pariyatti is a preliminary practice, while > paripatti is the actual practice. I think both pariyatti and patipatti must always go hand in hand. There must be I believe, moments of direct experience, though they may be too little to be noticed, otherwise I think, there cannot be the confidence in and to continue with pariyatti. [*Ken H. is this what you are referring to on another thread? I have always wondered about this, but never asked anyone.] So I don't think that pariyatti is preliminary and patipatti is the subsequent step, as in one following the other. I think we do have a tendency to draw lines and in the process take what is not real to be real, namely the conventional activities. Dhammas arise and fall by conditions, and none of us have directly seen enough of this to go beyond doubt that this is quite different from what we usually think. Attachment to our conventional view can only make it harder to appreciate this fact, I think. This is why I wanted us to be clear from the very beginning what pariyatti is, and how it relates to patipatti. I wanted to show you in the last post, that `study' is not the matter of accumulation of words, but the `understanding' which is something that arises because of conditions and cannot be willed. Of course it does involve `words' on one level, whether this is apprehended through the eye door, the ear door or the mind. And each time there is any understanding, it is `verbalized' mentally. But note that this does not happen automatically when one reads or hears the teachings, it must depend on other conditions as well, the primary of which is the accumulated panna, from hearing and reflecting in the past. > In that sense, what is the > preliminary practice prior to meditation, if meditation is the > practice? What is the preparation, which would be the meditator's > equivalent of pariyatti? I suppose it would also be the basic > comprehension of sutta or appropriate scripture. And then putting it > into practice through mindfulness meditation. In that sense the paths > seem somewhat similar. Again, I don't think that they should be compared. And just as it requires panna to `understand' the meaning of the words, it is panna which is involved in `patipatti'. No `self' can intend to have satipatthana, if conditions are right, it will happen. Just as one cannot will `understanding' while reading, listening or thinking over the words, similarly one cannot will satipatthana by `intending to apply'. Sati, just like panna, depends on conditions from past accumulations; `intention' is not one of the factors to condition it. Rather, the primary conditions would be, having heard about the Teachings in the past, particularly about the objects of sati, which is the paramattha dhammas. And because so much wrong view and other akusala have been accumulated from the past, that we need to be reminded again and again through pariyatti about realities and their conditioned nature. If we forget that sati and panna arises due to conditions other than intention, then wrong view will make us believe that we can `do' something to condition sati. Rob, when you decide to "apply" the theory, how sure are you that at that instant, that there is panna which makes the decision? If you agree that it is not panna, then what is the reality of the moment? Is it kusala, or is it desire? And if it is the latter, then by what miracle do you think that satipatthana can ever be conditioned to arise later on, except probably, a highly developed panna accumulated from the past. In which case I think, it would realize the futility of deliberate practice, because it would at that time see that conditions other than the sitting, caused it to arise. And once this happens, you will also see that the so called sati apparent during formal practice is not in fact satipatthana as taught by the Buddha, the characteristic being quite different. > I am still confused however, if paripatti is your equivalent of > meditation in our comparison, what exactly does paripatti entail as a > practice? If one does not meditate, what exactly is the practice of > satipatthana? I suppose it is the discernment of arising moments of > everyday life, which to me is basically the same thing as meditation, > except that you have the stipulation that one must not do it as a > specific purposeful practice, as one does in meditation. And everyday life may include `sitting', if that is our normal activity! However, we can't decide to `discern the arising moments in daily life' any more than we can do it during `formal sitting'. The main problem is `wrong view', and this can believe that there is a `self' who can apply either in `normal everyday activity' or `formal sitting' or even this very moment "now". This is the `self' which Sarah and others so often talk about, and is not bringing in a dualistic category, but is a reality of the moment, in this case `lobha mula citta accompanied by wrong view'. > But this too is confusing: If one practices mindfulness as a stage > following pariyatti, then it seems like it really is a purposeful > practice to gain the result of full mindfulness of the object, and so > it is just as intentional as meditation. And the distinction seems > even more artificial when you imagine that the only real difference > between paripatti and meditation is that the meditator is "assuming a > sitting position," while the practitioner of paripatti practices his > "meditation" wherever and under whatever conditions happen to arise. > Surely, the physical positioning of the practitioner cannot create > such a great theoretical rift? I hope you now understand that the core matter is Right / Wrong View. Sitting and not sitting is just side issues, though reflective of this primary one. And this is why on DSG so much emphasis is on Rt. View. > Even more confusing is the fact that every meditation practice > includes both walking meditation, and the admonition that the practice > of mindfulness should be extended into a 24-hour a day operation, > where one is always conscious of both the breath and whatever is > arising for consciousness. In many ways, both paths seem to come > around to the same place by a different route. Why the `breath' when we know that we have so much ignorance and wrong view regarding it? Why would any serious practitioner want to give importance to that which only conditions more akusala? Anything at all that we as worldlings give special importance to, that becomes immediately an object of clinging. And no matter how we rationalize about `breath' being neutral and so on, the clinging is there and becomes in fact, an object of `wrong view' when associated with right practice. > So what exactly does paripatti entail? And if it is indeed a > practice, how is this not a "doing" with a doer involved? I am > sincerely interested in the answer to this. Any moment of satipatthana is a moment of patipatti. So, just as one cannot will satipatthana because it will arise when the conditions are right, there is no one who `practices'. > > To me all of the above is "the practice." Now if one is *not* > discerning, but hallucinating, and going down an akusala path without > knowing it, well, that's a big problem. But I would like to know, > Sukin, how is one to know this anyway, if one does not trust his own > sense of whether detachment, insight, clarity of discernment, etc. are > developing? Who do you trust to tell you you are seeing the real > moment arising, if you yourself are not training your own citta to do > this? I think without development of faith in one's own evaluation of > what is occurring on the path, the path must be lost. Sanna, citta and ditthi vipallasa is the norm for most of us. We may believe that a certain characteristic trait qualifies as `hallucination' etc. However anytime there is attachment to result which motivates a measuring of one's progress along the path, and involving hindsight, how can we be certain that we are not hallucinating? I don't put much faith in my own evaluation based on the past, but there are moments of faith based on understanding the meaning of the Buddha's teachings and what can be verified in the moment. This keeps me going, at least more confident in the particular interpretation as taught by K. Sujin and expressed by many members of this list. But have I gone beyond doubt? Surely a big NO!! > I will appreciate your response, hoping that these points are not also > too far flung to give the basis for a good exchange. : ) Hope you are not disappointed. ;-) Metta, Sukin. 32791 From: robmoult Date: Thu May 6, 2004 0:25am Subject: Re: Root cetasikas and minor cetasikas Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Philip" wrote: > We have the (root) hetu cetasikas (formations), 3 kusala > (wholesome) and 3 akusala (unwholesome.) The former are lobha > (attachment), dosa (aversion) and moha (ignorance). The latter are > alobha (generosity) adosa (non hate or loving kindness) and amoha > (panna, or wisdom.) > > Are these called "root" because they give rise to variations? Can > we think of cetasikas as a kind of family tree in reverse with minor > cetasikas arising from the root cetasikas? (Come to think of it, I > wonder why geneological family trees start from the top....) For > example, conceit arising from ingorance? Or do they arise from a kind > of parenting, for example attachment and ignorance giving birth to > conceit. Or do all cetasikas contain either all three wholesome roots > or all three unwholesome roots? Or do all cetasikas contains all 6? > I will have to go back and look at Rob's diagrams again. I wonder if > there is a kind of family tree of cetasikas in there... > > And does the fact that they are "root" mean that they are the > primary ones that we should be looking at, and perhaps by looking at > them and understanding them, the minor branches will be understood > and pruned as a natural result? ie we don't have to work on them as > long as we get at the root? I'm thinking more of the akusala > cetasikas now - I think beginning to understanding them and working > to remove defilements - I know that sounds too self-centred and self- > active for some people! - is where that's where the progress lies for > me now. > > Thanks in advance for any feedback on the importance of root > cetasikas. The roots are the core, the heart of the mental state. Just as the roots form the foundation for a tree, so too the root cetasikas are the fundamental character, the base of the mental state. When an idea of conceit (mana) arises, this idea is built on a base of moha (not seeing things as they truly are) and lobha (attachment to self). Moha are lobha are the roots supporting every mental state with conceit. Hope this helps. Metta, Rob M :-) 32792 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 6, 2004 0:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Do or not do something Hi Jack, (Phil & All), --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > jack: I believe the suttas are self-contained. Nothing else including > the > Abhidhamma is needed. .... S: For Sariputta only a couple of lines were needed. For others a single sutta was enough. Philip mentioned a sutta in AN which seems to have an obvious meaning about the danger of anger I think. Even suttas like this which may seem obvious can easily be taken for ‘self’ or self ‘that can do’ if enough understanding hasn’t been developed. Can we really understand the depth of meaning without hearing more details? Even though disciples like Sariputta could understand the full meaning from a few lines, they’d continue to listen to all the details to help others and develop even greater wisdom. Those who became enlightened to the first 3 stages needed to continue as trainees, listening and considering further as well. It’s never enough. Pls allow a short commentary quote. I’ve been meaning to give a quote from the Netti, 53 (The Guide, PTS, attributed to Maha-Kaccaana, the great disciple who often elaborated on the Buddha’s words -- as encouraged to do so by the Buddha -- and to whom many of the early commentaries are attributed): “*How the Teaching is variously presented* 53. Herein. the Blessed One explains by letters, displays by terms, divulges by phrases, analyses by moods, exhibits by linguistics, and describes by demonstrations. Herein, the Blessed One condenses (uggha.teti) by letters and terms, he expands (vipa~ncayati) by phrases and moods, he details by linguistics and demonstations. Herein, condensing is the beginning, expanding is the middle, and detailing is the end. This True Idea and Outguiding (Discipline), when it is condensed, guides out (disciplines) the [type of] person who gains knowledge by what is condensed; hence ‘good in the beginning’ is said. When expanded it guides out (disciplines) the [type of] person who gains knowledge by what is expanded; hence ‘good in the middle’ is said. When detailed it guides out (disciplines) the [type of] person who is guidable; hence ‘good in the end’ is said. <...> “That is why the Blessed One said ” ... >Vipassana to me refers to the realization that all > phenomena is transient, non-self and unsatisfactory. Teachings addressed > those issues > and putting forth techniques to train one's mind to experience these > realities > is contained in the suttas. I don't think experiencing realites is > exclusively Abhidhamma. .... S: I agree, not at all. However, how many people reading the suttas alone have a clear understanding of the distinction between concepts and realities and appreciate that the tri-lakkhana are the characteristics of paramattha dhammas (realities) only? As I see it, they can never be realized without clearly understanding these namas and rupas and the clear distinction between them first. Without this understanding, it will be a conceptual idea of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and non-self only and be easy to fool ourselves about realizations of these characteristics, I think. .... > jack: I think we disagree on what the path of satipatthana is. ... S: Yes. I would say that what is done is usually done by ignorance. Occasionally, it may be done by wisdom, but this is the momentary understanding of a dhamma that is conditioned, not the ‘putting forth’ or doing of a technique with any idea of self, free-will or control, even in the beginning as a preparatory stage. .... > jack: Many people read the Abhidhamma and come up with different > interpretations. I think that is evident on this list. The majority of > these people who > study the Abhidhamma in my opinion believe in having a meditation > practice, to > take one example. That makes your view whether correct or incorrect in > the > minority and not mainstream. .... S: Thank you for the clarification. Either way (minority or mainstream), the practice has to be in accordance with the theory. There’s no use it teaching one theory about conditioned dhammas and then clinging to a practice based on something else. Metta, Sarah ===== 32793 From: abhidhammika Date: Thu May 6, 2004 0:57am Subject: Re: Reverse Word Index to the Visuddhimagga Dear Rob M, Sarah, Chris, Nina and all How are you? Rob M wrote: "I opened up this .PDF document and it appears as though they have extracted every Pali word from the Visuddhimagga and sorted them in order of the last letters (i.e. it starts with words ending with " ' " followed by words ending in "a", followed by words ending in "a with an accent", followed by letters ending in "i"; in other words, it follows the Pali alphabet order of letters)." And Sarah also wrote: "I'm lost too. It doesn't seem helpful to me and I'm not sure who'd use it. Presumably the refs are to the Pali. It sounds bizarre, but maybe I'm missing something." The reason for arranging the Pali words in the last letters is that this index follows the format of traditional Pali dictionaries or glossaries such as Mahaa Saddaniiti Dhaatumaalaa. And, why would the traditional Pali dictionaries or glossaries arrange Pali words according to the last letters? This is because the last latters are where the operations of the Pali grammar mainly happen. In the case of Pali nouns, the last letters show their different genders such as masculine, neuter, and femenine. Thus, we know instantly the noun "naasikaggam" , (nasikagg' 273-22) given by Rob as an example, to be a neuter noun because it ends in "-m" (niggahita kaaranta, it is not the consonant "m"). In the case of Pali verbs, the verbal suffixes also need to blend in with the last letters of Pali verbs. Therefore, the index has obviously been prepared by the two Japanese scholars keeping the Pali scholars and students in their minds. I haven't read the pdf document from the link posted by Rob, but what few clues he gave about this index gave me the impression that it would be very useful and handy for the Pali scholars and students. I have translated the line from Visuddhimaggo with the term "naasikaggam" for your convenient reading. 224 ."Bahinikkhamanavaatassa hi naabhi aadi, hadayam majjham, naasikaggam pariyosaanam." 224. "The start of the exhaled air is the navel, the middle of it the heart, and the end of it the tip of the nose." Bahinikkhamanavaata - literally means the air that goes outside. The above Pali line can be found in Section 224 on Aanaapaanassatikathaa, in Chapter 8, Visuddhimaggo Vol 1. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: Hi all, Today, I got an email from the Pali Text Society announcing: New Publication by the Pali Text Society: Index to the Visuddhimagga compiled by Professors Y. Ousaka and M. Yamazaki. ISBN 0 86013 414 8 26.50 pounds vi + 505 pp. Metta, Rob M :-) 32794 From: robmoult Date: Thu May 6, 2004 1:45am Subject: Re: Reverse Word Index to the Visuddhimagga Hi Suan, Thanks for the clarification. Clearly there are other books from PTS that are higher on my Christmas wish list. I genuinely hope that some day, I can Pali-literate enough to feel the need for this type of reference text. Metta, Rob M :-) 32795 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu May 6, 2004 1:46am Subject: Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hello Howard, Philip, and all, "Friend Saariputta, it is said, 'suffering, suffering.' What now is suffering?" There are, friend, these three kinds of suffering: the suffering due to pain, the suffering due to formations, the suffering due to change. These are the three kinds of suffering." [note 274] Samyutta Nikaya The Book of the Six Sense Bases (Salaayatanavagga) 38 Jambukhaadakasamyutta 14 Suffering (p. 1299 Bhikkhu Bodhi) Note 274: The three types are explained at Vism 499, 14-21 (Ppn. 16:34-35). Briefly, suffering due to pain (dukkha-dukkhataa) is painful bodily and mental feeling; suffering due to the formations (sankhaaradukkhataa) is all conditioned phenomena of the three planes, because they are oppressed by rise and fall; and suffering due to change (viparinaamadukkhataa) is pleasant feeling, which brings suffering when it comes to an end. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Philip" wrote: > > HI Howard, and all > > Please allow me to slip in a beginner's pov on this. > > > All conditioned dhammas, when > > afflicted by clinging, produce distress. This includes pleasant > feeling!! When > > pleasant feeling is clung to, unpleasant mental feeling is > produced. ;-) > > Isn't it that "separation from the loved" is conditioned by the > pleasant feeling, dissatisfcation from not having it next time? Or is > the passage you quoted pointing at a much more immediate response? > That would be a bit of a bummmer. > If I'm going to feel dissatisfied I expect it to take a few hours > at least! ;) I've become aware these days when I'm enjoying the sun > (I'm a sun worshipper) that I'm planting the seed for feeling > dissatisfaction on cloudy days, for example. > > > P.S. Can one cling to metta? I suppose so! ;-)) > > This is an interesting one! I was clinging to what I > called "metta" and using it as a conceptual tool to try to paint "my" > world in rosy colours and mmake it a cozier place to be, but now I am > beginning to see- just beginning to see - metta as a dhamma that > arises more as a result of defilements being cleared out of the way > rather than intention to have it arise on my part. > Eager to read what others will have to say about this. > > Metta (for want of a better word) > Phil 32796 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 6, 2004 1:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something Hi Jack again;-), --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > I believe that there is just seeing. (I don't deny that there is > something > out there apart from us that is seen.) Seeing consciousness and visible > object > is a dualistic and useful way to break up this non-dualistic process. > Another > way of saying it is that if we don't have an "I" sense, there is no more > > subject (I) or object (that which is seen), there is just seeing. .... S: So when we read about visible objects, sounds etc as the external ayatanas (sense fields), experienced by seeing consciousness etc to be clearly understood, do you take these merely as references to a ‘dualistic and useful way to break up this non-dualistic process’? SN35:4 “ ‘Bhikkhus, forms are impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering (*Note Howard and Larry - all realities except nibbana as dukkha). What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self.’ ‘Sounds...Odours...Tastes....Tactile objects....Mental phenomena (dhammaayatana) are impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘this is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ “ Seeing and visible objects have their own distinct characteristics. The former is a nama and the latter is a rupa. They have to be clearly distinguished and known. When we read in other suttas, like the Bahiya sutta, Udana 1:10, expresions such as: “There, Baahiya, you should so train yourself that with respect to the seen there will be merely the seen...”, it means that with regard to the visible object appearing at that time, there should be awareness and guarding of the sense doors rather than attachment or other kilesa arrising. .... > The Buddha, in my opinion, broke unified processes into many different > categories as teaching tools. For instance, in some teachings he broke a > person into > 5 aggregates. This was arbitrary in the sense that a person could be > broken > into other categories. The Buddha used these dualistic concepts to > communicate > and teach. Sometimes he did not use concepts. .... S: It seems that when I read the Buddha to be talking about realities - seeing, visible object, the aggregates, for example, you read him to be talking about concepts. Do you read ‘unified processes’ or ‘wholes’ such as the ‘non-dualistic’ combination of seeing and seen or person here as realities or concepts? I’d like to understand more clearly what you see as each. When the Buddha talks about the impermanence of visible objects and sounds (above), can there be impermanence of concepts? .... > jack: No disagreement if there is also room for self determination, > i.e., > choices to be made. One can make decisions out of unconditioned mind. ... S: What is the unconditioned mind and what is this self-determination? .... > jack: I do use awareness and watching as synonyms. When one is "just > sitting" > without defilements, one is aware naturally and without purpose. One has > to > have a lot of practice under one's belt in order to "just sit" without > defilements. .... S: Even for one second! ... > jack: I think there is a personal responsibility and ability to make > decisions. Throughout the suttas, the Buddha is talking about decisions > and training > one's mind. .... S: I’m sorry, but when I read about ‘watching’, ‘personal responsibility’ or self to bring about non-self, it sounds as if you or others are agreeing that there are conditions and causes but initially there’s a self to do something. We know that whether or not we ever hear of the Buddha’s teachings, there is never a self in truth, merely a wrong idea that there is. .... > jack: Yes I am saying there has to be conscious training/practice in > order to > reach a stage where there is no special wish or intention. I am clear > what > your position is. After all this, I hope you are clear on my position. .... S: Yes. Actually I haven’t had any difficulty understanding your position -- it's very familiar -- but I’m trying to find ways to discuss it in order to find some agreement;-).In other words, I’m just exploring our positions further, especially in the light of the teaching on anatta. I'll look forward to any of your further comments. Hope this one is not too frustrating. Metta, Sarah ====== 32797 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 6, 2004 2:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Question Still Remains/Cooran Hi KenH (& Rob Ep*), --- kenhowardau wrote: > S: > In other words, when we think about knee and pain and coffee > table and so on, these are terms and concepts which mask the > realities. > ------------------ > > I understand you to be saying; if, at the intellectual level, > concepts aren't differentiated from realities, then, at the ultimate > level, realities will not be known for what they are. ... S: Good summary. ... >That > prompts me to ask, "What is meant by, `at the intellectual level?'" > I think you and Nina would maintain that the intellectual level is > not solely at the mind door with concepts as objects. ... S: It is, but just momentary panna again with concepts (or realities) as objects, eg thinking now with panna about how seeing, no self, experiences visible object. .. >There are a > lot of sense-door and mind-door processes intermingled. Who knows, > perhaps some of them have a little direct understanding of the very > dhammas that are being conceptualised. .... S: Yes. Different moments..... .... > I think you are saying that our intellectual understanding should > not overreach itself. Better to have a helpful, general idea than a > misleading, specific asumption. ... S: I’ve forgotten but this sounds good;-) Pls clarify what I’m saying more often.....sometimes you know better than I do what it is;-). I could do with some pithy tips too. .... > Thanks for that; there is obviously a lot of important activity at > the sense-doors -- not just at the conceptualising mind-door. > Thanks, also, for retyping your favourite quote about improper > visitors in the eye-door process (partly snipped): > --------------------- > > "And as it is improper for a visitor who has entered another's > house to ask for something, to give orders, when the owners of the > home sit in silence, so lusting or hating or becoming deluded in the > eye door which is the home of adverting, etc. is improper when > adverting, etc. do not lust or hate or become deluded. Thus > should `clear understanding through non-delusion' be understood by > way of `visiting'." > > -------------- > > So, even adverting consciousness can be trained. By conditions, of > course. .... S: I don’t read it like that. We know that there is a series of cittas arising in the eye door process, starting with sense-door adverting consciousness after the bhavanga cittas (‘adverting, etc). These cittas starting with ‘adverting, etc’ don’t lust or hate (lust or hate can only arise with the javana cittas), so it is improper for these subsequent javana cittas in the same process to lust or hate like improper visitors. So it is the javana cittas that need to be trained or rather ‘clear understanding through non-delusion’ should be encouraged to visit. Reminds me of the luminosity thread and the commentary explanation about the ‘naughty children’[i.e akusala javana cittas] spoiling the reputation of the ‘pure’ parents [i.e the previous bhavanga cittas]. <*I just put that in to see if Rob Ep is reading all mails as I’m not sure if he saw my earlier one;-)> .... > ------------- > S: > I also thought your comments on the `Illusion of Control' were > pretty good > ------------------------- > > Thank you, I won't snip that :-) It made me think; after spending > so much time nutting-out posts for dsg, why should I double up with > discussion papers for Cooran? So, I followed your advice and > presented the `Illusion of Control' post. I think I got away with > it. > -------------------- ... ;-) Ah, but did the others agree with that conclusion or just keep quiet? .... > So do I. The extra day made the weekend even better than usual. > Sometimes, my insistence that everyone should agree with me got a > little taxing, but the others were very tolerant. (That's Buddhists > for you.) I think we all feel enlightened, but not quite to the > extent advertised :-) .... S: ;-) Sounds like you get away with far more than you do here.....;-) We have the idea that it’s good to be well and truly challenged. I’m enjoying all the enlightened posts.....maybe they’re tolerant because they’re afraid that otherwise you’ll set your eyes on one of those sheds and they’ll be left exposed in the freezing paramatthic rupas?? A little tolerance sounds like a good price for a shelter and blanket or two. Metta, Sarah ===== 32798 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 6, 2004 2:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Michelle, I was glad to read your comments on dukkha and I'd like to welcome you here to DSG! Please share a little about yourself, your background in Buddhism or where you live. Let us know if you need any help here. The posts can also be read or searched at this link: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ Metta, Sarah --- vellin michelle wrote: > Hello, > > I'm a new member and intersting in answering your > question. > Dukkha is suffering. It is a state of mind. When your > mind is attached to something, and if you can't > achieve those things, it will cause suffering to > yourself. Attachment here can also mean dependent. To > eliminate the dukkha in ourself, we have to unattached > to the things. 32799 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu May 6, 2004 3:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Question Still Remains/Cooran Dear KenH, (Sarah), and all, My dear sir, you got away with absolutely 'nothing' ... we simply allowed you to 'think' that you had. (smile) There is a large ledger in the cattery with all the debits and credits listed. (Especially the staggering 'taking my turn at washing up' deficit, plus the list of excuses like ''why I was too busy defending the beach against longboarders to write a paper''). On one of the next weekends, we may arrange an 'intervention' - be prepared to find yourself the sole cook and dish washer, bed assembler, table setter, campfire convenor, paper presenter, compost collator, water bucket replenisher and discussion leader. Now is the time to start digging out recipes, lifting weights, collecting wood, and typing your insights. And ... how is it possible that you could have mistaken the exclamations "Yeah, Right!" and "Oh, Duh!" and "Sure, KenH, sure!" as agreement? (smile) Ah well - moha, moha and more moha .... cheers, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah > > after spending > > so much time nutting-out posts for dsg, why should I double up with > > discussion papers for Cooran? So, I followed your advice and > > presented the `Illusion of Control' post. I think I got away with > > it. > > -------------------- > ... > ;-) Ah, but did the others agree with that conclusion or just keep quiet? > .... > > So do I. The extra day made the weekend even better than usual. > > Sometimes, my insistence that everyone should agree with me got a > > little taxing, but the others were very tolerant. (That's Buddhists > > for you.) I think we all feel enlightened, but not quite to the > > extent advertised :-) > .... > S: ;-) Sounds like you get away with far more than you do here.....;-) We > have the idea that it's good to be well and truly challenged. I'm enjoying > all the enlightened posts.....maybe they're tolerant because they're > afraid that otherwise you'll set your eyes on one of those sheds and > they'll be left exposed in the freezing paramatthic rupas?? A little > tolerance sounds like a good price for a shelter and blanket or two. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ===== 32800 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu May 6, 2004 3:08am Subject: Subrahma's Problem Dear All, Subrahma: "Always anxious is this mind, the mind is always agitated, about problems present and future; please tell me the release from fear." Buddha: "Not apart from awakening and austerity, Not apart from sense restraint, Not apart from relinquishing all, Do I see any safety for living beings." http://www.purifymind.com/SubrahmaProblem.htm metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 32801 From: Date: Thu May 6, 2004 0:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi, Phil - In a message dated 5/6/04 2:22:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, plnao@j... writes: > HI Howard, and all > > Please allow me to slip in a beginner's pov on this. > > >All conditioned dhammas, when > >afflicted by clinging, produce distress. This includes pleasant > feeling!! When > >pleasant feeling is clung to, unpleasant mental feeling is > produced. ;-) > > Isn't it that "separation from the loved" is conditioned by the > pleasant feeling, dissatisfcation from not having it next time? Or is > the passage you quoted pointing at a much more immediate response? > That would be a bit of a bummmer. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I think it's both. Your point about the distress of separation from the loved is right on the mark. But more immediately in time may come the distress resulting from *anticipating* that separation. And even more immediately comes the distress resulting from the almost simultaneous clinging to the pleasant feeling. Clinging, itself, even to a "good feeling", is unpleasant - at best bittersweet.) ---------------------------------------------- > If I'm going to feel dissatisfied I expect it to take a few hours > at least! ;) I've become aware these days when I'm enjoying the sun > (I'm a sun worshipper) that I'm planting the seed for feeling > dissatisfaction on cloudy days, for example. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think it may set in as soon as clinging does. But with subtle clinging, the resultant distress will also be subtle. ------------------------------------------------- > > >P.S. Can one cling to metta? I suppose so! ;-)) > > This is an interesting one! I was clinging to what I > called "metta" and using it as a conceptual tool to try to paint "my" > world in rosy colours and mmake it a cozier place to be, but now I am > beginning to see- just beginning to see - metta as a dhamma that > arises more as a result of defilements being cleared out of the way > rather than intention to have it arise on my part. > Eager to read what others will have to say about this. > > Metta (for want of a better word) > Phil > ==================== 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) 32802 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 6, 2004 5:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reverse Word Index to the Visuddhimagga Hi Suan, Many thanks indeed from me as well for your very comprehensive reply and for shedding light on our ignorant speculations;-)It makes good sense now. Metta, Sarah --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Suan, > > Thanks for the clarification. Clearly there are other books from PTS > that are higher on my Christmas wish list. > > I genuinely hope that some day, I can Pali-literate enough to feel > the need for this type of reference text. 32803 From: Philip Date: Thu May 6, 2004 5:28am Subject: Re: Root cetasikas and minor cetasikas Hi Rob, and all Rob: > The roots are the core, the heart of the mental state. Just as the > roots form the foundation for a tree, so too the root cetasikas are > the fundamental character, the base of the mental state. > > When an idea of conceit (mana) arises, this idea is built on a base > of moha (not seeing things as they truly are) and lobha (attachment > to self). Moha are lobha are the roots supporting every mental state > with conceit. Phil: This is very helpful. I will look at the minor (I think that's the word Nina uses) cetasikas as being built on and supported by the root cetasikas. I can see that I needn't think hard now about exactly how the roots combine to be this base for other cetasikas. It's enough for me now to have had it confirmed that that's the way it works. Something just popped into my head. I can intellectually understand/conceive of attachment and aversion as dhammas, as real mental factors, but moha is harder to understand for me in that sense. It seems like an absence rather than a presence, and I have thought of cetasikas as presences, as in realities that form the present moment. I guess it's easier for me to see ignorance ("not seeing things as they truly are") as caused by -attachment which by comforting, distracting or stupefying causes us to forget to try see things as they are, -or aversion which because of fear, irritation, disgust or whatever turns us away from trying see things as they are. But I have more trouble understanding moha as a root with an intrinsic existence of its own. Do you know what I mean? It seems to me at this moment that ignorance would result from aversion and/or attachment rather than being a presence of its own. That just popped into my head. Of course I'm not suggesting that the the roots be edited down to 4 from 6! ;) just making that comment as a way of better understanding moha. Maybe it's easier to understand moha starting from amoha. It's easier for me to think of panna as a presence, but that's probably wrong view too. Not sweating it though. This is fun! I hope I'm not wearing out my welcome with all these speculative posts. Thanks again for your help. I really appreciate your guidance. Metta, Phil 32804 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Thu May 6, 2004 0:02am Subject: No Agent inside ! Friends: Impersonal Processes: Action without an Actor: Who feels ? - Nobody feels ! What feels ? - Feeling itself feels ! What does feeling feel ? Feeling feels pain, pleasure & neutral indifference. Who perceives ? - Nobody perceives ! What perceives ? - Perception itself perceives ! What does perception perceive ? Perception perceives forms, colours, sounds, smells, tastes, touches and ideas, thoughts & mental states. Who (re)cognizes ? - Nobody cognizes ! What cognizes ? - Consciousness itself cognizes ! What does consciousness recognize ? Consciousness cognizes feelings, perceived experiences and all the other various mental states as joy, anger etc. These imprints arise & cease incessantly. Obervable this is! In this passing flux of discrete mental states - exactly like the single still pictures of a rolling film, passing in between the lens & lamp, causing a projection - neither a 'feeler' nor a 'experiencer' as 'Observing Agent' can be found, assumed, constructed, concluded or deposited... Feeling itself does not per se imply any 'feeler' as often assumed! Perception does not itself imply any 'experiencer' as often assumed! Just like we cannot conclude from the 2 facts: 1: That there is a cinema. 2: There is a film projected inside this cinema. That there actually are anybody 'inside' this cinema !!! This 'cinema' of mere experience is empty of any 'Self', empty of any 'Person', empty of any 'Soul', empty of any 'Entity' apart from the projected experience itself... !!! ________________________________________________________ Is the self identical with the body ? - No ! Is the self hidden inside the body ? - No ! Is the self outside apart from the body ? - No ! Does the self own & posses a body ? - No ! Does the body own & posses a self ? - No ! Is the self identical with the feeling ? - No ! Is the self hidden inside the feeling ? - No ! Is the self outside apart from the feeling ? - No ! Does the self own & posses a feeling ? - No ! Does the feeling own & posses a self ? - No ! Is the self identical with the experience ? - No ! Is the self hidden inside the experience ? - No ! Is the self outside & apart from experience ? - No ! Does the self own & posses an experience ? - No ! Does the experience own & posses a self ? - No ! Is the self identical with the mental construction ? - No ! Is the self hidden inside the mental construction ? - No ! Is the self outside apart from mental construction ? - No ! Does the self own & posses a mental construction ? - No ! Does the mental construction own & posses a self ? - No ! Is the self identical with the consciousness ? - No ! Is the self hidden inside the consciousness ? - No ! Is the self outside apart from consciousness ? - No ! Does the self own & posses a consciousness ? - No ! Does the consciousness own & posses a self ? - No ! Why not ? Because all these phenomena arise, change & cease. If the propositions above are affirmed, then the: 'Identical, Same & Unchanging Self' should arise, change & cease... Which is absurd, contradictory & inconsistent! Is the self then a collective conglomerate of body, feeling, experience & consciousness ? - No ! Why not ? If self is not in the parts, it cannot either be in any collection of the same parts! In Conclusion: All 'Egoism' is based on an assumed & long cherished idea of an 'agent inside' called self, which does not exist except as a mental construction we fall in love with & violently defend... This falsehood is fatal! The assumed 'self', 'agent', 'identity', 'soul' or 'personality' does not exist as an unchanging substance. Freed of such self-Obsession, one is freed of the first hindrance blocking all ways to Nibbana: Personality-belief! This -the Buddha's doctrine of No-Self- is called Anatta. May all come to see & be calmed thereby. Subtle & complex, yet true & freeing. My forest return is today. Never give up! : - ] All yours in the Dhamma. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.msn.com/DirectDhamma/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/TrueDhamma 32805 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu May 6, 2004 6:38am Subject: RE: [dsg] Appreciating Abhidhamma (was abhidhamma and citta #2206) Hi Philip, I am sorry I couldn't correspond more at the moment. I am going thru a necessary career transition that takes lots of time and efforts --- I am only doing the things that just allow me to survive for the moment. The following are comments about your recent discussion... > > > Ph: I'd assumed that the suttas were taught by the Buddha to a > > variety of people, including "beginners". That probably comes from > > my short interest in the Christian Gospel, in which Christ teaches > > the masses, so to speak, without any consideration of whether or not > > they have sufficient accumulations. Of course in Buddhism there are > > no beginners, because of accumulations from countless past lives. So > > if the Buddha were to teach a shepherd, or a prince, there would be > > no inherent distinction between their ability to understand based on > > their social rank in that one lifetime, is that right? Buddha is known to have the supreme knowledge about each person's accumulation and what teachings would benefit them both short terms and long terms. People have different accumulations, even nowadays. Two people listen to the dhamma, each understands differently about what was said. When we hang out with people who learn dhamma nowadays long enough, it is obvious that it is not primarily because of their education, backgrounds, wealth, that they understand dhammas the way they do. I personally found non-college-degree individuals who understand dhamma very well, and college-degree people who don't even want to hear more about it even when they conceptually "understand" the teaching of anattaness. >> On the other > > hand, the Buddha surely used technical language that only those > > trained in certain meditation etc practices at that time could > > understand. > > Did the Buddha tailor his language in some suttas in a way that they > > could be appreciated by people who had the right accumulations to > > understand, but no knowledge of the necessary technical terms in that > > lifetime? The Buddha tailors his teachings to his audience. There is no doubt about that. For those accumulated to develop anapanasati, he teaches the dhammas in that format. For those who are interested in development of asubha meditation, he also teaches the dhamma in that format. For those many more who haven't accumulated to develop tranquil meditation, he teaches about dana, sila, and the everyday's descriptions of conducts that would bring them growth. For all, he teaches them about the dhamma, about the way towards the liberation from sufferings. > > > > Ph: I am feeling this is true these days. I printed out the entire > > Anguttara Nikaya with its numerical lists, and read through them, and > > was profoundly inspired by some of them – and some of them are > > indisputably clear, such as the one about "letters written in > > water" – but I always felt aware that I was kind of trying to amass > > "my" wisdom by beginning to have a lot of knowledge of suttas that > > I could impress people with by referring to at just the right point > > in a discussion to prove my point. When we read the suttas, etc., we read about persons, places, things one "should do", and it is easy for us who are already very tuned toward believing in self, believing that "we" can do this, we can do that, we own this, we own that, it is us who do --- which are all the things I believe the Buddha didn't teach. When we read about the 5 kandhas, the ayatanas (the sense bases), the dhatus (the 18 elements), we begin to understand a little that all there really is is these paramatha dhammas with their own distinct characteristics, that they come and go according to their own conditions. Without the proper conditions, a dhamma doesn't arise. Once arisen, it immediately goes away. There is really no self, no person who really does this and that, but materiality and mentality that arise according to their own conditions, and then immediately fall away. It is hard to accept this, because there is not yet wisdom that sees that this is absolutely true, and all the accumulations of ignorance for eons kicks in and sway us back toward the thought that it is me, and I can do this, and I can do that. > > > > Ph: I am still fighting a tendency to want to interpret Abhidhamma > > the way I like, thus my questions (complaints?) about citta being not > > considered more random/by chance. Think about what you see, hear, smell, taste, and touch in daily life. Doesn't that seem rather random to you? You don't even really know what you would see, hear a few minutes for now. There is a bird chirping outside my window, when am I going to hear its noise next? Unclear... Yet, there seems to be "our" thoughts that weave in and weave out of the consciousness, which seems very much like "ours," as we more or less seem to be in control of it. But when we look at that carefully, we can clearly see that that is false. When I hear a sound, I think about what the sound is, without "me" doing anything active about the thinking --- cittas (thoughts) have already arisen according to their own conditions. When we read about the dhammas, our thoughts about how things are starting to change (hopefully, for the more accurate versions!), again cittas conditioned by their own conditions. But yet all the mean while, we keep thinking these are all us who are doing, who are gaining wisdom, because we do not yet clearly see and comprehend that these are all conditioned dhammas... The more we truly understands the dhammas, that are arising now, not just stories and words and labels, the more we truly understand the Master's teachings. kom 32806 From: Michelle Vellin Date: Thu May 6, 2004 6:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hello Larry, As I'm indonesian, I mostly get the knowledge of buddhism in indonesian language. But, I read most of the buddhism book in english, it is a word 'attachment' refers to 'tanha'. It is what I interpret the word....maybe there will be any correction from others? --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Michelle, > > Welcome to the group and thanks for coming in on > this question of what > is dukkha and how does it arise. "Attachment" is an > interesting word. Is > it real or imaginary? > > 32807 From: robmoult Date: Thu May 6, 2004 8:21am Subject: Re: Root cetasikas and minor cetasikas Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Philip" wrote: > This is very helpful. I will look at the minor (I think that's the > word Nina uses) cetasikas as being built on and supported by the root > cetasikas. ===== Not sure about the term "minor"; haven't heard it before. ===== > Something just popped into my head. I can intellectually > understand/conceive of attachment and aversion as dhammas, as real > mental factors, but moha is harder to understand for me in that > sense. It seems like an absence rather than a presence, and I have > thought of cetasikas as presences, as in realities that form the > present moment. > > I guess it's easier for me to see ignorance ("not seeing things as > they truly are") as caused by > -attachment which by comforting, distracting or stupefying causes us > to forget to try see things as they are, > -or aversion which because of fear, irritation, disgust or whatever > turns us away from trying see things as they are. > > But I have more trouble understanding moha as a root with an > intrinsic existence of its own. ===== Moha is translated as delusion, ignorance or dullness. The characterisitic of moha is mental blindness or unknowing; opposition to knowledge. The function of moha is the concealment of the true nature of an object; non-penetration. Moha is manifested when there is an absence of right understanding; opposition to right practice (patipatti) causing mental blindness. Moha arises when we have unwise attention (ayoniso manasikara). Moha is truly the root of all immoralities. Moha 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). ===== > Do you know what I mean? It seems to me at this moment that > ignorance would result from aversion and/or attachment rather than > being a presence of its own. > That just popped into my head. Of course I'm not suggesting that > the the roots be edited down to 4 from 6! ;) just making that comment > as a way of better understanding moha. Maybe it's easier to > understand moha starting from amoha. It's easier for me to think of > panna as a presence, but that's probably wrong view too. > ===== You see lobha and dosa as supporting moha, when in fact it is the other way arround. The only way that attachment or aversion can arise is if one first takes for permanent that which is impermanent (moha). If one truly understands impermanence, then how could one have lobha or dosa. If realities arise and fall away in an instant does it make sense to cling to them or have aversion to them? Metta, Rob M :-) 32808 From: robmoult Date: Thu May 6, 2004 8:32am Subject: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Michelle, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Michelle Vellin wrote: > As I'm indonesian, I mostly get the knowledge of > buddhism in indonesian language. But, I read most of > the buddhism book in english, it is a word > 'attachment' refers to 'tanha'. It is what I interpret > the word....maybe there will be any correction from > others? ===== My wife is Indonesian. We were married in a small vihara in Menteng, Jakarta. ===== > > > > Welcome to the group and thanks for coming in on > > this question of what > > is dukkha and how does it arise. "Attachment" is an > > interesting word. Is > > it real or imaginary? ===== Larry knows a lot of dhamma; his question is challenging you to think. Put aside your books for a moment and consider for yourself, "is attachment real or imaginary?" and how do you know this? On what basis do you make this decision? Sometimes the simplest sounding questions are the best... and sometimes they are just a pain :-) Metta, Rob M :-) 32809 From: icarofranca Date: Thu May 6, 2004 9:22am Subject: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Dear Michelle > As I'm indonesian, I mostly get the knowledge of > buddhism in indonesian language. Welcome to the most noble company of Dhamma students from here to Brahmaloka! But, I read most of > the buddhism book in english, it is a word > 'attachment' refers to 'tanha'. It is what I interpret > the word....maybe there will be any correction from > others? Tanha is usually translated by "Craving", a more or less ugly word. But you can take Craving or Attachment without so many doubts... it's the real fuel that feed Dukkha and teh samsara wheel. Mettaya, ícaro > > > > > --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Hi Michelle, > > > > Welcome to the group and thanks for coming in on > > this question of what > > is dukkha and how does it arise. "Attachment" is an > > interesting word. Is > > it real or imaginary? > > 32810 From: Date: Thu May 6, 2004 6:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) In a message dated 5/6/04 9:24:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, icarofranca@y... writes: But, I read most of > the buddhism book in english, it is a word > 'attachment' refers to 'tanha'. It is what I interpret > the word....maybe there will be any correction from > others? Tanha is craving or wanting or desiring and upadana is clinging or attachment. Tanha is sometimes described as analogous to reaching for a glass of water. Upadana is holding onto the glass. jack 32811 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu May 6, 2004 11:39am Subject: Re: Video Games? Friend Sarah: Sarah: Nothing that can be done by a self, I should add, but plenty that can be done by undestanding or seeing those objects in the lake clearly for what they are. James: Oh, I don't recall you giving me your impression of what you thought the objects in the lake were. Did you post to me about this and I missed it??? So, how is one supposed to see those objects in the lake, clearly? What is the `plenty that can be done' you mention? Please enumerate these things for me and please be as specific as possible. (Of course, in my mind I am thinking "What needs to be done is follow the Eightfold Path", but I doubt that you aren't thinking that. So I am curious as to what your answer will be. ;-) Maybe your answer will be: Listening, Thinking, and Posting to DSG?? ;-)) Sarah: I don't explain things very well, but it's very obvious to me that understanding and detachment lead to more wholesome states such as metta and compassion for others, rather than the reverse. For a start, we are less likely to be fooled by the near and far enemies as these states are seen for what they are and it's not `my' kindness or caring, but conditioned dhammas that again are not worthy of being clung to or conceited about at all. James: From my reading of the suttas, specifically the Karanaya Metta Sutta "Hymn of Universal Love", the development of metta, just like the development of wisdom, goes through stages. It isn't either complete and pure metta or selfish lust and desire: there are gradations in the development. Contrary to what you write here, metta must be developed first as one living being to other living beings, even though the near enemies of Metta (Greed, lust, worldly affection, sensuality) might be present. One is to project love and compassion to all living beings just as a mother projects love to it's only infant (This is the Buddha's description. Note: The Buddha mentions nothing about knowing dhammas as dhammas). Not only that, this state of mind is supposed to be actively pursued and developed throughout one's waking hours with zeal and concentrated effort. It isn't until the end of the practice, when sensual desire has been eradicated, that the metta will become universal and complete. (Did you know that upon waking, the Buddha usually had this early-morning routine: 1. Meditate on Nibanna; 2. Meditate on the Brahma-Viharas; 3. Search the universe with his divine eye for the beings most in need of help which he could help that day? Don't know if this specifically relates, but I think it is a nice thing to know! ;-)) Sarah: Thank you for these fine and honest comments, James. James: You're welcome. I just wanted to show that it isn't necessary to be perfect to follow the path. They didn't have quite the effect I wanted though: I wanted to lead you off that anatta high-horse you are always riding, but it didn't work! ;-)) Maybe next time. ;-) Metta, James 32812 From: Andrew Date: Thu May 6, 2004 4:17pm Subject: Re: The Practical View of Anatta Dear Suravira Thank you for replying to my post. Sorry it has taken so long to respond - this is often a problem I have, being around long enough to do a single post but not to carry on much of a conversation! You wrote: The term anatta is, regretably, commonly interpreted to > mean "not-self", or "no-self" or "non-self". This is a very > regretable translation, as the term (and notion of) "self" is > multifaceted within western cultures. A more preferable definition > would be "false views of individuality." An interesting definition which I have not come across before. > You also wrote: As regards Prof. Harvey's position that anatta is "... not a denial > of the existence of a permanent self ...", this assertion is both > incorrect and partially correct. > > It is incorrect in that the Buddha clearly negated the notion of a > permanent self (and of any permanent phenomena) through his > teachings on dependent origination. > > Prof. Harvey's assertion is partially correct only in the sense that > the Buddha never negated the subjective, individual, experience of > life - of reality. Andrew: I'm not convinced that defining anatta as "false views of individuality" is, however, all that useful. As you say, Buddha did deny the existence of a permanent self. The "subjective, individual, experience of life - of reality" which he never negated I can only take to mean a present moment of nama-rupa. What else could individuality attach to? That moment is also, of course, impermanent. To refer to it as some sort of subjective individuality doesn't help me to intellectually dispel the notion of a "me" or "mine". > [Suravira] Is this matter of engaging in exercises adequate proof > that the "self" does not exist? Or, is it first necessary to present > absolute proof that this "self" does in fact exist - in a manner > that cannot be disputed by someone whose percieves things correctly? > Why accept the challenge of negating the existance of something that > has not been proven to exist? Andrew: As an ex-lawyer, I feel very at home with arguments about the onus of proof. But when I study Dhamma, I am more interested in understanding than the rhetoric of who has to prove what. The fact is that the illusion of a permanent self is a very strong one which calls for proper understanding - even by way of negation. My reading has led me to believe that Buddha was often content to describe things by way of stating what they are not. Nibbana is a classic example, I suppose, but that's getting off track. I take your point to be, though, that people who firmly believe in the existence of a permanent self should demonstrate their belief rather than just say "it's so obvious". I agree. Suravira: We all have this perceived experience of life - of being in > time/space - correct? This is a universal state of all sensient > beings. > > Nevertheless, is this notion of "self" merely an abstraction that we > project onto the experience of life? > > Do we percieve something beyond this individual experience of life - > do we percieve something ever so slightly more that this being in > time/space? > > This perception of the experience of being in time/space exists - no > more and no less than any other phenomena. In fact all known > phenomena arise within this mode of experience. > > However, is there really anything even slightly more than this mode > of existance - than this perception of the experience of being in > time/space? > > Does it just appear that there is? Or, is it that within this > experience of being there recurrently arises this need to believe > that there is? And, is it this deeply ingrained need that imprints > this notion of "self" onto this perception of the experience of > being. Andrew: Do you not think that this series of questions is in some respects similar to the series of questions Buddha said we should ask about "self" and which you suggest (if I am reading your post correctly) that we needn't bother with unless and until someone proves the existence of a permanent self? Are not your questions also "exercises"? > [Suravira] The main trap is sprung when translating anatta as "not- > self". This erroneous trap can be avoided, as well as all ancilliary > concerns/issue regarding this dharma (e.g., rebirth, etc.), by > promoting the term "false views of individuality" > Andrew: I see anatta as difficult to comprehend - a "trap" if you must. But I think that changing the English definition is not going to make understanding any easier. Using the word "individuality" has, I think, pitfalls of its own. > Suravira: To construct a negating term, such as "not-self" one has the > responsiblity for first providing a bullet-proof definition for the > term "self". It seems that too many people approach this dharma of > anatta bass ackward. Sorry, but "bass ackward" has me intrigued. Back-to-front, do you mean? Is your criticism of the way the anatta doctrine is presented a criticism of people? Is it not also a criticism of the Buddha as he gave the anatta teaching without first having a bullet-proof definition of the term "self"? Can I ask you to clarify your point with particular reference to the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta in the Samyutta Nikaya? Best wishes Andrew 32813 From: Philip Date: Thu May 6, 2004 4:50pm Subject: Radiating Metta? ( was Re: Video Games?) Hi James, Sarah, and all > James: From my reading of the suttas, specifically the Karanaya > Metta Sutta "Hymn of Universal Love", the development of metta, just > like the development of wisdom, goes through stages. It isn't > either complete and pure metta or selfish lust and desire: there are > gradations in the development. Contrary to what you write here, > metta must be developed first as one living being to other living > beings, even though the near enemies of Metta (Greed, lust, worldly > affection, sensuality) might be present. One is to project love and > compassion to all living beings just as a mother projects love to > it's only infant (This is the Buddha's description. Note: The > Buddha mentions nothing about knowing dhammas as dhammas). James, I'm very interested in what you have to say about metta below. I'm very intrested in brahma-viharas, as I've said often enough before, and came to realize some unskillful ways I was practicing that were really aiming at making the world a cozy place to be in. One of the things that misled me was, I think, the famous line in the Metta Sutta about "radiating metta" (or "projecting" as you put it) through the world, in all directions. Lately, I've been having trouble understanding how the Buddha could have possibly taught about radiating/projecting metta. I'm really beginning to see metta as something that arises when deflilements or other obstacles to it have been cleared away. Is is then radiant? I can see that. But do we intend to radiate it? I just can't understand that, though if I find out that it is a practice that was truly taught by the Buddha I will get back to it! I'm rushing off to work, but I was wondering about the Pali that was used in that sutta and did a quick Google search and came up with this translation by a Bhikku P ...can't remember now, and can't provide a link. But am just posting this to see if anyone else has insight on the original Pali of this sutta. This fellow uses "cultivate", and that is seen in the "bhavaye" I think. (But maybe the word that comes before or after it qualifies it in a way that introduces a sense of projecting or radiating.) I don't think cultivate is the same as radiate or project and I think cultivate can be done while coming to understand metta as a paramattha dhamma, and without an intention to radiate metta. Here's that fellow's translation : Mettañca sabbalokasmi,9 mānasam bhāvaye aparimānam; Uddham adho ca tiriyañca, asambādham averamasapattam. Let one cultivate thoughts of boundless love for the whole world: above, below, and across without any obstruction, without any hatred, without any enmity. Metta, Phil P.S I'm beginning to think there's a lot of confusion in studying sutta when we don't understand Pali. How can we say for sure whether we are receiving the Buddha's teaching in a pure form or an interpretation of it by, for example, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, as wonderful as he is? p.p.s I also wonder why I write "metta" when I sign off, since I don't at this time believe it to be something that can be projected. But it seems like the best word to use to get at the state of mind I am "in" when discussing dhamma with "admirable friends" like James and Sarah! :) 32814 From: Date: Thu May 6, 2004 5:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi Howard and all, I think Christine's quote clears the air on what is suffering (suffering of painful feeling, formations [conditionality/sankhara], and change). As such, I think we have to say the entire course of dependent arising is dukkha and it is caused either by ignorance, the first link, or the aasavas (biases), sense desire, continued existence, and ignorance. These three being the cause of the first link. So there we have dukkha and the cause of dukkha in dependent arising. Also it seems to me dukkha continues after the attainment of arahantship insofar as conditioned arising continues. I suppose the difference for an arahant is that he is no longer identified with it. Also I don't know if an arahant can experience unpleasant mental feeling??? A couple of other thoughts on feeling: The only unpleasant bodily feeling is tangible data. An unpleasant taste or harsh sound is actually dosa (aversion) with unpleasant mental feeling. I'm wondering if there can be an adosa version of wholesome unpleasant mental feeling when there is insight into the "own nature" of sound or taste. Similarly can beauty be either wholesome or unwholesome? Is there an alobha beauty? Anyone know this stuff? Larry ------------------- C: "Friend Saariputta, it is said, 'suffering, suffering.' What now is suffering?" There are, friend, these three kinds of suffering: the suffering due to pain, the suffering due to formations, the suffering due to change. These are the three kinds of suffering." [note 274] Samyutta Nikaya The Book of the Six Sense Bases (Salaayatanavagga) 38 Jambukhaadakasamyutta 14 Suffering (p. 1299 Bhikkhu Bodhi) Note 274: The three types are explained at Vism 499, 14-21 (Ppn. 16:34-35). Briefly, suffering due to pain (dukkha-dukkhataa) is painful bodily and mental feeling; suffering due to the formations (sankhaaradukkhataa) is all conditioned phenomena of the three planes, because they are oppressed by rise and fall; and suffering due to change (viparinaamadukkhataa) is pleasant feeling, which brings suffering when it comes to an end." 32815 From: Date: Thu May 6, 2004 5:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Michelle, Not to worry. I was just having a bit of fun and giving you something to think about. I was mostly interested in the English word "attachment" but you can do the same with the Indonesian equivalent. It is interesting to try to see what these words we take for granted really mean in our experience. Larry ------------------- M: "As I'm indonesian, I mostly get the knowledge of buddhism in indonesian language..." 32816 From: Date: Thu May 6, 2004 2:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi, Larry (and Christine) - In a message dated 5/6/04 8:34:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard and all, > > I think Christine's quote clears the air on what is suffering (suffering > of painful feeling, formations [conditionality/sankhara], and change). > As such, I think we have to say the entire course of dependent arising > is dukkha and it is caused either by ignorance, the first link, or the > aasavas (biases), sense desire, continued existence, and ignorance. > These three being the cause of the first link. So there we have dukkha > and the cause of dukkha in dependent arising. Also it seems to me dukkha > continues after the attainment of arahantship insofar as conditioned > arising continues. I suppose the difference for an arahant is that he is > no longer identified with it. Also I don't know if an arahant can > experience unpleasant mental feeling??? > > A couple of other thoughts on feeling: The only unpleasant bodily > feeling is tangible data. An unpleasant taste or harsh sound is actually > dosa (aversion) with unpleasant mental feeling. I'm wondering if there > can be an adosa version of wholesome unpleasant mental feeling when > there is insight into the "own nature" of sound or taste. Similarly can > beauty be either wholesome or unwholesome? Is there an alobha beauty? > Anyone know this stuff? > > Larry > ------------------- > C: "Friend Saariputta, it is said, 'suffering, suffering.' What now is > suffering?" > There are, friend, these three kinds of suffering: the suffering due to > pain, the suffering due to formations, the suffering due to change. > These are the three kinds of suffering." [note 274] Samyutta Nikaya The > Book of the Six Sense Bases (Salaayatanavagga) 38 Jambukhaadakasamyutta > 14 Suffering (p. 1299 Bhikkhu Bodhi) > Note 274: The three types are explained at Vism 499, 14-21 (Ppn. > 16:34-35). Briefly, suffering due to pain (dukkha-dukkhataa) is painful > bodily and mental feeling; suffering due to the formations > (sankhaaradukkhataa) is all conditioned phenomena of the three planes, > because they are oppressed by rise and fall; and suffering due to change > (viparinaamadukkhataa) is pleasant feeling, which brings suffering when > it comes to an end." > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I have a little problem with the foregoing. One minor problem I have is with the commentary to the effect that " suffering due to the formations (sankhaaradukkhataa) is all conditioned phenomena of the three planes, because they are oppressed by rise and fall." This certainly overlaps suffering due to change. But my main problem is that this material does *not* define dukkha. It merely categorizes it according to *cause*. Dukkha may be *due* to pain or *due* to formations (dispositions? inclinations?) or *due* to change. To me it is clear that the root meaning of 'dukka' is "distress", and the secondary meaning, as applied to dhammas, is "unsatisfactory", for what doesn't satisfy leads to distress. When it is said that all conditioned phenomena are dukkha, this doesn't mean that all conditioned phenomena are suffering, but that they are conditions for suffering, they are unsatisfactory, they don't satisfy (and thus craving for them and clinging to them causes mental pain). And always, the primary causes for suffering are tanha and upadana. Oh, BTW, I believe that the Buddha was *through* with distress, through with mental pain, when he became an arahant, and I believe that this is so for all arahants. The death of an arahant is not required for there to be no second dart in his/her mindstream. ======================= 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) 32817 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu May 6, 2004 7:25pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi Jon, Do you mean that breaths are not bodily fabrications? Or do you mean that you are not sure whether breaths are bodily fabrications or not? What does the commentary say regarding whether breaths are bodily fabrications or not? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > > > What is your reading of the sutta pitaka regarding whether in-&- out > > breaths are bodily fabrications or not? > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > I think you're referring to the comment in my last post? What I > meant there was that my reading of the tipitaka is that there is no > actual dhamma called 'breath', but that what we take for breath is > mostly the dhammas of hardness/softness and heat/cold and > motion/pressure experienced through the body-door (in terms of the > five aggregates, these are dhammas of the rupa aggregate). > > Now in some suttas, such as the Satipatthana Sutta, where 'body' and > aspects of the body (including 'breath' ) are mentioned, these are to > be understood as referring to all rupas. > > So in the case of the particular sutta you mention, I would need to > check the commentary before coming to a view regarding the intended > meaning of the reference to breathing as bodily fabrications. > > Jon 32818 From: Date: Thu May 6, 2004 7:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi Howard, H: "To me it is clear that the root meaning of 'dukka' is "distress", and the secondary meaning, as applied to dhammas, is "unsatisfactory", for what doesn't satisfy leads to distress. When it is said that all conditioned phenomena are dukkha, this doesn't mean that all conditioned phenomena are suffering, but that they are conditions for suffering, they are unsatisfactory, they don't satisfy (and thus craving for them and clinging to them causes mental pain). And always, the primary causes for suffering are tanha and upadana." L: I thought the end of conditioned arising is the end of dukkha. What about that? Larry 32819 From: robmoult Date: Thu May 6, 2004 8:46pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Howard, > > H: "To me it is clear that the root meaning of 'dukka' is "distress", > and the secondary meaning, as applied to dhammas, is "unsatisfactory", > for what doesn't satisfy leads to distress. When it is said that all > conditioned phenomena are dukkha, this doesn't mean that all conditioned > phenomena are suffering, but that they are conditions for suffering, > they are unsatisfactory, they don't satisfy (and thus craving for them > and clinging to them causes mental pain). And always, the primary causes > for suffering are tanha and upadana." > > L: I thought the end of conditioned arising is the end of dukkha. What > about that? I don't think that conditioned arising can ever end because anicca is a fundamental characteristic of all realities except Nibbana. However, an enlightened person has no clinging to that which is impermanent and therefore no conditions for dukkha to arise. Metta, Rob M :-) 32820 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu May 6, 2004 8:57pm Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Sukin, -------------- S: > I think both pariyatti and