29000 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 10:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Extolling, disparaging , slaying wrath Dear Sarah, Thank you, but what a difference these two transl. I prefer PTS, it has something: what must we slay if we would happy live? what must we slay if we would weep no more? but I do not have the Pali to compare correctness. Nina. . op 12-01-2004 08:09 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > At the end I gave the BB translation of SN2:3 Maagha’. The verses are > identical with SN1:71 Having Slain’, except for the name of the deva > addressed. I’ll give the latter here with ‘O devataa’, replacing ‘O > Vatrabhuu’: > ****** > SN1:71 Having Slain, B.Bodhi transl: > > At Saavatthi. Standing to one side,the devataa addressed the Blessed One > in verse: > > “Having slain what does one sleep soundly? > Having slain what does one not sorrow? > What is the one thing, O Gotama, > Whose killing you approve? 29001 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:22am Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will was (Two to tango .....) Hello Herman, :-) 'The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.' (Edward Fitzgerald) The archives of dsg are a bit like kamma, don't you think? ... :):) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > Hi Sarah and everyone, > > My wife has just picked me up of the floor, and resuscitated me. I > followed your link to useful posts, then went to free will and in post > 18891 found a straw man believing in absolute free will, with a bloody > nose. > > For the record, I regularly observe faith in the notion of absolutes on > this site, but do not subscribe to it myself. Thus anything that > represents me as believing or having believed in absolute free will is > very very incorrect. > > I would rather that you remove that post than try and correct the > perception. (Actually I would prefer to never go into useful posts at > all, either as sage or straw man. I do not subscribe to any belief that > anything can be useful of itself, absolutely, so to speak. Why are there > no photos of rotting corpses under useful posts? I can send plenty if > the selection panel wants) > > All the best > > Herman 29002 From: Herman Hofman Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 1:28pm Subject: RE: [dsg] HTOO: Space element Hi Robert, I am very happy for everyone to be doing whatever they are doing. But from reading and rereading suttas without any preference as to which ones, I would not consider anyone who meditates by any old means as special, mini, micro and macro all have their place; I think such folks would be quite normal. They are just following instructions. You warn against conceit and then go onto mentioning superior persons. I had to laugh, but you were probably being serious. Is it desirable to be a superior person? All the best Herman -----Original Message----- From: rjkjp1 [mailto:rjkjp1@y...] Sent: Tuesday, 13 January 2004 1:14 AM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsg] HTOO: Space element --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Dear Nina, > We need a bird-eye view. We need to explore from forest to tree. > While we are exploring individual tree, we should not forget forest. > > I do like your discussion on this topic 'space'. I assume you are > also a Vipassana practitioner not only a writer. > > May you see Dhamma directly with your own wisdom. ----------------------------------------- Dear Htoo, Sometimes we might be proud because conceit imagines WE practice vipassana or jhana, or have great understanding of Dhamma. I think one like Nina does not try to pretend or even want people to think they are anything special: what they see within is defilement and impurity, so they are concerned with developing insight into anatta, not becoming a 'vipassana practioner'. James quoted this a while back 'The Anguttara Nikaya, 70. A Superior Person: "Further: even unasked, a superior person reveals his own faults, how much more so when asked. When asked, however, and obligated to reply to questions, he speaks of his own faults without omitting anything, without holding back, fully and in detail. He should be considered a superior person. Further: even when asked, a superior person does not reveal his own praiseworthy qualities, still less so when not asked. When asked, however, and obliged to reply to questions, he speaks of his own praiseworthy qualities with omissions and hesitatingly, incompletely and not in detail. He should be considered a superior person." RobertK 29003 From: Herman Hofman Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 1:43pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Free Will was (Two to tango .....) Hi Christine, -----Original Message----- From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] Sent: Tuesday, 13 January 2004 6:22 AM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will was (Two to tango .....) Hello Herman, :-) 'The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.' (Edward Fitzgerald) ===================================================================== H> The moving hand, it tears the page, without lust and without rage, The moving foot, it shuffles forth, onto the barbie, facing North, The matchstick lights, the fire burns, what's left that any kamma earns? (Herman Hofman) Commentary: Barbie is colloquial for barbeque =================================================================== C> The archives of dsg are a bit like kamma, don't you think? ... :):) ===================================================================== Only if that's what you intend :-) All the best Herman metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 29004 From: Herman Hofman Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:32pm Subject: How many senses? Hi everyone, In Buddhism there are the classical 5 senses and the mind. Modern physiology recognizes a vast number of senses beyond the classical 5. There is the vestibular (sense of balance), proprioreception (sense of location of head, body and limbs in relation to each other) as well as the dozens of senses that react to certain levels of specific hormones and other chemical compounds. I am only guessing, but it would seem to me that Buddhism, lacking a separate sense of balance (awareness of position in relation to direction of gravitional field) would explain balance in terms of pannatti, while modern physiology would have it as paramattha. Similarly with location of right index finger in relation to nose and so on. Each of these senses has their own door and their own specific citta. Does there come a time to expand the canon, or do we place less weight on the distinction between pannatti and paramattha and the imagined consequences of taking one for the other? All the best Herman 29005 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi Michael, Michael: You are right. I won't do anything and let myself fall to the ground. James: Goodness! Please don't do that! I want you to know that it has been both an honor and a privilege to exchange views with such an admirable and learned gentleman. I hope that such discourse can continue and flourish in the future if conditions allow. Metta, James 29006 From: Andrew Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 3:28pm Subject: Message from KenH Hello everyone I have just had a phone call from KenH whose computer has crashed thanks to a defective microwave oven. He expects to be offline (and on a raw food diet) for several days. Those who have been conversing with him please note and don't think you are being ignored! He will return ... Metta Andrew PS If there are any good salad recipes out there ..... 29007 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 3:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] HTOO: Space element Dear herman, the term 'superior person' is the translation used by the Pali text society in the Anguttara Nikaya - the Buddha's words. There are many sections in the Tipitaka where the Buddha spoke on the dangers of conceit also. The arahants were the supreme 'superior' ones because they were entirely without conceit. RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > You warn against conceit and then go onto mentioning superior persons. I > had to laugh, but you were probably being serious. > > Is it desirable to be a superior person? > > All the best > > Herman > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rjkjp1 [mailto:rjkjp1@y...] > > 'The Anguttara Nikaya, 70. A Superior > Person: > "Further: even unasked, a superior person reveals his own faults, > how > much more so when asked. When asked, however, and obligated to > reply > to questions, he speaks of his own faults without omitting anything, > without holding back, fully and in detail. He should be considered > a > superior person. > > Further: even when asked, a superior person does not reveal his own > praiseworthy qualities, still less so when not asked. When asked, > however, and obliged to reply to questions, he speaks of his own > praiseworthy qualities with omissions and hesitatingly, incompletely > and not in detail. He should be considered a superior person." > > RobertK 29008 From: Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] How many senses? Hi, Herman - In a message dated 1/12/04 5:36:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, hhofman@t... writes: > > Hi everyone, > > In Buddhism there are the classical 5 senses and the mind. Modern > physiology recognizes a vast number of senses beyond the classical 5. > There is the vestibular (sense of balance), proprioreception (sense of > location of head, body and limbs in relation to each other) as well as > the dozens of senses that react to certain levels of specific hormones > and other chemical compounds. > > I am only guessing, but it would seem to me that Buddhism, lacking a > separate sense of balance (awareness of position in relation to > direction of gravitional field) would explain balance in terms of > pannatti, while modern physiology would have it as paramattha. > > Similarly with location of right index finger in relation to nose and so > on. Each of these senses has their own door and their own specific > citta. Does there come a time to expand the canon, or do we place less > weight on the distinction between pannatti and paramattha and the > imagined consequences of taking one for the other? > > All the best > > > Herman > > =========================== You could be right about the pa~n~natti interpretation. However, I think it may be too limiting to view body sense as being merely sense of touch. Certainly it also includes sense of pains, stings, tinglings, itches, motion, and I would bet it also includes sense of balance and of location within the body. Anything felt directly and actually through the body, I would suppose is included. Of those I listed, the one I have a drop of doubt about is sense of location, only because of its relation to our perception of space. But I think this is okay too. I don't think that the sense of location within the body is based on spatial experience or the concept of space, but rather the opposite - the sense of location within the body may well be one of the inputs serving as basis for our concept of space. 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) 29009 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 5:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Latent tendencies, Ch 1, no 3. Hi Nina >As to the term åsaya [4], bias, they explain this as dependence, abode or support on which beings depend. This term denotes the disposition to wrong view or to right view that has been accumulated. It denotes the disposition to all that is unwholesome, such as clinging to sense objects, or the disposition to all that is good, such as renunciation that has been accumulated. k: Since asaya can be kuasala or akusala, is there tendency for kusala or for kusala it is only accumulated and there is no tendency best rgds Ken O 29010 From: Eznir Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:34pm Subject: Questions of Skill Dear Friends, Questions of Skill by Thanissaro Bhikkhu http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/questions.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The Buddha wasn't the sort of teacher who simply answered questions. He also taught which questions to ask. He understood the power of questions: that they give shape to the holes in your knowledge and force that shape -- valid or not -- onto the answers you hope will fill up those holes. Even if you use right information to answer a wrong question, it can take on the wrong shape. If you then use that answer as a tool, you're sure to apply it to the wrong situations and end up with the wrong results. That's why the Buddha was careful to map out a science of questions, showing which questions -- in what order -- lead to freedom, and which ones don't. At the same time, he gave his talks in a question- and-answer format, to make perfectly clear the shape of the questions he was answering. So if you're looking to his teaching for answers and want to get the most out of them, you should first be clear about what questions you're bringing to it, and check to see if they're in line with the questions the teachings were meant to address. That way your answers won't lead you astray. May you be Happy! eznir 29011 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] HTOO: Space element Dear friends Htoo and Howard, I am having so much fun following your dialogue. And Htoo typing tik-tak-tik-tak. I did not have time but like to come in later on. Nina. op 12-01-2004 16:45 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > You said you see space. You said you hear space. You said you touch > space. > > To my knowledge, I cannot see space. I cannot hear space. I cannot > touch space. 29012 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] life-faculty, explanation Dear Nina, Larry, Howard & All, I think you had posted this before, but it needs lots of reviewing;-) --- nina van gorkom wrote: > > some explanations of footnote 25. > > note 25. 'Since the life faculty is itself entirely kamma-born it is > > established, by taking them as conascent, that the things to be > > protected by it are kamma-born too; this is why there is no inclusion > of > > the term "kamma-born". > > N: The rupas conascent with life faculty are in one group that > originates > > from kamma. Thus there is no need to say that the other rupas that are > > conascent are also originating from kamma. > > 'It maintains as if it were its own that > > kamma-born matter by being the cause of its occurrence even though > only > > lasting for a moment; that is why it has the characteristic of > > maintaining conascent kinds of matter. For kamma alone is not > competent > > to be the cause of kamma-born things' presence, as nutriment, etc., > are > > of the nutriment-born.' .... S: We see that what is written here in the commentaries is entirely consistent with the suttas, just elaborating on the details. MN 43, 22, The Greater Series of Questions and Answers, the Five Faculties, Nanamoli/Bodhi transl: “Friend, as to these five faculties - that is, the eye faculty, the ear faculty, the nose faculty, the tongue faculty, and the body faculty - what do these five faculties stand in dependence on?” “Friend, as to these five faculties - that is, the eye faculty, the ear faculty, the nose faculty, the tongue faculty, and the body faculty - these five faculties stand in dependence on vitality. [Note: MA identifies vitality (aayu) with the life faculty (jiivitindriya), which has the function of maintaining and vitalising the other material phenomena of the living body.] “Friend, what does vitality stand in dependence on?” “Vitality stands in dependence on heat.” [Note: Heat (usmaa) is the kamma-born heat intrinsic to the living body.] “Friend, what does heat stand in dependence on?” “Heat stands in dependence on vitality.” “Just now, friend, we understood the venerable Sariputta to have said: ‘vitality stands in dependence on heat’; and now we understand him to say: ‘heat stands in dependence on vitality.’ How should the meaning of these statements be regarded?” “In that case, friend, I shall give you a simile, for some wise men here understand the meaning of a statement by means of a simile. Just as when an oil-lamp is burning, its radiance is seen in dependence on its flame and its flame is seen in dependence on its radiance; so, too, vitality stands in dependence on heat and heat stands in dependence on vitality.” In the next section on Vital Formations (aayusankhaaraa), which the MA (comy) clarifies as indicating vitality, i.e aayu or jiivitindriya, it clarifies that these are not feelings and it is when the body is bereft of vitality, heat and consciousness that is is ‘then discarded and forsaken, left lying senseless like a log’. I think this section was quoted before, indicating the distinction between someone who is dead and one’ who has entered upon the cessation of perception and feeling.’ The body we cling to so much, depends on this very vitality or life-force which can cease at any moment. Reflecting wisely, it can be a condition for calm or satipatthana right now. .... > > N: Kamma is past kamma and is since long fallen away. But life-faculty > > maintains the other rupas in the group originated from kamma. <...> > > ' "Because it does accomplish each of those functions": it does so > > because it is a condition for distinguishing what is living. For it is > > the life faculty that distinguishes matter that is bound up with > > faculties from dead matter, and kamma-born matter and what is bound up > > with that from matter that is temperature originated, and so on.' > > > > N: Kamma-born matter is not only different from dead matter but also > from > > materiality produced by the three other factors of heat, nutrition, > citta. > > > > 'And the life faculty must be regarded as the reason not only for > > presence during a moment but also for non-interruption of connexion; > > otherwise death as the termination of a life span would be illogical' > > > > N: The groups of rupa with life-faculty fall away but they are > replaced > > throughout life until death occurs. > > Pm. 448). ..... Again we see that these various quotes from the Abhidhamma and commentaries are in conformity with what we read in the suttas. In the same way with the difficult topic of the rupa of space which is also mentioned in various suttas such as the Maharahulavada sutta which Nina translated. It cannot be seen or heard or sensed. It can only be known through the mind door. For us, it’s difficult to even understand intellectually how the asabhava rupa (without characteristic) can be directly known through the mind door, but like other subtle rupas it will become more and more intelligible in due course and as I understand, is known directly,(i.e. not by inference), at the 3rd stage of insight when the kalapas (groups of rupas) are known. This is as a result of the understanding of the arising and falling away of different groups of rupas, which have to be separated by the space element. Perhaps we’ll discuss it further again in Bkk too. A very difficult subject and one I usually put aside;-) Metta, Sarah ====== 29013 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Extolling, disparaging , slaying wrath Dear Nina, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah, > Thank you, but what a difference these two transl. I prefer PTS, it has > something: PTS: > what must we slay if we would happy live? > what must we slay if we would weep no more? .... Yes, I’m not surprised you didn’t recognise it as being the same sutta. We sent our PTS version of SN to RobK when we bought the Bodhi one (lack of space to keep texts we don’t need), so I can’t usually compare. .... Bodhi:> > “Having slain what does one sleep soundly? > > Having slain what does one not sorrow? > > What is the one thing, O Gotama, > > Whose killing you approve? .... > but I do not have the Pali to compare correctness. .... You can check the Pali at this site: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/index.html Here it is with a quick effort by me to correct the symbols (I seem to have lost the list you gave me), so it may not be quite right: “Ki.n su jhatvaa sukha.n seti ki.n su jhatvaa na socati, Kissassa ekadhammassa vadha.n rocesi gotamaati.” There are a couple of notes given which may refer to differences in Pali texts. I’d be glad to hear your translation. Metta, Sarah ===== 29015 From: Sarah Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 0:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] On the Momentariness of Mind States Hi Howard & All, James would call this an ‘ambush post’ and Andrew would call it a ‘poor Sarah’ one.....;-)I call it an important area for discussion, hence the salvage operation;-) --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > vitakka-vicára: 'thought-conception and discursive thinking', (or > 'applied > > and sustained thought') > Ayya Khema described vitakka as the mind hitting against the > meditation object, and vicara as the mind rubbing against it, having > already made the > contact. It seems to me that these are ongoing functions. I wonder what > sort of > action can be performed during a single mind moment. .... S:I don’t think any ‘action can be performed during a single mind moment’. An action is a concept representing a long series of mind moments and co-arising mental factors, such as vitakka and vicara, and all the multiplicity of rupas being discussed, arising in kalapas (groups of rupas) and falling away all the time. When examples are given, for example in the Vism of vitkka having the characteristic of ‘directing the mind onto an object’ and so on, these are conventional descriptions to help us differentiate between various characteristics, but not to be taken literally as ‘actions’. .... >.At times I have to > wonder whether the idea of a cetasika lasting for only a single mind > moment really > makes sense - or, perhaps, it is the notion of a mind moment as > instantaneous > that is the problem. ..... S:I know what you mean. The problem, I think, is that we’re so used to thinking in terms of stories and actions with so little understanding of realities. It helps to remember, I think, that vitakka and vicara arise at every moment and with every citta apart from moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. With all other sense door process cittas and all mind door cittas, these cetasikas, along with the universals and others according to their particular conditions, arise and fall all the time. So whether there is or is not conventional thinking, whether there is or is not a wholesome citta arising and so on, there will be vitakka and vicara helping to direct the citta onto its object and sustainging it on the object for its bery brief duration. As the citta falls away, so do the accompanying mental factors, conditioning the next citta to follow. > ********************************************** > The more I think about this, the more I think that it is the > notion of > mind states as necessarily momentary/instantaneous that is the problem. > That > notion, propagated primarily by the Sautrantikas, has also been adopted > to > some considerable extent by Theravada and by Mahayana. But it strikes me > as being > an erroneous and unnecessary notion. While there may well be mind > states > that are instantaneous, it doesn't seem credible that they all are. Some > basic > activities require time for their execution and cannot be momentary. .... S:As you’re discussing with others, time is a concept. All that ever exists are the very brief and momentary dhammas now. Any activity consists of multitudes of namas and rupas arising and falling away. This is why, as the khandha suttas I posted yesterday indicate, there are only ever khandhas or actualities which can be directly known by insight. Time, actions, the Tathagatha, computers and elephants can only be conceptualised. .... >One > such, > from its description, is vicara. Other possible candidates for > non-instantaneous functions are wrong and right view, stinginess, > regret, doubt, and, > especially, concentration. (How is concentration on a single object > executed > momentarily, when, in fact, concentration is the *maintaining* of > awareness on a single > object over a period of time? If one answers that concentration is the > inclination within a single mind state for the subsequent state to take > the same > object, well, that is a clever move to make in the debate game, but not > good > enough I believe. The inclination towards concentration is not the same > as > concentration.) ..... S:There are many conditions as you know for each citta and cetasika to arise, to repeat, to accumulate and condition further series. Concentration may seem to last, but in truth, there are repeated cittas accompanied by concentration taking the same object. Conditions are very complicated as you’ll see in the U Narada ‘Introduction to Conditional Relations’. ..... > The bottom line, as I see it, is that there is nothing sacrosanct > > about instantaneity nor discreteness (and "sharp edges"). The > characteristic of > impermanence does not require a discrete, stop-motion, movie-frame > reality for > it to be operative. All that it requires is that nothing arising from > conditions remains indefinitely. If A is present on some occasion, there > will be some > future occasion when it is not present. That is all that is required for > > impermanence to hold. .... S:And yet we read in all the texts the references to the speed and the momentary nature of dhammas. We can also test out at this moment whether states last at all for an instant. Nothing to hold onto for even a finger-snap. ..... > The issue I am discussing here is separate from that of the issue > of > the distinction between paramattha dhammas and pa~n~natti. Paramattha > dhammas > are events and conditions that are actually and directly observable > independent of conceptual construction and projection. Whether they > occur "in the > moment" or with duration is a separate issue. .... S:On the other hand, I think it’s the same issue;-). As soon as we have an idea of events and so on, it is a concept of a dhamma, rather than the dhamma itself that is the object of consciousness. If I’m slow on any theads or not able to continue, having retrieved the balls just as they were about to fall out of my in box, it’s because we’re going away at the end of next week and I’m going to be pretty busy til then. I hope others will join in or take over too;-) Metta, Sarah ====== 29016 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:21pm Subject: Essential Advantage! Friends; The Basic Foundation of Freedom: Awareness is Gain !!! Negligence is Loss !!! But Awareness of What ??? Awareness of Body & World as Transient Forms Awareness of Feelings as mere Passing Responses Awareness of Mind as just Changing Moods Awareness of Phenomena as Momentary Mental States Neither is 'Mine', 'Me', 'I' or 'Self but just impersonal passing phenomena ... This - just this! - 4-old Foundation of Awareness is the Only Way for the Purification of Being!!! Such Continuous Awareness is therefore a crucial & indispensable necessity... --00O00-- Details for establishing this 4-fold Awareness: DN 22: The 4 Great Frames of Reference http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/message/4639 The Way of Mindfulness: The Satipatthana Sutta and Its Commentary http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html All yours in the Dhamma. Peace is Ease. Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ 29017 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:01pm Subject: Reg: SammaSamadhi: Tricks of the Trade Dear Htoo Naing You asked: >Right Concentration is concentration of 1st Jhana >or 2nd Jhana or 3rd Jhana or 4th Jhana. >Is that right your venerable? Indeed! Depending on where one is along the Way! For one not having yet attained 1st Jhana. 1st Jhana = right concentration For one fully accomplished in 1st Jhana. 1st Jhana = wrong concentration (attaching to worldly mental construction) 2nd Jhana = right concentration etc. Reg: the Balancing of Abilities: If want urges for absorption, one overshoots energy & effort and cannot attain even calm (samatha) due to agitation & restlessness! 1st Jhana entrance have to cleaned for all five hindrances first... If when calmed or even entered absorption one starts to enjoy the subtle mental state too much, then one falls out as now the hindrance is desire for this particular state. Initially when one sits down, one first clears these 5 hindrances systematically & thoroughly this way: Tricks of the Trade: Sensual desire is cleared by reflection on the Disgusting Corpse. Aversion is cleared by reflection on mental release by Universal Friendliness. Lethargy is cleared by reflection on the mental Brightness or the elements of mental initiative, setting in motion & endurance of exertion. Agitation is cleared by reflection on calm of first Body then Mind. Uncertainty is cleared by reflection on whether various states is: 1: Advantageous or detrimental 2: Blamable or unblamable 3: Average or excellent 4: On bright or dark side Then, when these are all cleared, one focuses on one's particular meditation object one-pointedly! When scatter ceases, entrance emerges & there is experience & assured awareness of that. Keep on yet don't pull or push the state. If you do your cleaning well, it will emerge by itself spontaneously when mature. Metta make attain fast! samahita All yours in the Dhamma. Peace is Ease. Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ 29018 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:40pm Subject: Re: Direct Experience! Dearest Eznir: > Direct seeing is when one perceives things as they are, (+) Direct experience is when one knows how things develop! All things in this world is dynamic & not static! Absolutely speaking: No things Are (the same). All phenomena may be thereby be regarded as processes rather than entities. Otherwise 'I' agree: Things are NEVER as they APPEAR or as we conceptualize them as you say. Knowing all phenomena to be transient mental states is a direct experience. Knowing, what is apparent material Solidity macroscopically, to be immaterial extension microscopically, is a direct experience. Knowing, what is apparent material Fluidity macroscopically, to be immaterial cohesion microscopically, is a direct experience. Knowing, what appears as an attractive construction, to be ultimately painful, to a degree even beyond death, is a direct experience. Knowing, what appears as 'Personal', 'Me' or 'Mine' to be fundamentally impersonal, selfless, coreless, ownerless, a passing cluster void of any identity, entity, ego, self or substance, is a quite direct experience. Just perceiving by focusing on the ever-changing transient impermanence right here, right now, is another in itself fleeting direct experience. Knowing what is behind this mental curtain, is a direct experience ... May we all disentangle this web of appearances. Thanks for this good question. samahita 29019 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 0:28am Subject: The Future Buddha Metteyya The Coming of the Future Buddha, Ariya Metteyya -the Friendly One- http://www.ubakhin.com/uchittin/arimet/ARIMET01.html 29020 From: Sarah Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Extolling, disparaging & teaching Dhamma Hi Andrew, --- Andrew wrote: > Hi Sarah > Thanks for your interesting post. I had a giggle about it, > actually. ..... Well, I didn't real very-tall-men giggled, so I've learnt something new too! .... <...> > > Yes, this is what I need to remind myself about in my work and all > my > > rushed activities. > > > It is very practical advice indeed. The quote seems to suggest that > hurried speech leads to excited mind. Yet, "mind is the forerunner > of all things". Is it not that excited mind leads to hurried speech > leads to more excited mind? .... Sounds right! > > > p.s Do you also have a copy of Samyutta Nikaya, Andrew? > > Yes, I do - am reading it through slowly. .... There you go, James.....all you have to do is to encourage him to pick a sutta now;-) Anything that rings a bell in SN3 Kosalasamyutta, Andrew? As for KenH, if you speak to him, please ask him not to add us to his worry-list. But then, if the accumulations and conditions are there to do so anyway, so be it....still opportunities and fertile soil for sati;-) And wasn't one of his concerns about having over-indulged during the holiday season? If so, the salad diet may be Fair Justice. What d'ya reck'n, Chris;-)? Metta, Poor Sarah =========== 29021 From: Sarah Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 2:01am Subject: RE: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi KenO;-)) Hi Michael, --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Sarah, > > Thank you for your lengthy research but as you probably know I don’t > have > qualms with the suttas. Quite the opposite. .... Thanks for reading it. I know you really appreciate the suttas, that was why I thought I’d use them for reference this time to make the points (as I see them) that: ***** 1. A clear distinction is shown between worldly truths and realtites/actualities/the khandhas. 2. The khandhas never refer to pannatti (concepts), but refer to cittas, cetasikas and rupas. 3. Only the khandhas are conditioned, arise and fall, not concepts. 4. The development of insight/satipatthana is the direct understanding and knowledge of the khandhas and eventually of nibbana too. It is not the insight of concepts. .... > I will only comment on one thing you wrote: > “In other words, the five aggregates are the ultimate realities > (paramattha > dhammas) precisely to be known.” > > Yes, the aggregates are to be known for what they are. And they are an > object of clinging and have the three characteristics: dukkha, anatta, > anicca. When viewed as they are, clinging will cease. And that is in > brief > the objective of the path. > The aggregates are not ultimate realities, and they are not supposed to > be > seen as ultimate realities through insight. ..... OK, let’s drop ‘paramattha’ and ‘ultimate’ for a moment and say (if you agree from the suttas): 5. The khandhas are ‘real and actual’ (saccato thetato) as opposed to Beings, Self, the Buddha, computers and elephants. Unlike the latter, the khandhas have characteristics or qualities that are to be known for what they are. 6. Concepts and entities do not have the characteristics which can be penetrated and directly understood by the eightfold path factors. Therefore, it is essential to distinguish between concepts and khandhas. .... > I know we will not agree, but I don’t feel any need to convince you or > anyone else. If what I say rings a bell, thats OK, if not, thats OK > also. .... Likewise. The discussions that different people have been having with you here, Michael, have been some of the very best, imho. I’m learning a lot from your participation on DSG. Finally, whether one likes it or not: 7. The Abhidhamma uses the term ‘paramattha’ to distinguish cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana from pannatti. Jon wrote: The commentary is as follows: "'from the ultimate standpoint' -- by way of ultimate exposition, setting aside conventional talk" and "'Ultimate' means in the ultimate, highest and undistorted sense; or it is the sense that comes within the sphere of knowledge that is highest and ultimate." Also, CMA quotes a passage from the Vibhanga describing 'ultimate' as 'that which belongs to the domain of ultimate or supreme knowledge'. [CMA Guide to par. 2]. ***** I’m just trying to reach some consensus here. Is there anything in any of these points you disagree with? Metta, Sarah ====== 29022 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:26am Subject: In Brief! Friends; Foremost is Elimination of Craving : Nothing is Worth Clinging to as All Constructions will Vanish! Sakka (Indra), king of gods, once asked the Buddha: Venerable Sir, How is one Ultimately Secure, as the Foremost among Gods & Humans ? The Blessed Buddha answered; Regarding this - king of gods - a Bhikkhu hears that: Nothing is Worth Clinging to. When he has heard that nothing is worth clinging to, then he directly knows all! Directly knowing all, he understands everything! Having fully understood everything, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant, painful or neutral, he remains regarding these feelings as transient, as fading away, as ceasing, as something that should be relinquished. Reflecting thus, he does not cling to anything in this world. When he does not cling, he is not stirred or agitated by anything. Thus imperturbable, right there & then, he personally touches Nibbana. He understands: rebirth is ended, the Noble life has been fulfilled, what should be done is done, there is no more coming back to any state of being. This - king of gods - is in brevity how a Bhikkhu is freed by the destruction of craving, is reaching the ultimate goal, the absolute security from bondage, the climax of the Noble life, the final end, as one who is foremost among gods & humans... --oo0oo-- Source: The Middle Length Sayings of the Buddha: Majjhima Nikaya MN 37 [i 251-56] The minor speech on the Destruction of Craving. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=25072X http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/ All yours in the Dhamma. Peace is Ease. Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon. 29023 From: gazita2002 Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 3:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] life-faculty, explanation Dear Sarah, I am really enjoying reading these posts. Rupa fascinates me and I guess its the concept of rupa that I'm talking about. I'm a bit of a sci-fi buff, and while I know the reality of rupa is definitely not sci-fi, to me the concept somewhat is. Don't try to make any sense out of this, just my bias and tendency!! Hoping you are making a 'little book of questions' for Bkk. - snip - ' How should the meaning of these > statements be regarded?" > > "In that case, friend, I shall give you a simile, for some wise men here > understand the meaning of a statement by means of a simile. Just as when > an oil-lamp is burning, its radiance is seen in dependence on its flame > and its flame is seen in dependence on its radiance; so, too, vitality > stands in dependence on heat and heat stands in dependence on vitality." > > In the next section on Vital Formations (aayusankhaaraa), which the MA > (comy) clarifies as indicating vitality, i.e aayu in Thailand people ask 'aayu taorai' meaning 'how old are you?' or jiivitindriya, it > clarifies that these are not feelings and it is when the body is bereft of > vitality, heat and consciousness that is is `then discarded and forsaken, > left lying senseless like a log'. I think this section was quoted before, > indicating the distinction between someone who is dead and one' who has > entered upon the cessation of perception and feeling.' > > The body we cling to so much, depends on this very vitality or life- force > which can cease at any moment. Reflecting wisely, it can be a condition > for calm or satipatthana right now. > .... > > > N: Kamma is past kamma and is since long fallen away. But life- faculty > > > maintains the other rupas in the group originated from kamma. > <...> > > > ' "Because it does accomplish each of those functions": it does so > > > because it is a condition for distinguishing what is living. For it is > > > the life faculty that distinguishes matter that is bound up with > > > faculties from dead matter, and kamma-born matter and what is bound up > > > with that from matter that is temperature originated, and so on.' > > > > > > N: Kamma-born matter is not only different from dead matter but also > > from > > > materiality produced by the three other factors of heat, nutrition, > > citta. > > > > > > 'And the life faculty must be regarded as the reason not only for > > > presence during a moment but also for non-interruption of connexion; > > > otherwise death as the termination of a life span would be illogical' > > > > > > N: The groups of rupa with life-faculty fall away but they are > > replaced > > > throughout life until death occurs. > > > Pm. 448). > ..... > Again we see that these various quotes from the Abhidhamma and > commentaries are in conformity with what we read in the suttas. > > In the same way with the difficult topic of the rupa of space which is > also mentioned in various suttas such as the Maharahulavada sutta which > Nina translated. It cannot be seen or heard or sensed. It can only be > known through the mind door. For us, it's difficult to even understand > intellectually how the asabhava rupa (without characteristic) can be > directly known through the mind door, but like other subtle rupas it will > become more and more intelligible in due course and as I understand, is > known directly,(i.e. not by inference), at the 3rd stage of insight when > the kalapas (groups of rupas) are known. This is as a result of the > understanding of the arising and falling away of different groups of > rupas, which have to be separated by the space element. Perhaps we'll > discuss it further again in Bkk too. A very difficult subject and one I > usually put aside;-) > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== I would definitly like to hear more about this - good idea about discussing it in Bkk. Knowing, theoretically, how fast cittas arise and fall, I'm almost overwhelmed and therefore know for sure it cannot be known by just thinking about it, when I think about Nibbana and how just potent [for the want of a better description] the lokkutara citta and accompanying cetasikas must be. Sometimes I think its hardly worth discussing, esp when I read your last passage above. However, I do occasionally feel quite excited about the journey! Lots of pressure on you now Sarah, to have no blank spaces on the tapes that will be made of the upcoming discussions ;( - just kidding. Q1. do all rupas need to be known eventually? will try to get more q. to you before you go. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita 29024 From: teoh chee keam Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 8:29pm Subject: Angulimala Kalyanamitta, Angulimala managed to get attainment in that very life even he had killed 999 lives, but only after he had KILLED HIS BRUTALITY. Psychologically, we have to consider few important aspects in other suttas about King Pasenadi's personality and his response towards Buddha on why King Pasenadi pardoned Angulimala. Could it be King Pasenadi, as a faithfull Buddha's lay disciple, as mentioned in many suttas, i) unable to prosecute Angulimala as he had joint the order of Bhikkhu, as some Bhikkhus did to avoid the law, or ii) Angulimala as a Bhikkhu, practised "No Harm". Therefore, King Pasenadi respected him as a muni(likely,as the conversation between Buddha and King Pasenadi), or iii) King Pasenadi understand the situation at that time and avoid unnecessary punishments and suffering as he is known to be a good king. Angulimala was said to be Yakkha in his past life, made him powerfull enough to win the fight even the villagers came in big group. Regarding his injury/suffering due to things thrown accidentally to him, that is vipaka. At this point, we do not know if his suffering is due to new vipaka or past kamma. We may suffer kammic result either due to direct or indirect effect. Nothing mentioned about Angulimala then, after he had lived in seclusion, a dhutanga monk. Angulimala is a perfect example for those in doubt after repenting from their unwholesome deeds in the past, no matter how great is the kamma(except the 5 unpardonable). Vijita Teoh. 29025 From: Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] HTOO: Space element Hi, Nina - In a message dated 1/13/04 12:12:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > Dear friends Htoo and Howard, > I am having so much fun following your dialogue. And Htoo typing > tik-tak-tik-tak. I did not have time but like to come in later on. > Nina. > ======================= I'm glad you've been enjoying it. :-) I'm not sure how much more Htoo and I "have in us" on this topic ;-)), but I'll be pleased to read what you have to say further about it whenever you have the time. With spacious 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) 29026 From: Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] On the Momentariness of Mind States Hi, Sarah - Thank you for the following detailed and well-thought-out post. The bottom line, I think, however, is that we simply disagree on this one. The instantaneous, film-frame view of mindstates that you believe in I do not. I do not see the necessity for it, and I do see a number of problems with it. Non-duration is not what makes a phenomenon "real" or not. Abhidhamma, itself, allows for a rupa to last for the duration of 17 mindstates. So ... do rupas become "unreal" due to that. In any case, whether namas or rupas are instantaneous or not (though I don't think we*ever* observe anything that has zero duration), is really not a critical matter. What is critical is that all (conditioned) phenomena are impermanent, unsatisfying, and impersonal and insubstantial, and that we should not attempt to grasp the ungraspable, for that is the source of our suffering. With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/13/04 4:01:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Hi Howard &All, > > James would call this an ‘ambush post’ and Andrew would call it a ‘poor > Sarah’ one.....;-)I call it an important area for discussion, hence the > salvage operation;-) > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > >>vitakka-vicára: 'thought-conception and discursive thinking', (or > >'applied > >>and sustained thought') > > > Ayya Khema described vitakka as the mind hitting against the > >meditation object, and vicara as the mind rubbing against it, having > >already made the > >contact. It seems to me that these are ongoing functions. I wonder what > >sort of > >action can be performed during a single mind moment. > .... > S:I don’t think any ‘action can be performed during a single mind moment’. > An action is a concept representing a long series of mind moments and > co-arising mental factors, such as vitakka and vicara, and all the > multiplicity of rupas being discussed, arising in kalapas (groups of > rupas) and falling away all the time. When examples are given, for example > in the Vism of vitkka having the characteristic of ‘directing the mind > onto an object’ and so on, these are conventional descriptions to help us > differentiate between various characteristics, but not to be taken > literally as ‘actions’. > .... > >.At times I have to > >wonder whether the idea of a cetasika lasting for only a single mind > >moment really > >makes sense - or, perhaps, it is the notion of a mind moment as > >instantaneous > >that is the problem. > ..... > S:I know what you mean. The problem, I think, is that we’re so used to > thinking in terms of stories and actions with so little understanding of > realities. It helps to remember, I think, that vitakka and vicara arise > at every moment and with every citta apart from moments of seeing, > hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. With all other sense door process > cittas and all mind door cittas, these cetasikas, along with the > universals and others according to their particular conditions, arise and > fall all the time. So whether there is or is not conventional thinking, > whether there is or is not a wholesome citta arising and so on, there will > be vitakka and vicara helping to direct the citta onto its object and > sustainging it on the object for its bery brief duration. As the citta > falls away, so do the accompanying mental factors, conditioning the next > citta to follow. > > >********************************************** > > The more I think about this, the more I think that it is the > >notion of > >mind states as necessarily momentary/instantaneous that is the problem. > >That > >notion, propagated primarily by the Sautrantikas, has also been adopted > >to > >some considerable extent by Theravada and by Mahayana. But it strikes me > >as being > >an erroneous and unnecessary notion. While there may well be mind > >states > >that are instantaneous, it doesn't seem credible that they all are. Some > >basic > >activities require time for their execution and cannot be momentary. > .... > S:As you’re discussing with others, time is a concept. All that ever > exists are the very brief and momentary dhammas now. Any activity consists > of multitudes of namas and rupas arising and falling away. This is why, as > the khandha suttas I posted yesterday indicate, there are only ever > khandhas or actualities which can be directly known by insight. Time, > actions, the Tathagatha, computers and elephants can only be > conceptualised. > .... > >One > >such, > >from its description, is vicara. Other possible candidates for > >non-instantaneous functions are wrong and right view, stinginess, > >regret, doubt, and, > >especially, concentration. (How is concentration on a single object > >executed > >momentarily, when, in fact, concentration is the *maintaining* of > >awareness on a single > >object over a period of time? If one answers that concentration is the > >inclination within a single mind state for the subsequent state to take > >the same > >object, well, that is a clever move to make in the debate game, but not > >good > >enough I believe. The inclination towards concentration is not the same > >as > >concentration.) > ..... > S:There are many conditions as you know for each citta and cetasika to > arise, to repeat, to accumulate and condition further series. > Concentration may seem to last, but in truth, there are repeated cittas > accompanied by concentration taking the same object. Conditions are very > complicated as you’ll see in the U Narada ‘Introduction to Conditional > Relations’. > ..... > > The bottom line, as I see it, is that there is nothing sacrosanct > > > >about instantaneity nor discreteness (and "sharp edges"). The > >characteristic of > >impermanence does not require a discrete, stop-motion, movie-frame > >reality for > >it to be operative. All that it requires is that nothing arising from > >conditions remains indefinitely. If A is present on some occasion, there > >will be some > >future occasion when it is not present. That is all that is required for > > > >impermanence to hold. > .... > S:And yet we read in all the texts the references to the speed and the > momentary nature of dhammas. We can also test out at this moment whether > states last at all for an instant. Nothing to hold onto for even a > finger-snap. > ..... > > The issue I am discussing here is separate from that of the issue > >of > >the distinction between paramattha dhammas and pa~n~natti. Paramattha > >dhammas > >are events and conditions that are actually and directly observable > >independent of conceptual construction and projection. Whether they > >occur "in the > >moment" or with duration is a separate issue. > .... > S:On the other hand, I think it’s the same issue;-). As soon as we have an > idea of events and so on, it is a concept of a dhamma, rather than the > dhamma itself that is the object of consciousness. > > If I’m slow on any theads or not able to continue, having retrieved the > balls just as they were about to fall out of my in box, it’s because we’re > going away at the end of next week and I’m going to be pretty busy til > then. I hope others will join in or take over too;-) > > Metta, > > Sarah > /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) 29027 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 7:49am Subject: Re: How many senses? Dear Herman, Finally Buddha Sasana has to disappear because of later disciples who are foolish and stupid enough to destroy the whole Sasana. The Sasana was said to exist 5000 human years. Now it is well over 2500 years. As evrything is anicca then The Buddha Sasana is also Anicca. The wise man will follow the wise guide. To pinpoint senses there are a lot of things to be learnt. Physiology is complicated and complex and advancing and that subject is a dynamic subject. While physiology is a dynamic subject, then neurology excels physiology as neurology has to depend on physiology. There are many many sense receptors, their pathways, the place where the information in them are stored and these things are being explored and they are still endless. This happens. Because Pannatta is not real. As Pannatta is not reality, it has no dimension. So it is not amazing that following Pannatta related things will never end. The Buddha way is not just imagination. There are only 5 physical sense doors. No more than that. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > Hi everyone, > > In Buddhism there are the classical 5 senses and the mind. Modern > physiology recognizes a vast number of senses beyond the classical 5. > There is the vestibular (sense of balance), proprioreception (sense of > location of head, body and limbs in relation to each other) as well as > the dozens of senses that react to certain levels of specific hormones > 29028 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 7:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] HTOO: Space element Dear Howard, Nina, and all, I got the message. I also do not know how long we will continue on this thread. With Metta, Htoo Naing --------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Nina - > > In a message dated 1/13/04 12:12:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... > writes: > > > Dear friends Htoo and Howard, > > I am having so much fun following your dialogue. And Htoo typing > > tik-tak-tik-tak. I did not have time but like to come in later on. > > Nina. > > > ======================= > I'm glad you've been enjoying it. :-) I'm not sure how much more Htoo > and I "have in us" on this topic ;-)), but I'll be pleased to read what you > have to say further about it whenever you have the time. > > With spacious metta, > Howard 29029 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 10:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 60 - elements, recap Dear Azita, op 12-01-2004 00:53 schreef gazita2002 op gazita2002@y...: > I require clarification on mind-element [manodhatu], is this the > same as heart base? N: The Abhidhamma is not for memorizing and when we understand, we shall remember. A recap is always good, also for me. The heartbase is rupa, not nama. To recap: The five sense-cognitions have each their own base, not the heartbase. Mindelement: the adverting-consciousness, the first citta of a sense-door process and the receiving-consciousness, vipakacitta (two types: kusala vipaka and akusala vipaka) succeeding a sense-cognition (seeing, etc.). Mind-consciousness element: all cittas, except the five sense-cognitions and the three kinds of cittas classified as mind-element. It includes cittas experiencing an object through six doors as well as door-freed cittas, cittas not arising in processes, namely, rebirth-consciousness, bhavanga-cittas, dying-consciousness. We can look at mind-element this way: cittas which can only arise in sense-door processes, not in mind-door processes. Question: why not the investigating-consciousness (santiira.na-citta), determining-consciousness (votthapanacitta), javana-cittas and registering-consciousness? Answer: cittas performing these functions also arise in mind-door processes, or they are process freed. Santirana can perform several functions, not only investigating, also the function of rebirth and bhavanga. Determining-consciousness: it is the mind-door adverting-consciousness that performs this function, and this citta also arises in a mind-door process. Once you understand this you will remember. A: mind object [dhamma] does this include concepts? N: Yes. A: I'm thinking > here of 'thinking', e.g. i'm thinking of how to put this question to > you - that sort of thinking ??!! N: citta thinks, and it is with kusala citta or with akusala citta, one or the other. We can reflect on concepts, also when studying or discussing dhamma, with kusala citta or akusala citta. Ven. Dhammadharo would say: do we realize this, we better find out. A: mind consciousness [mano vinnana] are these the cittas which > arise somewhere other than the 5 sense doors e.g. eye etc.? N: Other than the five sense-cognitions and mind-element. Thus also the door freed: these innocent bhavanga-cittas not involved in processes of the six doors, but still experiencing an object (the same as rebirth-consciousness). After all they are citta, and one of the word derivations of citta is: cinteti: to think. Citta "thinks" of an object, it cognizes it. A: When I wrote about my limited time, it was a condition to > remember comments from Ven. Dhammadharo regarding listening to the > Dhamma. We can have all types of excuses - too hot, too cold, too > tired, too hungry. As I sat at the computor this morning, turned > the fan on, had to rearrange that a few times to get it 'just right'; > then the mozzie began to bite and it looked like a dengue one so had > to go find the mozzie repellant, now I'm uncomfortable in this > chair........is this behaviour familiar to anyone else???? I put it > all down to Kilesa. N: I like to be reminded of Ven. Dhammadharo regarding listening to the Dhamma. It is very unpleasant to have unpleasant or painful feeling, but what would he say, and he did say this: be aware also of that. I will be missing you in Bgk! Nina. 29030 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 10:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Space element a concept? Dear Howard, op 12-01-2004 06:22 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: >> > ========================== > Space, if it is a rupa, is an odd sort of rupa. Hardness is > experienced through the body door - only, visual objects through the eye door > - only, > odors through the nose door - only, tastes through the tongue door only, > sounds > through the ear door - only, water element through the mind door (so it is > said) - only. But space seems to be experienced both through the body door, > the > eye door, and the ear door. Could such a thing be a rupa? I think not. I think > that space is mere (well grounded) concept designating a particular category > of relations among rupas. N: I think that you and I are speaking about different kinds of space. You look up at the sky, thinking of a concept. When thinking of the concept space one may find that very important and great. It invites to clinging. I speak about that very small, insignificant rupa that, together with the other 27 rupas is classified in the Abhidhamma as rupakkhandha and performs the function of delimiting the kalapas. It is not worth clinging to, it is impermanent and non-self. The Commentaries explain in conventional terms that the manifestation of space are cavities in the body, such as ear cavity, but we should not be led astray and we should take this in the right sense. Their intention was explaining in understandable language what space is: a reality. H: Htoo, doesn't this strike you as a bit ironic, with the space that is experienced being "unreal," but the allegedly "real" space being unobservable? Hardness that is real is actually observed! Sounds that are real are actually observed! But "real" space - that's the sort of space we *cannot* observe!! (Something's wrooong here! ;-)) N: Yes, something is wrong here. Today we go again to Mahaaraahulovaadasutta. The Buddha taught Rahula about the four Great Elements of earth, water, fire and wind, and also about space. We read in the Co: After that he taught him to apply himself to the mental development similar to earth, and similar to the other great Elements and space. We can admire the structure of the sutta here: after the explanation about the Elements the Buddha taught the application of this knowledge in daily life. The Buddha said: <³Apply yourself to the mental development that is like the earth, Rahula, For when you apply yourself to the mental development that is like the earth, Rahula, agreeable and disagreeable impressions that have arisen, impinging on the mind will not persist.²> He taught the same about mental development like water, fire, wind and space. The same about the other Great Elements and space. Would the Buddha teach Rahula merely a concept of space? He taught realities, rupakkhandha and the other khandhas. We have to understand the deep meaning of his words. We read: The goal is detachment. Nina. 29031 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 10:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: commentaries Dear Dhamma friend Eznir, I do not know how to address you, what is your real name? op 12-01-2004 06:48 schreef Eznir op eznir2003@y...: > > 28818\Nina: Understandable that you were put off with Abhidhamma. > Especially if you follow details as Larry and I study now. Details > about rupa, AND A WAY OF REASONING which must seem complicated, with > those dyads. > > How far can one go by way of reasoning? Can the Dhamma be > comprehended in this way? N: I think the two of us have no misunderstanding about pariyatti as the foundation for patipada. What I said above was meant in a special context, you see. The commentators try to explain the Dhamma and they are spot on, but we have to place ourselves into their way of reasoning and this is difficult for people today. We have to go back milleniums of years. What was their intention? Why do they bring up dyads, triads, etc. But you know already, I am sure. I like to help so that people do not take the commentaries amiss. By the way, I hope you and other people forgive me when I do not answer Emails. As much as I like to I have to limit myself in vieuw of preparations for my journey to Thailand. Looking forward to corresponding with you after my journey, Nina. 29032 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 10:15am Subject: tiika text to Vis. 60, and note 26, 4b. tiika text to Vis. 60, and note 4b. Note 4 b: Now follows a part of the Tiika, not mentioned in this long footnote 26. It returns to the definition of the Vis. text: Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 10:15am Subject: Latent tendencies, Ch 1, no 4 Latent tendencies, Ch 1, no 4 587. What are the defilements that are underlying tendencies in beings? There are seven underlying tendencies (anusaya): Underlying tendency to greed for sense-desire (kåma-råga), underlying tendency to aversion (paìigha), underlying tendency to conceit (måna), underlying tendency to wrong view (ditthi), underlying tendency to doubt (vicikicchå), underlying tendency to desire for becoming (continued existence, bhavaråga), and underlying tendency to ignorance (avijjå).² From the above quoted text we can see that behaviour, habits and defilements are accumulated and become dormant in the succession of cittas. Since the Buddha has knowledge of beings¹ biases and underlying tendencies (åsayånusaya ñåna), we know that there are underlying tendencies. In the ³Pañcappakaranatthakathå², in the Commentary to the ³Yamaka², the Sixth Book of the Abhidhamma, we read in the section on the latent tendencies (anusaya-våra) and the section on ³possessed of latent tendencies² (sånusaya-våra): ³In the section on Œbeing possessed of latent tendencies¹ the Buddha said : ¹Who is with the latent tendency of sensuous desire, he is possessed of it (yo kåmarågånusayena sånusayo)¹. This is explained by means of a simile: it is like a person who suffers from illness. He surely suffers from sickness and old age and so on. So long as he is not freed from illnesses he is called a sick person even when sickness does not arise. It is the same in the case of the latent tendencies of someone who is traversing the round of rebirths. He has defilements which have not been eradicated by the eightfold Path. Even though the latent tendencies do not arise he is called a person who is possessed of the latent tendencies, thus, he has latent tendencies. Because he is dependent on other people who have latent tendencies likewise, he receives them with the word, Œwelcome¹ [10]. The other words in this section are the same as those in the section on latent tendencies.² Thus we see that there are latent tendencies in each of the cittas that are arising and falling away in succession so long as they have not been eradicated by the noble eightfold Path. Footnote: 10. We read in the ³Path of Discrimination² in the section on beings¹ disposition (adhimutti) that beings with inferior dispositions associate with those who also have inferior dispositions, and that it is the same in the case of beings with superior dispositions. We read that this occurred also in the past and will occur in the future. Nina. 29034 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 11:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] On the Momentariness of Mind States Dear Howard, op 13-01-2004 13:27 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > Non-duration is not what makes a phenomenon "real" or not. Abhidhamma, itself, > allows > for a rupa to last for the duration of 17 mindstates. So ... do rupas become > "unreal" due to that. N: In this way a rupa that is sense object can be experienced by cittas arising and falling away in a process. It is actually a comparison: one rupa, 17 moments of citta, and Ven. Nyanaponika explains this very well. Both rupa and citta are impermanent, but, insight has to be developed in stages. As often stressed: the first stage of tender insight is knowing the difference between nama and rupa. Falling away is falling away, and it is just ignorance and clinging which holds on and does not even want to see that when the conditions disappear the conditioned phenomena completely disappear, at once, in a very radical way, never to come back. There is no lingering on, that is not impermanence as taught also in the Suttas. Nina. > In any case, whether namas or rupas are instantaneous or not (though I > don't think we*ever* observe anything that has zero duration), is really not > a critical matter. What is critical is that all (conditioned) phenomena are > impermanent, unsatisfying, and impersonal and insubstantial, 29035 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 11:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] HTOO: Space element Dear Htoo, do not worry, there will be plenty of rupas to discuss, see Larry's thread. To begin with heartbase, and I still want to add more info from U Narada, like hearbase that can even be object of citta with insight, and heartbase getting very weak just before dying. And we should not cling, it can only be known through the mind-door, it is subtle rupa. It is not like feeling our heart. That is conventional again. Nina. op 13-01-2004 16:54 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > I got the message. I also do not know how long we will continue on > this thread. 29036 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 11:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] life-faculty, explanation Dear Sarah, I greatly appreciate your additions and sutta quote, and also the lesson at the end! The big picture and connection with daily life. Nina. op 13-01-2004 08:26 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > We see that what is written here in the commentaries is entirely > consistent with the suttas, just elaborating on the details. > > MN 43, 22, The Greater Series of Questions and Answers, the Five > Faculties, Nanamoli/Bodhi transl: > 29037 From: Michael Beisert Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 11:53am Subject: RE: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi KenO;-)) Hello Sarah, Sarah; 1. A clear distinction is shown between worldly truths and realtites/actualities/the khandhas. Michael: A clear distinction is shown between the way people usually perceive the world as existing/non existing and conditioned existence. The split between worldly truths and realities/actualities falls into the trap of existence/non existence. The khandhas are not realities in the sense of truly existing or in the sense of an ultimate reality, they are conditioned realities. A truly existing reality or actuality cannot be subject to conditions. S: 2. The khandhas never refer to pannatti (concepts), but refer to cittas, cetasikas and rupas. M: Khandhas are the same as cittas. cetasikas and rupa. Khandhas and paññatti are both conditioned realities none of them are ultimate realities nor non existent. S: 3. Only the khandhas are conditioned, arise and fall, not concepts. M: Therefore concepts are non existent. Again the dichotomy into existing (khandhas) and non existing (concepts). To me both are conditioned realities. S: 4. The development of insight/satipatthana is the direct understanding and knowledge of the khandhas and eventually of nibbana too. It is not the insight of concepts. M: Insight is the direct understanding and knowledge of the three characteristics. Any conditioned phenomena has the three characteristics and therefore can be an object of insight. When you see conditionality you see the Dhamma. S: 5.The khandhas are ‘real and actual’ (saccato thetato) as opposed to Beings, Self, the Buddha, computers and elephants. Unlike the latter, the khandhas have characteristics or qualities that are to be known for what they are. M: If the khandhas are ‘real and actual’ then they cannot be subject to conditionality because for something to be ‘real and actual’ it has to have something which gives it that ‘real and actual’ quality and that is the same as an essence, whether you call it like that or not, that is the assumption behind calling them ‘real and actual’. S: 6. Concepts and entities do not have the characteristics which can be penetrated and directly understood by the eightfold path factors. Therefore, it is essential to distinguish between concepts and khandhas. M: As I said before both concepts and entities are conditioned and therefore share the three characteristics and can be an object of insight. I don’t’ see room for a consensus Sarah and we better agree to disagree. Metta Michael 29038 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 0:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi KenO;-)) Hi Michael, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > Hello Sarah, > > Sarah; > 1. A clear distinction is shown between worldly truths and > realtites/actualities/the khandhas. > > Michael: > A clear distinction is shown ... I have read this exchange between you and Sarah and I do agree with you. However, I am not sure if the viewpoint expressed by Sarah is the true viewpoint of the Abhidhamma and the commentaries (that is what I argued with you but you lumped me in with others here). I have also debated with Sarah extensively that cittas and rupas are merely conceptual constructs, they are not real nor do they point to something that is `real'. They are merely for the sake of convenience to discuss and categorize phenomena. My impression thus far, and I am sure many here will disagree, is that the Abhidhamma cannot be truly understood in proper context without meditation practice and is meant only for those who do meditate. Most people on this list have only an intellectual understanding of such things, not a direct realization. This leads them to establish a necessary dichotomy in their minds about some things existing and some things not. Then the clinging has switched from clinging to entities and objects to clinging to superficial understanding of namas and rupas. But, I would also like to suggest to you that your viewpoint of reality being `empty' and `void' is also absurd. All viewpoints are absurd. But without viewpoints we wouldn't have much to talk about now would we?? ;-) Metta, James 29039 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 0:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] On the Momentariness of Mind States Hi Nina, Nina: Falling away is falling away, and it is just ignorance and clinging which holds on and does not even want to see that when the conditions disappear the conditioned phenomena completely disappear, at once, in a very radical way, never to come back. James: This is so very true! This is what I have seen in my meditation practice which terrifies me! Have you known this directly? Do such thoughts/knowledge give you comfort or fear? I am just wondering. Metta, James 29040 From: Herman Hofman Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:24pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: How many senses? Hi Htoo, I am unclear about some of what you wrote. Is physiology foolishness and stupidity? Are people who use the insights of modern physiology to make their lives more bearable foolish and stupid? Are the receptors, pathways etc panatta? Are the 5 sense doors paramattha? All the best Herman -----Original Message----- From: htootintnaing [mailto:htootintnaing@y...] Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2004 2:50 AM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: How many senses? Dear Herman, Finally Buddha Sasana has to disappear because of later disciples who are foolish and stupid enough to destroy the whole Sasana. The Sasana was said to exist 5000 human years. Now it is well over 2500 years. As evrything is anicca then The Buddha Sasana is also Anicca. The wise man will follow the wise guide. To pinpoint senses there are a lot of things to be learnt. Physiology is complicated and complex and advancing and that subject is a dynamic subject. While physiology is a dynamic subject, then neurology excels physiology as neurology has to depend on physiology. There are many many sense receptors, their pathways, the place where the information in them are stored and these things are being explored and they are still endless. This happens. Because Pannatta is not real. As Pannatta is not reality, it has no dimension. So it is not amazing that following Pannatta related things will never end. The Buddha way is not just imagination. There are only 5 physical sense doors. No more than that. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > Hi everyone, > > In Buddhism there are the classical 5 senses and the mind. Modern > physiology recognizes a vast number of senses beyond the classical 5. > There is the vestibular (sense of balance), proprioreception (sense of > location of head, body and limbs in relation to each other) as well as > the dozens of senses that react to certain levels of specific hormones > 29041 From: Herman Hofman Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:55pm Subject: RE: [dsg] On the Momentariness of Mind States Hi Sarah, As I wrote to TG recently, many posts on this site fluctuate between speaking conventionally and absolutely and back again, within a very short space. Quite often it is possible to make sense out of it from the context. But other times I have to assume that either I am very confused, or that the writer is. Take the following: -----Original Message----- From: Sarah [mailto:sarahdhhk@y...] Sent: Tuesday, 13 January 2004 7:31 PM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsg] On the Momentariness of Mind States Hi Howard & All, .... S:I don't think any 'action can be performed during a single mind moment'. An action is a concept representing a long series of mind moments and co-arising mental factors, such as vitakka and vicara, and all the multiplicity of rupas being discussed, arising in kalapas (groups of rupas) and falling away all the time. ======================================================================== = H> We have recently been discussing space and time. At no time did anyone suggest time was anything but a concept. So when we are discussing rupas (absolutes) how can there be a series (concept) of them? Where did time suddenly creep in? And how can rupas (absolutes) be falling away in time (concept), all the time (concept)? ======================================================================== = ..... S:I know what you mean. The problem, I think, is that we're so used to thinking in terms of stories and actions with so little understanding of realities. It helps to remember, I think, that vitakka and vicara arise at every moment and with every citta apart from moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. With all other sense door process cittas and all mind door cittas, these cetasikas, along with the universals and others according to their particular conditions, arise and fall all the time. ======================================================================== === H> Is a moment an absolute or a concept? How is it that absolutes arise and fall within concepts? ======================================================================== === .... S:As you're discussing with others, time is a concept. All that ever exists are the very brief and momentary dhammas now. Any activity consists of multitudes of namas and rupas arising and falling away. This is why, as the khandha suttas I posted yesterday indicate, there are only ever khandhas or actualities which can be directly known by insight. Time, actions, the Tathagatha, computers and elephants can only be conceptualised. .... ======================================================================== ==== H> Here you say that dhammas (absolutes) are brief. Is that briefness (brevity) a characteristic of that dhamma? To me briefness is a comparative measurement and surely that is conceptual? ======================================================================== ==== .... S:And yet we read in all the texts the references to the speed and the momentary nature of dhammas. We can also test out at this moment whether states last at all for an instant. Nothing to hold onto for even a finger-snap. ..... ======================================================================== ==== H> Same again. Speed is a comparative measurement. Is high speed a characteristic of dhammas? Or is it a characteristic of observation? Or what? ======================================================================== = .... S:On the other hand, I think it's the same issue;-). As soon as we have an idea of events and so on, it is a concept of a dhamma, rather than the dhamma itself that is the object of consciousness. ======================================================================== ==== H> Now I think I can understand, but isn't the "dhamma itself" therefore an inference and not a reality? ======================================================================== ==== S>If I'm slow on any theads or not able to continue, having retrieved the balls just as they were about to fall out of my in box, it's because we're going away at the end of next week and I'm going to be pretty busy til then. I hope others will join in or take over too;-) ======================================================================== == H> Now this I really do understand. You are speaking conventionally. In the whole paragraph!!! I hope you have an absolute wow of a time in Bangkok. :-) Metta, Sarah ====== All the best Herman 29042 From: Herman Hofman Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 2:27pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Space element a concept? Hi Nina, I am starting to think that the only confusion with dhammas is the talking about them. Dhammas are dhammas are dhammas, but when discussing there is no choice but to be conceptual. Not only the Dhamma is known by the wise for themselves, but that applies to dhammas as well. Talking about dhammas is like fighting for peace. While on the subject of talking about dhammas :-) N writing to Howard: I think that you and I are speaking about different kinds of space. You look up at the sky, thinking of a concept. When thinking of the concept space one may find that very important and great. It invites to clinging. I speak about that very small, insignificant rupa that, together with the other 27 rupas is classified in the Abhidhamma as rupakkhandha and performs the function of delimiting the kalapas. It is not worth clinging to, it is impermanent and non-self. ======================================================================== ==== H> You talk above about a very small, insignificant rupa, space. Do rupas have size? Does the rupa space have size? I always thought that the notion of size comes from extension and being delimited by something other. Is space delimited by space? ======================================================================== ==== All the best to you and Lodewijk and your father Herman PS When I imagine myself as over a hundred years old, I become unhappy. Not because of decline of health or fear of my own death, although that might change when I get closer, but because if I am over a hundred, my children will be between 70 and 80. The chance increases that my children will die while I remain alive. Not a nice thought. 29043 From: Michael Beisert Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 2:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi KenO;-)) James, I fully agree with all that you are saying except when you argue that "But, I would also like to suggest to you that your viewpoint of reality being `empty' and `void' is also absurd. All viewpoints are absurd." Emptiness in my view is just another name for conditionality. It is a way of conveing the idea that there is nothing underlying that phenomena except for the conditions based on which it arose. I don't think the view of conditionality is absurd. Metta Michael >From: "buddhatrue" >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi >KenO;-)) >Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:36:51 -0000 > >Hi Michael, > >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" > wrote: > > Hello Sarah, > > > > Sarah; > > 1. A clear distinction is shown between worldly truths and > > realtites/actualities/the khandhas. > > > > Michael: > > A clear distinction is shown ... > >I have read this exchange between you and Sarah and I do agree with >you. However, I am not sure if the viewpoint expressed by Sarah is >the true viewpoint of the Abhidhamma and the commentaries (that is >what I argued with you but you lumped me in with others here). I >have also debated with Sarah extensively that cittas and rupas are >merely conceptual constructs, they are not real nor do they point to >something that is `real'. They are merely for the sake of >convenience to discuss and categorize phenomena. My impression thus >far, and I am sure many here will disagree, is that the Abhidhamma >cannot be truly understood in proper context without meditation >practice and is meant only for those who do meditate. Most people on >this list have only an intellectual understanding of such things, not >a direct realization. This leads them to establish a necessary >dichotomy in their minds about some things existing and some things >not. Then the clinging has switched from clinging to entities and >objects to clinging to superficial understanding of namas and rupas. >But, I would also like to suggest to you that your viewpoint of >reality being `empty' and `void' is also absurd. All viewpoints are >absurd. > >But without viewpoints we wouldn't have much to talk about now would >we?? ;-) > >Metta, James 29044 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 2:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi KenO;-)) Hi Michael, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > James, > > I fully agree with all that you are saying except when you argue that > > "But, I would also like to suggest to you that your viewpoint of reality > being `empty' and `void' is also absurd. All viewpoints are absurd." > > Emptiness in my view is just another name for conditionality. It is a way of > conveing the idea that there is nothing underlying that phenomena except for > the conditions based on which it arose. I don't think the view of > conditionality is absurd. > > Metta > Michael Hi Michael, Maybe I am not making myself clear enought. I am saying that all viewpoints are absurd, even the viewpoint of conditionality is absurd (even this viewpoint of mine about viewpoints is absurd!...chew on that one for a bit! ;-)). The only thing that isn't absurd is direct realization. Metta, James ps. Now you are seeing what I described before as my 'Zen influences'...;-) 29045 From: Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Space element a concept? Hi, Nina - Thank you very much for the following, Nina. (Sarah & Jon - I apologize for retaining Nina's post in its entirety below, but I thought it best to keep it all, so that it can be looked at in light of what I say in the following.) Nina, you mention the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta below, and you include quotes from the commentary on it. I decided to look at the sutta directly in my copy of The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, and I just don't see in the sutta what the commentary sees. It seems to me that the commentary is "Abhidhamma-bound" to an uncalled for degree. As I read this sutta, everything that I see presented is quite conventional, and that applies as much to space as it does to earth element, fire element, air element, and water element. All these items are mentioned, but all are dealt with quite conventionally with not even a hint of "Abhidhammic fragrance." I see this sutta as a straightforward one teaching non-clinging to all aspects of materiality in the conventional sense (bodily solids, liquids, air, winds, humours, cavities and apertures etc) as well as non-clinging to a variety of namas, plus considerable teaching about meditation to Rahula. One thing that I hoped you might address in the discussion of the issue of space as a rupa is the two questions I raised in my post to Htoo. The first of these pertains to space seemingly being experienced through more than one sense door. The answer which I understand Htoo to have given and you to concur with is that "that space" is mere concept, but the "real space," the paramattha dhamma, is a rupa - an unobserved rupa. But that then led to my *second* question: "Htoo, doesn't this strike you as a bit ironic, with the space that is experienced being "unreal," but the allegedly "real" space being unobservable? Hardness that is real is actually observed! Sounds that are real are actually observed! But "real" space - that's the sort of space we *cannot* observe!! (Something's wrooong here! ;-))" There is a well known saying: "Seeing is believing". But at times, it seems to me that in Abhidhamma, the statement should be "Not seeing is believing"! (Of course, as a digression, another good saying, as pertains to concepts, is "Believing is seeing"! ;-)) Now, you certainly did respond below to my questions, Nina, but I don't follow how what you say in your response actually addresses the issue raised in my second question. I apologize for persisting with this, but I just don't see how that has been actually addressed. This is probably just me missing your point!! I hope that this can be further clarified for me to help me see the plausibility of space being a rupa, or, of course, the opposite - to have my scepticism on this issue left intact. With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/13/04 2:17:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > Dear Howard, > op 12-01-2004 06:22 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > >> > >========================== > >Space, if it is a rupa, is an odd sort of rupa. Hardness is > >experienced through the body door - only, visual objects through the eye > door > >- only, > >odors through the nose door - only, tastes through the tongue door only, > >sounds > >through the ear door - only, water element through the mind door (so it is > >said) - only. But space seems to be experienced both through the body door, > >the > >eye door, and the ear door. Could such a thing be a rupa? I think not. I > think > >that space is mere (well grounded) concept designating a particular > category > >of relations among rupas. > N: I think that you and I are speaking about different kinds of space. You > look up at the sky, thinking of a concept. When thinking of the concept > space one may find that very important and great. It invites to clinging. I > speak about that very small, insignificant rupa that, together with the > other 27 rupas is classified in the Abhidhamma as rupakkhandha and performs > the function of delimiting the kalapas. It is not worth clinging to, it is > impermanent and non-self. > The Commentaries explain in conventional terms that the manifestation of > space are cavities in the body, such as ear cavity, but we should not be led > astray and we should take this in the right sense. Their intention was > explaining in understandable language what space is: a reality. > H: Htoo, doesn't this strike you as a bit ironic, with the space that is > experienced being "unreal," but the allegedly "real" space being > unobservable? > Hardness that is real is actually observed! Sounds that are real are > actually > observed! But "real" space - that's the sort of space we *cannot* observe!! > (Something's wrooong here! ;-)) > N: Yes, something is wrong here. > Today we go again to Mahaaraahulovaadasutta. > The Buddha taught Rahula about the four Great Elements of earth, water, fire > and wind, and also about space. > We read in the Co: > Blessed One speak about the meditation subject of materiality? > He spoke so that he (Rahula) would abandon his attachment to materiality. > It must have occurred to him thus: ³Since attachment has arisen in Rahula on > account of his body, and the meditation subject on materiality was explained > to him before in brief, I shall now also make him dissect the body in > fortytwo ways and thus cause him to get rid of attachment that is dependent > on it and to attain the truth of Dhamma.² > Why did he then explain in detail the element of space? > In order to point out the derived material phenomena. > Before he had spoken about the four great Elements, not about the derived > physical phenomena. > Therefore, in order to point these out in that way, he explained in detail > the element of space. > He also made known the matter that is delimitated by the internal space {N: > space performing its function of delimitating]. > ³He proceeds to clarify matter that is delimitated by space. > The Guide explained this so that it was clear to him in that way.² > > After that he taught him to apply himself to the mental development similar > to earth, and similar to the other great Elements and space. We can admire > the structure of the sutta here: after the explanation about the Elements > the Buddha taught the application of this knowledge in daily life. The > Buddha said: > <³Apply yourself to the mental development that is like the earth, Rahula, > For when you apply yourself to the mental development that is like the > earth, Rahula, agreeable and disagreeable impressions that have arisen, > impinging on > the mind will not persist.²> > He taught the same about mental development like water, fire, wind and > space. > earth, Rahula, > agreeable and disagreeable impressions that have arisen, will not take a > lasting hold on the mind.>The same about the other Great Elements and space. > Would the Buddha teach Rahula merely a concept of space? He taught > realities, rupakkhandha and the other khandhas. We have to understand the > deep meaning of his words. We read: anywhere, > likewise, Rahula, you should cultivate the mental development that is > like space.> > The goal is detachment. > Nina. > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 29046 From: Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 2:17am Subject: Applied and Sustained Concentration Lead to Ecstatic Absorption How Applied and Sustained Concentration (Vitakka And Vicara) Lead to Ecstatic Absorption (jhana) Hello Htoo Naing, Hasituppada and Khema, it is once again a pleasure to exchange messages with you. On your questions regarding Vitakka And Vicara (applied and sustained concentration), and how concentration is different from thought, as well as how I use concentration for the other reflections that are spoken of in the Sati (meditation) suttas, such as the awareness of the body (inside and out), the senses, and the mental states and mental objects. For me to explain concentration and how I use it is no small conversation, because it requires explaining a number of things, therefore I am afraid I will not be able to cover the whole subject in a single message. First let me explain how I use the term 'concentration.' It is simply a turning of the awareness to an object, say in this case the observation of the breath. Coincident to this process is an effort to still the cognitive processes of thinking, reasoning, memory and perception. In the process of engaging in concentration, the awareness can wander to other objects, so there is an effort to bring the awareness back to the object. Therefore this process is consistent with an applied and sustained effort that the Pali terms 'Vitakka And Vicara' imply. But, this is not a thought process for me. Thinking engages the cognitive process listed above, whereas what I have described suspends them, and seeks just awareness directed toward a single object. Since I am intent on ecstatic absorption (jhana), then I use the objects of awareness of the breath, body (inside and out), the senses, and the mental states and mental objects as a "home base" as Khema called it, but once charismatic manifestations (jhana-nimitta) arise, then they become the new "objects" of concentration. But, by the time the charisms (jhana-nimitta) have arisen, then the cognitive processes have fully subsided and calm abiding is thus fully established. Therefore there is no reason to keep directing and redirecting the awareness to the "object." It is as though the awareness has fused with the object, which is now, as I have said, the various charismatic manifestations or charisms (jhana-nimitta). It is at this time that the first absorption (jhana/dhyana) then naturally and inexorably leads to the second absorption, but only if one is both sensitive to charisms (jhana-nimitta), and is willing to let go of the object of concentration. In the case of the various meditations on the breath, body (inside and out), the senses, and the cognitive processes, they are just objects of meditation. I only remain with them until charisms (jhana-nimitta) have arisen. Once charisms have arisen, then the breath, body, senses and mind are no longer my object of concentration. I am as the Buddha instructed, "sensitive to pleasure," a pleasure that is "not of the senses," which are these charisms. When that pleasure arises, I ignore the sense objects that do not lead to the pleasure of ecstatic absorption (jhana/dhyana), therefore I become "secluded" from the objects of the senses. Throughout the day I practice concentration as awareness of the breath, the body (inside and out), the senses, and the mental states and mind objects. I am always aware of relinquishing any grasping and aversion as they arise. I endeavor to still the cognitive processes of thinking, reasoning, memory and perception, thus maintaining calm abiding throughout the day. And, I am always "sensitive to pleasure," a pleasure that is "not of the senses" (charisms). I begin each day with a few hours of meditation. Every day I lead at least one 1 hour public meditation, and I end each day with a couple more hours of meditation. Every time I sit charisms (jhana-nimitta) arise and fill me throughout the sit. And in this way charisms have not only become a regular feature of my daily sitting practice regimen, but they have also become a regular feature of my moment-to-moment mindfulness practice as well. Therefore my mind is calm and tranquil throughout my sits, as well as throughout the day. And, I have become saturated and suffused with charisms (jhana-nimitta) throughout my sits as well as throughout the day. This is how 30 years of daily meditation practice has led to ecstatic absorption (jhana), and a saturation in charismatic manifestations (jhana-nimitta), which have so flooded my awareness domain that the pains of aging, such as arthritis, and tooth decay, are no longer with me. And, when I have illnesses, such as the passing of kidney stones a few years ago, there is no pain, just charisms (jhana-nimitta) have replaced all of the sensations. Thus I have become saturated and suffused with a pleasure that is "not of the senses," charisms (jhana-nimitta). This is how I have become established in the fourth absorption (jhana/dhyana) as my base of awareness. Please note: I use jhana-nimitta (a Pali term) to means the various charismatic manifestations of ecstasy, or what the Buddha called "a pleasure that is not of the senses." The Buddha's discourses on meditation and awareness training (Sati) are described in these suttas (sutras): Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn118.html Maha-satipatthana Sutta (DN. 22) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn22.html Satipatthana Sutta (MN 10) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn010.html I have made modifications to the translation of the above suttas to accommodate a more ecstatic absorption (jhana) appropriate rendering. If anyone is interested in this version of the translation then they are on the JSG at this URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas/files/ Thank-you for your kind interest, Jeff Brooks 29047 From: Michael Beisert Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 3:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi KenO;-)) Hello James, James: Maybe I am not making myself clear enought. I am saying that all viewpoints are absurd, even the viewpoint of conditionality is absurd (even this viewpoint of mine about viewpoints is absurd!...chew on that one for a bit! ;-)). The only thing that isn't absurd is direct realization. Michael: I know what you are saying. It is a possible interpretation for conditionality/emptiness. I personally don't go that far. I think it is possible to undersand, or have a view, about conditionality, which of course will not be as deep and transforming as a direct realization but which will point someone towards the right direction. But you are in good company, TRV Murti wrote a whole book about the absurdity of any points of view - The Central Phylosophy of Buddhism. Metta Michael 29048 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi KenO;-)) Hi Michael, Michael: But you are in good company, TRV Murti wrote a whole book about the absurdity of any points of view – The Central Phylosophy of Buddhism. James: Thanks for the tip; I haven't read it. Maybe I will search for it next time I am in the states. Nothing better than reading something that reaffirms your own absurd viewpoints!! ;-)) Metta, James 29049 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 6:33pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi KenO;-)) Hi Sarah and all, I hope you don't mind me jumping in to this thread to share some thoughts regarding the five aggregates (pancakkhandha), or for that matter, the five aggregates of sustenance/clinging (pancupadanakkhandha). The message is rather long though. Anyway, one way to understand what the term "five aggregates of sustenance/clinging (pancupadanakkhandha)" means is to see it as a more general and abstract term denoting all that which are dukkha. To quote the passages of Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi and Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translations in which the Buddha taught the noble truth of dukkha: Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering. [1] Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress: Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful. [2] When the Buddha taught the noble truth of dukkha, he started with specific instances of what is dukkha and ended with the statement "in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering." /"In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful." The phrase "in brief"/"in short", in the last statement is of significance. It indicates a change from listing the specific to stating the general. If all the specific and concrete instances that are dukkha were to be stated, then there would be an infinite list and that would not be suitable for teaching the noble truth of dukkha. The Buddha stated a few specific instances of what is dukkha. After that, he stated: "in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering." /"In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful." and did not list all the specific instances that are dukkha. Doing so would take an infinite amount of time. The term "five aggregates of sustenance/clinging" can thus be understood as a general and abstract term to denote all that are dukkha in which the specific and concrete instances that the Buddha taught in the noble truth of dukkha are included. The very word "aggregate"/"khandha" reminds me of the basic notion of "set" in mathematics. Intuitively, a set is a collection of elements or objects. For example, if I need to represent all the integers in a statement, instead of writing the integer numbers out one by one, like 0, 1, -1, 2, -2, 3, -3, . . . (which would take an infinite amount of time), I could simply use the bold letter "Z" to represent the set of all integers. The idea of aggregate/khandha can be understood with that connotation of set. The five aggregates of sustenance/clinging are like five sets/collections of elements that are of sustenance/clinging. Five aggregates of sustenance/clinging are dukkha can be understood as everything in these five sets is dukkha. In that sense, birth, aging, death, not getting what one wants, sorrow, lamentation, for instances, belong to one of the five aggregates of sustenance/clinging. The union of these five aggregates of sustenance/clinging would thus be the aggregate of dukkha (dukkhakkhandha). Everything that is dukkha can be understood as belonging to either one of the five aggregates of sustenance/clinging and thus belonging to the aggregate of dukkha. Now the question is: what is it that is dukkha? The Buddha taught that what is inconstant (anicca) is dukkha. One may ask the questions regarding specific things such as computers: "are computers included in the five aggregates of sustenance/clinging?" or "are computers dukkha?" or "are computers inconstant?" I will try to summarize the views, as I understand it, on such questions as following: 1. Computers are not included in the five aggregates of sustenance/clinging because computers are pannatti, not paramattha, and five aggregates of sustenance/clinging are paramattha, not pannatti. What is pannatti is not considered inconstant and dukkha because it does not exist. Only paramattha exists. 2. Computers are included in the five aggregates of sustenance/clinging, because computers are dukkha. Computers are dukkha because they are inconstant. As I see it, the discussion on those questions would often involve the question on whether computers (or some other things such as vases, etc) exist or not. It would be useful to see what the Buddha said regarding what does not exist and what exists. Let me quote the following: At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, I do not dispute with the world; rather, it is the world that disputes with me. A proponent of the Dhamma does not dispute with anyone in the world. Of that which the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, I too say that it does not exist. And of that which the wise in the world agree upon as existing, I too say that it exists. "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, of which I too say that it does not exist? Form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, and I too say that it does not exist. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, and I too say that it does not exist. "That, bhikkhus, is what the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, of which I too say that it does not exist. "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. "That, bhikkhus, is what the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists. [3] So regarding the question whether computers exist or not, what the Buddha said about what does not exist and what does can be of reference. May all be well and happy. Peace, Victor [1] The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya. Translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi, p.1844 [2] Handful of Leaves,* Volume Two: An Anthology from the Samyutta Nikaya. Translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, p.300 [3] The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya. Translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi, p.949-950 * For more information on Handful of Leaves, please check http://www.sati.org/handful_of_leaves.htm#gohere2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Michael & All, > > I hope you don't mind me picking up on a few of your main contentions, > quoting brief comments from some recent posts of yours to different > people. [snip] 29050 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 7:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi KenO;-)) Hi James and all, James, just a quote I find might be relevant to what you were saying: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 6.54 6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly. http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/t654en.html Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Michael, [snip] > > Maybe I am not making myself clear enought. I am saying that all > viewpoints are absurd, even the viewpoint of conditionality is absurd > (even this viewpoint of mine about viewpoints is absurd!...chew on > that one for a bit! ;-)). The only thing that isn't absurd is direct > realization. > > Metta, James > ps. Now you are seeing what I described before as my 'Zen > influences'...;-) 29051 From: Eznir Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi KenO;-)) Dear Friends! The Lord Buddha in Majjhima Nikaya 22 'And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, "How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?" In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the raft. Even so monks, I have taught you the Dhamma like a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Knowing the Dhamma to be like a raft, you should let go even of [skillful] qualities, to say nothing of those that are not.' MN 22 Be Happy! eznir --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi James and all, > > James, just a quote I find might be relevant to what you were saying: > > Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 6.54 > > > 6.54 > My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me > finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out > through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away > the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) > > He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly. > > http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/t654en.html > > Peace, > Victor > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > wrote: > > Hi Michael, > [snip] > > > > Maybe I am not making myself clear enought. I am saying that all > > viewpoints are absurd, even the viewpoint of conditionality is > absurd > > (even this viewpoint of mine about viewpoints is absurd!...chew on > > that one for a bit! ;-)). The only thing that isn't absurd is > direct > > realization. > > > > Metta, James > > ps. Now you are seeing what I described before as my 'Zen > > influences'...;-) 29052 From: Eznir Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 0:51am Subject: [dsg] Re: commentaries Dear Nina & Friends! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Dhamma friend Eznir, > I do not know how to address you, what is your real name? eznir: just address me as eznir! What's in a name anyway! It's conventional! (pun intended! :-)) > > 28818\Nina: Understandable that you were put off with Abhidhamma. > > Especially if you follow details as Larry and I study now. Details > > about rupa, AND A WAY OF REASONING which must seem complicated, with those dyads. > > eznir: > > How far can one go by way of reasoning? Can the Dhamma be > > comprehended in this way? > N: .....What I said above was meant in a special context, you see. The commentators try to explain the Dhamma and they are spot on, but we have to place ourselves into their way of reasoning and this is difficult for people today. We have to go back milleniums of years. What was their intention? Why do they bring up dyads, triads, etc. eznir: I understand what you mean, Nina. But the discussion... whatever.... is being waylaid at times.... I think. The subject matter being commented upon is sometimes shelved and the focus is on what the commentry said, which afterall, is not what matters, isn't it? It is the main topic that is of concern. Note that the shifting of the focus of attention would be very subtle, from the main topic being commented upon and the commentry itself, though apparently one may be appearing to discuss the main topic! And if the commentators are not as "spot on" then I'm sure you could imagine where the discussion would lead to! Moreover, if one frequently depends on the commentry and not in the suttas when one examines the Teachings, then one loses the opportunity to develop ones "investigating-the-Dhamma" factor, which is one of the 37 Bhojjanga factors. As much emaphasis must be given to practise as to the theory/reasoning/discussion, for the verification lies therein! May you have a pleasant journey! Be Happy! eznir 29053 From: Eznir Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:01am Subject: Re: Direct Experience! Dear Ven. Bhante! I am trying to clarify a subtle point here Bhante. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bhikkhu Samahita" wrote: > Dearest Eznir: > > Direct seeing is when one perceives things as they are, > (+) > > Direct experience is when one knows how things develop! > > All things in this world is dynamic & not static! > Absolutely speaking: No things Are (the same). > All phenomena may be thereby be regarded as > processes rather than entities. > > Otherwise 'I' agree: Things are NEVER as they APPEAR > or as we conceptualize them as you say. > > Knowing all phenomena to be transient mental states > is a direct experience. > > Knowing, what is apparent material Solidity macroscopically, > to be immaterial extension microscopically, > is a direct experience. > > Knowing, what is apparent material Fluidity macroscopically, > to be immaterial cohesion microscopically, > is a direct experience. > > Knowing, what appears as an attractive construction, > to be ultimately painful, to a degree even beyond death, > is a direct experience. > > Knowing, what appears as 'Personal', 'Me' or 'Mine' > to be fundamentally impersonal, selfless, coreless, > ownerless, a passing cluster void of any identity, > entity, ego, self or substance, > is a quite direct experience. > > Just perceiving by focusing on the ever-changing > transient impermanence right here, right now, > is another in itself fleeting direct experience. > > Knowing what is behind this mental curtain, > is a direct experience ... > > May we all disentangle this web of appearances. > > Thanks for this good question. > > samahita eznir: What one perceives that one comes to know. Perception arises first and Knowledge follows. Perception is structurally simpler than Knowledge. There is a subtle difference between Perception and Knowledge, isn't there Bhante? Like in 'Direct Seeing' and 'Direct Experience'. One experiences or cognizes 'Namarupa'. But 'Direct Seeing' is something beyond namarupa. It IS. Fullstop! May your practise be pleasant and progress quick! Be Happy! eznir 29054 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 2:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Angulimala Hi Vijita & All, I’m glad to see another post from you and I’ve enjoyed reading all the other posts on this thread as well, with so many interesting angles considered;-) --- teoh chee keam wrote: <..> V:> Psychologically, we have to consider few important aspects in other > suttas about King Pasenadi's personality and his response towards Buddha > on why King Pasenadi pardoned Angulimala. Could it be King Pasenadi, as > a faithfull Buddha's lay disciple, as mentioned in many suttas, > i) unable to prosecute Angulimala as he had joint the order of > Bhikkhu, as some Bhikkhus did to avoid the law, or > ii) Angulimala as a Bhikkhu, practised "No Harm". Therefore, King > Pasenadi respected him as a muni(likely,as the conversation between > Buddha and King Pasenadi), or > iii) King Pasenadi understand the situation at that time and avoid > unnecessary punishments and suffering as he is known to be a good king. .... S: ...or iv) King Pasenadi shows his great respect for the Triple Gem: “It is wonderful, venerable sir, it is marvellous how the Blessed One tames the untamed, brings peace to the unpeaceful, and leads to Nibbana those who have not attained Nibbana....” M. 86 In Nina’s series/translations on ‘Latent Tendencies’ recently posted, we read about the Buddha’s omniscient knowledge of people’s latent tendencies and biases (anusaya), his knowledge of behaviour (carita) and dispositions (adhimutti). He thoroughly understood all the wrong views in the latent tendencies and all the past wholesome and unwholesome kamma relating to present behaviour. We read that with developed understanding of conditionality, comes patience and forbearance. Also, with developed wisdom which knows the real cause of suffering, comes compassion for all who act in ignorance. The Buddha has unlimited compassion for all. Indeed, we read about how foolish anger is: ‘When a fool hates a man that has no hate, Is purified and free from every blemish, Such evil he will fine comes back on him, As does fine dust thrown up against the wind’ (Dh 125). Many good examples are given in Vism. IX, 14f, Getting Rid of Resentment. As others like Herman pointed out, ‘holding of a grievance, or the attribution of guilt does not hurt anyone but the person doing it.’ Or as Connie said so eloquently, ‘any time I hate someone, they probably couldn’t care less even if they did know, but that I was hurting myself....all those things an enemy would wish upon an enemy that anger does.’ (Thx for your personal example, Connie;-)) ... V:> Angulimala was said to be Yakkha in his past life, made him powerfull > enough to win the fight even the villagers came in big group. .... S: Also, a few more ‘deckchair’ details from the comy to the Theraagathaa, CCLV (PTS) which may be relevant to other discussions: 1.“Now because he was born vexing the king’s mind he was named Hi.nsaka. but afterwards when what was seen no more, he became known as Ahi.nsaka.” (Not necessarily any conflict when it suggests elsewhere he was named Ahi.nsaka?) 2. “He went to the Jalini forest, in Kosala, and from a cliff near the high road watched the passers-by, and rushing down smote off their fingers and hung them on a tree, till the vultures and crows had stripped the bones of flesh. Then making a garland of the fingerbones, he hung it round his shoulders as if decked for sacrifice.” (Not necessarily smelly or impossible to hang the bones only around his shoulders?) 3.”And Angulimala’s mother, of the Mantani brahmins, said to her husband: ‘Our son is a thief and committing this and that. Send for him, bid him to stop doing these things.’ but he replied: ‘I have nought to do with sons of that sort; let the king do as he will.’ Then she in love, took provisions and set out, saying: ‘I will bring my son and stop him.’ “ (The way it reads in the comy is that there is no suggestion his mother knew and failed to take action earlier??) .... V: > Regarding his injury/suffering due to things thrown accidentally to him, > that is vipaka. At this point, we do not know if his suffering is due to > new vipaka or past kamma. We may suffer kammic result either due to > direct or indirect effect. ..... The bodily suffering now must be as a result of past kamma. No new kamma, bringing new vipaka for arahants. I agree with what you say about direct and indirect effects. Well said;-) .... V: > Nothing mentioned about Angulimala then, after he had lived in > seclusion, a dhutanga monk. ..... S: In the commentary to the Dhammapada account (Bk13, story6), and referred to, I think, in Qus of King Milinda, Angulimala passed into parinibbana soon after joining the order and whilst living in seclusion, having given the well-known utterances we read in all accounts. The bhikkhus were surprised to be told by the Buddha that he had passed into parinibbana which led the Buddha to say: “He whose misdeeds are covered by good deeds, Illumines this world as does the moon freed from a cloud.” (Dhp 173). .... V: > Angulimala is a perfect example for those in doubt after repenting from > their unwholesome deeds in the past, no matter how great is the > kamma(except the 5 unpardonable). .... S: I think you and all the other posters on this thread have mentioned many useful points. Looking rather quickly at the various accounts in the texts, while different details are given, I don’t see any obvious discrepancies. As Eddie summarised, ‘unfortunately, we live in a world well dominated with idea of punishment and we are more or less influenced’. Many thanks to everyone for all the helpful reminders and especially to Christine for raising the thread and encouraging the discussion;-) Vijita, I look forward to more of your contributions. Also Eddie and everyone else too. Metta, Sarah ======= 29055 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:49am Subject: Re: Applied and Sustained Concentration Lead to Ecstatic Absorption Dear Jeff, You have distributed wide your message which is like a reply to specific people who are not of each group. Anyway Vitakka is not concentration. Vicara is not concentration. If you resist saying like that that will automatically mean that you do not understand Vitakka and Vicara. While these two Jhanic factors are not understood, it is hardly possible that a person who do not understand Jhanic factor achieve Jhana. Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > How Applied and Sustained Concentration (Vitakka And Vicara) Lead to Ecstatic > Absorption (jhana) > > Hello Htoo Naing, Hasituppada and Khema, it is once again a pleasure to > exchange messages with you. 29056 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] HTOO: Space element Dear Nina, Thanks for your encouragement. Heartbase is a controversial subject I think. Is it Hadaya Vatthu of 28 Paramattha Rupa? Where does it exist? Is it in the heart? I am looking forward to hearing from you. I will search and read up Larry's thread later. Thanks Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Htoo, > do not worry, there will be plenty of rupas to discuss, see Larry's thread. > To begin with heartbase, > heart. That is conventional again. > Nina. 29057 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 7:06am Subject: Heart base DearHtoo, I wrote some short letters on heart base a couple of years ago on the forum. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/5395 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/5410 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/5470 Rob In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Dear Nina, > > Thanks for your encouragement. Heartbase is a controversial subject I > think. Is it Hadaya Vatthu of 28 Paramattha Rupa? Where does it > exist? Is it in the heart? I am looking forward to hearing from you. > I will search and read up Larry's thread later. > > Thanks > > Htoo Naing > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Dear Htoo, > > do not worry, there will be plenty of rupas to discuss, see > Larry's thread. > > To begin with heartbase, > > heart. That is conventional again. > > Nina. 29058 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 6:17am Subject: RE: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <> Hi Micheal and (Victor) I think Victor has quoted a very impt sutta and if you read carefully., dhamma EXIST and what does not exist are permanent self and I hope this will convince you what commentators wrote that things truly exist but conditioned. Khandhas exists. This solve one problem now to the next are khandhas = paramathas and are paramathas indeed irreducible or it is possible for it to be further reduce - that we will have to discuss again and again from different angles. I am patient so I hope you dont mind me bothering you about this. Victor - could you kindly quote me the relevant sutta name for this sutta - thanks in advance At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, I do not dispute with the world; rather, it is the world that disputes with me. A proponent of the Dhamma does not dispute with anyone in the world. Of that which the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, I too say that it does not exist. And of that which the wise in the world agree upon as existing, I too say that it exists. "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, of which I too say that it does not exist? Form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, and I too say that it does not exist. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, and I too say that it does not exist. "That, bhikkhus, is what the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, of which I too say that it does not exist. "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. "That, bhikkhus, is what the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists. [3] best wishes Ken O 29059 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 7:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <> Dear Ken, I think Michael is aware of this. Take this post from november: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m22933.html '''.>>>Dear Michael, Could you tell us more about your view. How does it relate to this sutta: Samyutta nikaya Khanda vagga XXII 94 (p.950 of Bodhi translation) "Rupa(matter, physical phenomena) that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say it exists. Feeling...perception..volitional formations..consciouness..that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change..I too say that it exists" endquote>>>>> RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Micheal and (Victor) > > I think Victor has quoted a very impt sutta and if you read > carefully., dhamma EXIST and what does not exist are permanent self > and I hope this will convince you what commentators wrote that things > truly exist but conditioned. Khandhas exists. This solve one > problem now to the next are khandhas = paramathas and are paramathas > indeed irreducible or it is possible for it to be further reduce - > that we will have to discuss again and again from different angles. > I am patient so I hope you dont mind me bothering you about this. > > Victor - could you kindly quote me the relevant sutta name for this > sutta - thanks in advance > > > > "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as > existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is > impermanent, suffering, subject to change: this the wise in the > world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling > … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is > impermanent, suffering, subject to change: this the wise in the > world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. > "That, bhikkhus, is what the wise in the world agree upon as > existing, of which I too say that it exists. > [3] > > > best wishes > Ken O 29060 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 8:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <> --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear Ken, > I think Michael is aware of this. Take this post from november: > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m22933.html > '''.>>>Dear Michael, Hi Ken O and Robert K (and Victor), Victor has provided a very important sutta, I am glad that you appreciate it. However, Victor being the clever minx that he is ;-) failed to provide his viewpoint of this sutta. I believe that you both have misinterpreted this sutta; please allow me to explain and provide another sutta that more clearly demonstrates the Buddha's position. The important part of this sutta is the beginning: "Bhikkhus, I do not dispute with the world; rather, it is the world that disputes with me. A proponent of the Dhamma does not dispute with anyone in the world. Of that which the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, I too say that it does not exist. And of that which the wise in the world agree upon as existing, I too say that it exists." SN, 22, 93 "Flowers" In other words, the Buddha is going to use conventional language of `existing' and `not existing', just as other people do, so as to not dispute with them (obviously there are no Buddhas who post on this list! ;-)). However, he did not truly believe in 'existence' or 'non-existence' of anything, khandas included, and saw beyond such dualistic concepts. Let me quote another important sutta which provides a counter-point: SN, 12, 15(5) "Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?" "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that, when there is arising, only stress is arising; and that when there is passing away, only stress is passing away. In this, one's knowledge is independent of others. It is to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view. …" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-015.html Metta, James 29061 From: Michael Beisert Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 9:02am Subject: RE: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <> Hello KenO, KenO: I think Victor has quoted a very impt sutta and if you read carefully., dhamma EXIST and what does not exist are permanent self and I hope this will convince you what commentators wrote that things truly exist but conditioned. Khandhas exists. This solve one problem now to the next are khandhas = paramathas and are paramathas indeed irreducible or it is possible for it to be further reduce - that we will have to discuss again and again from different angles. I am patient so I hope you dont mind me bothering you about this. Michael: The sutta in summary states that: Khandhas that are permanent – do not exist Khandhas that are impermanent – exist I never said that dhammas do not exist. What I say is that they exist subject to conditionality and not as an ultimate reality. Something which is impermanent, continuously changing can only exist in a conventional sense, i.e. can be experienced, performs functions, but do not exist in an ultimate sense, it is impossible for something impermanent to be an ultimate reality. Because an ultimate reality has something in it that makes it qualify as an ultimate reality. And that something is an essence. Remember the Kaccayanagotta Sutta. The Buddha said people believe things can exist or not exist, and he taught conditionality. He rejected the first two. So when the Buddha says exists it is always, always, within the context of dependent origination. Who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma. Metta Michael 29062 From: Michael Beisert Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 9:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <> Hello RobertK, I have already sent a message to Ken on this issue. But just to clarify again, the Buddha taught dependent origination and any affirmation by him about existence has to be taken in the context of dependent origination. In causality things do exist, they can be experienced, but they do not exist in an ultimate sense. That is the difference. Metta Michael >From: "rjkjp1" >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <> >Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:18:43 -0000 > >Dear Ken, >I think Michael is aware of this. Take this post from november: >http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m22933.html >'''.>>>Dear Michael, >Could you tell us more about your view. How does it relate to this >sutta: >Samyutta nikaya Khanda vagga XXII 94 (p.950 of Bodhi translation) >"Rupa(matter, physical phenomena) that is impermanent, suffering and >subject to change: this >the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say it >exists. Feeling...perception..volitional >formations..consciouness..that is impermanent, suffering and >subject to change..I too say that it exists" endquote>>>>> >RobertK > 29063 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 10:02am Subject: heartbase, note 4 c heartbase, note 4 c Follows after the footnote 26. U. Narada gives examples trying to explain why the material base is located within the heart. He gives his personal views. When there is grief, He also explains about the brain: N: He tries to explain the heart as centre, versus the brain theory, but mixing medical terms with realities may be confusing. We have to remember that the heartbase is a subtle rupa to be known only through the mind-door. When we believe that we notice the heartbase through the bodysense, it is only thinking about the heart. We may cling to our heart instead of understanding the reality of the rupa that is heartbase. It is helpful that the Patthana only uses the term: that rupa. This is the lesson we can learn. U. Narada cites places of the Patthana where the heartbase occurs as dependence condition, at birth and throughout life. At the moment of birth the heart-base arises simultaneously with the rebirth-consciousness, and during life, the arising of citta is dependent on the heartbase that arose together with the citta immediately preceding it. We have to remember that rupa is weak at its arising moment and that it can only condition nama after it has arisen, during its moments op presence. Kamma keeps on producing the heartbase throughout life during the three moments of citta: its arising moment, the moment of its presence and the moment of its falling away. At the time of dying, the last cittas depend on one heartbase. U Narada: < It is like many persons sitting astride an old man who is very weak. For the heart-base at the time of dying is very weak and many consciousnesses have to depend on it, and it ceases with the ceasing of death-consciousness. The simultaneous ceasing of this materiality with consciousness is known as birth. (Note that the simultaneous arising of this materiality with consciousness is known as birth in the five aggregates planes.) > Heart-base can condition citta by: base-object- prenascence-dependence condition. It is prenascent, it is base, it can also be the object. In the Patthana it is explained that it can be the object of insight or of lobha: ³ (One) practises insight into impermanency, suffering, impersonality... enjoys and delights in the internal (heart-base). Taking it as object, arises lust, arises wrong views, arises doubt, arises restlessness, arises grief.² This shows that a rupa that can be experienced only through the mind-door is not only experienced by insight, but it can also be experienced by akusala citta. U Narada, p. 33: during the process of dying: ******* (Conclusion of notes) Nina. 29064 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 10:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] On the Momentariness of Mind States Dear James, op 13-01-2004 21:42 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > > Nina: Falling away is falling away, and it is just ignorance and > clinging which holds on and does not even want to see that when the > conditions disappear the conditioned phenomena completely disappear, > at once, in a very radical way, never to come back. > > James: This is so very true! This is what I have seen in my > meditation practice which terrifies me! Have you known this > directly? N: No, I do not even realize the first stage of tender insight, knowing the difference between nama and rupa, and thus, how could the falling away of one nama or rupa at a time, not mixed, be realized. J: Do such thoughts/knowledge give you comfort or fear? N: I can only *think* about it: it is as it is. I asked Lodewijk: he finds it fearful. It is hard to imagine how it is, he said, but the consequences are frightening. And, he added: you need the perfection of truthfulness: the truth and nothing but the truth. When citta falls away there are conditions for the arising of a succeeding one. When rupa falls away, it is replaced so long as there are conditions. Thus it is difficult to realize that a new reality is not the same anymore, it may be very similar. I was thinking of Michael who takes to heart the avoidance of eternalism and annihilation view. The seeing of conditions causes the balance, the Middle Way, as he also mentioned. Visuddhimagga, XVII, 310: explains about seeing the linking of cause and fruit: As to fear: it depends on the context. It may be wholesome, like seeing the disadvantage and danger of akusala. But then, it is not accompanied by unhappy feeling. Feeling is predominant and this is a means to recognize whether there is wholesome fear or unwholesome fear. As to the latter, this is aversion which has many shades: anger, being upset, sadness, being afraid. This is not to be pursued, but when it arises it can be known that it is conditioned. We have the latent tendency of aversion and this conditions it time and again. Thus, when there is understanding there cannot be at the same time the negative kind of fear, there is no unhappy feeling, and this can be verified even now, even when it has not yet reached the stages of insight. For example, when we reflect on suttas. We read, Vis. XX, 102: Here is the key to the dilemma, I think. More about fear, and this is helpful after the frightening figurative languge about monsters, etc. Vis. XXI, 32: Thus, simply the mere judgement. The Buddha taught the Dhamma for the happiness of beings, not in order to make them fearful. Nina. 29065 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 10:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism.XIV 60 (3 of 4), note 3 c heartbase Dear James, I tried to add more about this subject in the note 4c. I shall now be rather brief, maybe more after Bgk. op 12-01-2004 00:23 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > What you have > quoted here from the Vism doesn't specify the conditioning dhamma(s) > for heart-base, N: Kamma. J: how it is strengthened or weakened by pre- > conditioning and post-conditioning dhammas N: It is weak at the end of life. J: or how it relates to > insight/dependent origination/samsara/nibbana. N: it can be object of insight. Not seeing it for self. This already includes:dependent origination. When insight is fully developed it leads to the experience of nibbana and finally to the end of samsara. J: (I want to know more > of the `Big Picture' in this regard ;-). N: that is always good and helpful. Larry can help as well. Nina. 29066 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 10:02am Subject: sutta, space, etc. Hi Howard, You brought up very good points about sutta reading, the heart of the matter. To pay due attention I need time, not sure whether this is after Bgk perhaps. Actually this point was discussed last time in bgk, see my But, it never is enough, always more to it. As to subtle rupa as object through the mind-door: see heartbase. My answer to you was insufficient: even with lobha, thus, not with insight, it can be known. Don't ask me how and when. Help! help! Sarah, another point for Bgk to discuss. And also about the approach to sutta reading, with an Abhidhammic flavour, I add: and thus, with a satipatthanic flavour. Note the words: and thus. Here is the whole dilemma in a nutshell. I love the subject. About unproduced rupa, space: I understood from Vis. it can still be seen as originated from the four causes.In Vis. XIV, 79: All the rest: includes space. Now I read in U. Narada, p. 13: about non- concrete matter: it is Thus, I would stress: not directly, keeping in mind that it is not concrete matter. Nina. 29067 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 10:02am Subject: Latent tendencies, ch 1, no 5 Latent tendencies, ch 1, no 5 2. The latent tendencies have ³arisen² in the sense of ³having obtained a soil² [11] (bhumiladdhuppanna). This refers to the defilements that cannot yet be eradicated and are present in their own soil. First of all we should study the text that explains the meaning of the term ³arisen², uppanna, in the Commentary to the ³Dhammasangani² the ³Expositor² (Book I, Part II, Ch I, 67): ³Herein its word-definition: Œpresent or existing¹ is called uppanna, because it has arrived at the portal, so to speak, of genesis, etc. , after the end of the previous state [12] . This word uppanna has many meanings: Œpast,¹ Œgetting,¹ Œuprisen,¹ Œnot discarded,¹ Œnot completely cut off,¹ Œthe totality of the three instants.¹ In such passages as, ŒBhikkhus, at that time Kakusandha, the Blessed One, the Saint has arisen in the world¹- uppanna is used in the sense of Œpast¹. ŒTo the elder Ånanda has arisen a superfluous robe¹- here uppanna means Œgetting¹. ŒEven, bhikkhus, as a strong wind at intervals disperses a great mass of clouds that have arisen¹- here upanna means Œuprisen¹. ŒThe wandering of the mind which has arisen is difficult to remove; (mindfulness on respiration) then and there causes evil, i.e., immoral states, to disappear every time they have arisen,- here upanna means Œnot discarded¹. ŒOne who cultivates, practises many times the Ariyan Eightfold Path causes at intervals evil, i.e., immoral, states to disappear then and there every time they have arisen¹ - here uppanna means Œnot cut off¹. In the catechism, ŒIs a thing arisen in the course of generation ? Yes¹--uppanna has the meaning of Œreached the totality of the three instants,¹ Œis existing¹, or Œis present¹. ...² From these text quotations we can see that the word Œuppanna¹, arisen, has many meanings. But here in the sense of ³arisen² in the sense of ³having obtained a soil² (bhumiladdhuppanna), it means: not cut off. ³Arisen in the sense of having obtained a soil² refers to the defilements which have not been eradicated and which have obtained a soil. It does not mean that defilements who have their own soil arise with the akusala citta. In the Commentary to the ³Book of Analysis², the ³Dispeller of Delusion², Ch 8, Classification of the Right Efforts, Suttanta Division, 1448, it is said: ³But the five aggregates are called the plane of insight. These are divided into past, future and present. But the defilements inhering in these are not to be said to be past, future or present; inhering in the past aggregates, they are unabandoned. Inhering in the future aggregates and in the present aggregates, they are also unabandoned. This is called Œarisen having obtained a plane¹. Hence the ancients said: ŒThe defilements which are unabolished in this or that plane are counted as arisen having obtained a soil¹.² Footnotes: 11. A fertile soil. They are potential defilements in the sense of possessing a fertile soil for their arising. 12. There are three moments of citta: the moment of its arising, of its presence and of its falling away. ***** Nina. 29068 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 11:01am Subject: Re: Heart base Dear Robert, Thanks for your old messages and your links. It is clear and intelligible. But the last link is not in post form. It is in a reply form like >>..>>.. Thanks again for your kindness to save my time. With Metta, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > DearHtoo, > I wrote some short letters on heart base a couple of years ago on > the forum. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/5395 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/5410 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/5470 > Rob > > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" > wrote: > > Dear Nina, > > > > Thanks for your encouragement. Heartbase is a controversial > subject I > > think. 29069 From: Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 6:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] On the Momentariness of Mind States Hi, Nina (and James) - In a message dated 1/14/04 1:42:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > Dear James, > op 13-01-2004 21:42 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > > > >Nina: Falling away is falling away, and it is just ignorance and > >clinging which holds on and does not even want to see that when the > >conditions disappear the conditioned phenomena completely disappear, > >at once, in a very radical way, never to come back. > > > >James: This is so very true! This is what I have seen in my > >meditation practice which terrifies me! Have you known this > >directly? > N: No, I do not even realize the first stage of tender insight, knowing the > difference between nama and rupa, and thus, how could the falling away of > one nama or rupa at a time, not mixed, be realized. > > J: Do such thoughts/knowledge give you comfort or fear? > N: I can only *think* about it: it is as it is. I asked Lodewijk: > he finds it fearful. It is hard to imagine how it is, he said, but the > consequences are frightening. And, he added: you need the perfection of > truthfulness: the truth and nothing but the truth. > When citta falls away there are conditions for the arising of a succeeding > one. When rupa falls away, it is replaced so long as there are conditions. > Thus it is difficult to realize that a new reality is not the same anymore, > it may be very similar. > I was thinking of Michael who takes to heart the avoidance of eternalism and > annihilation view. > The seeing of conditions causes the balance, the Middle Way, as he also > mentioned. > Visuddhimagga, XVII, 310: explains about seeing the linking of cause and > fruit: understanding the unbrokenness of the continuity that occurs through the > linking of cause and fruit. And one who sees it wrongly clings to the > eternity view by apprehending identity in the non-interruption of the > continuity that occurs through the linking of cause and fruit. > > As to fear: it depends on the context. It may be wholesome, like seeing the > disadvantage and danger of akusala. But then, it is not accompanied by > unhappy feeling. Feeling is predominant and this is a means to recognize > whether there is wholesome fear or unwholesome fear. As to the latter, this > is aversion which has many shades: anger, being upset, sadness, being > afraid. This is not to be pursued, but when it arises it can be known that > it is conditioned. We have the latent tendency of aversion and this > conditions it time and again. > Thus, when there is understanding there cannot be at the same time the > negative kind of fear, there is no unhappy feeling, and this can be verified > even now, even when it has not yet reached the stages of insight. For > example, when we reflect on suttas. > We read, Vis. XX, 102: him through seeing rise and fall according to condition owing to his > discovery of the inability of states to have mastery exercised over them. > Then he more thoroughly abandons the self view.> > Here is the key to the dilemma, I think. > More about fear, and this is helpful after the frightening figurative > languge about monsters, etc. > Vis. XXI, 32: or does it not fear? It does not fear. For it is simply the mere judgement > that past formations have ceased, present ones are ceasing, and future ones > will cease.> Thus, simply the mere judgement. The Buddha taught the Dhamma > for the happiness of beings, not in order to make them fearful. > Nina. > ============================== I have experienced anicca at a fairly fine level, though not, I believe, at the finest level possible (whatever that level may be), and I didn't happen to find that terrifying, but that may well be so because I experienced it *only* in bodily sensation. Were I to experience radical impermanence in allthings at such a fine level, it might well be another matter - it might well be truly terrifying. I *have* briefly experienced anatta - in the partial form of no sense of personal self and of the complete impersonality of all experience, and that was entirely terrifying, though most worthwhile. I suspect that if one were well practiced in the jhanas, if one had mastery of the jhanas, then one would have acquired a basis of calm and equanimity, so that even the deepest experiences of anicca and anatta would be without fear. And that would be an immense benefit, for without fear, such insight events would not be run away from and short-circuited, but would be permitted to continue and develop further, leading to great things. 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) 29070 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 11:07am Subject: Re: heartbase, note 4 c Dear Nina, Thanks for your notes on heart basis. RobertK has linked me with 3 messages at DSG that appeared a couple of years ago. Your notes are excellent and I like it and it makes sense at least for me. With Metta, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > heartbase, note 4 c > > Follows after the footnote 26. > (Conclusion of notes) > Nina. 29071 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:13pm Subject: Re: On the Momentariness of Mind States Hi Nina and Howard, Thank you both for attempting to answer my questions. I am really just trying to figure out why I have this fear reaction and what I might do to stop it; how I might view it to make it go away. It has become a significant roadblock to my practice. I feel like I am in a limbo of some sort. Perhaps this is not the best forum (actually, I know it isn't) but my isolation here in Cairo makes me somewhat needy for input. What you both seem to be saying is that I shouldn't be having this fear reaction. That could very well be true. I know that something is wrong or I wouldn't be asking. I don't have it when I notice just the arising and falling of bodily sensations, I have it when I notice the arising and falling of mind or consciousness. It happened quite by accident really. I was concentrating on body sensations, just as they occur throughout the body when I started to think that I wasn't focusing on them well enough. I seemed like my mind was out of focus or something. I worked for several days on this during a meditation retreat when I suddenly noticed that the reason I couldn't focus to the extent that I wanted is because my mind, the part that was doing the concentrating, was changing also. I could see that my `view' of a particular sensation would change quickly from one aspect of that sensation to another (around, inside, close, far away, etc.). I tried to stop this but I couldn't. I then let it just happen and started to observe the consequences. I noticed that my mind focused on the sensation that arose, changed while observing that sensation, and then seemed to `disappear' shortly after the sensation stopped. It would then again focus on another sensation when it arose after that, but the realization that my mind `disappeared' for that moment shook me to my very core and filled my mind with fear! Obviously, I couldn't concentrate very well after that happened and usually had to stop the meditation session. In subsequent tries, when I went that deep into my concentration, the fear would arise again. Pretty soon I started to avoid going into that deep level of concentration and then pretty soon after that I started to avoid meditating at all. I have started again and I am having somewhat positive consequences of being able to stay with the arising and falling of the mind for a longer duration, but it is difficult. I still don't think I am meditating like I should (I don't meditate everyday…I write these posts instead! ;-) Now my meditation is like an overwhelming frenzy of arising and falling sensations and jumping mind moments…like when you boil water and bubbles continuously break the surface, it is a lot like that. I can only maintain concentration during this mass pandemonium for a while before feeling mentally overwhelmed and perplexed (like after going on a fast amusement park ride ;-). There is also some lingering fear. Sometimes I wonder why I have let myself get this far. Howard, you are probably right, if I had practiced Jhana I probably wouldn't be having these experiences, it would be wonderful and blissful and mind expanding until the end, but I chose to practice Vipassana instead. So now I have to go through the gutter! ;-)) Vippasana is what I was first introduced to, what I clicked with, and what I have stuck with. It is my karma. Plus, Jhana requires much more strenuous dedication to meditation than I am willing to give. Oh well, I will see how it goes. Thanks again both of you for the input. I hope I haven't rambled on too much (Gosh, I feel like this is `Buddhist True Confessions' or something! ;-)) Metta, James 29072 From: Herman Hofman Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:19pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <> Hi Ken, From Nyanatiloka's dictionary - section on khandas. "The fact ought to be emphasized here that these 5 groups, correctly speaking, merely form an abstract classification by the Buddha, but that they as such, i.e. as just these 5 complete groups, have no real existence, since only single representatives of these groups, mostly variable, can arise with any state of consciousness. For example, with one and the same unit of consciousness only one single kind of feeling, say joy or sorrow, can be associated and never more than one. Similarly, two different perceptions cannot arise at the same moment. Also, of the various kinds of sense-cognition or consciousness, only one can be present at a time, for example, seeing, hearing or inner consciousness, etc. Of the 50 mental formations, however, a smaller or larger number are always associated with every state of consciousness, as we shall see later on. Some writers on Buddhism who have not understood that the five khandha are just classificatory groupings, have conceived them as compact entities ('heaps', 'bundles'), while actually, as stated above, the groups never exist as such, i.e. they never occur in a simultaneous totality of all their constituents. Also those single constituents of a group which are present in any given body- and -mind process, are of an evanescent nature, and so also their varying combinations. Feeling, perception and mental formations are only different aspects and functions of a single unit of consciousness. They are to consciousness what redness, softness, sweetness, etc. are to an apple and have as little separate existence as those qualities." All the best Herman -----Original Message----- From: Kenneth Ong [mailto:ashkenn2k@y...] Sent: Thursday, 15 January 2004 1:17 AM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <> Hi Micheal and (Victor) I think Victor has quoted a very impt sutta and if you read carefully., dhamma EXIST and what does not exist are permanent self and I hope this will convince you what commentators wrote that things truly exist but conditioned. Khandhas exists. This solve one problem now to the next are khandhas = paramathas and are paramathas indeed irreducible or it is possible for it to be further reduce - that we will have to discuss again and again from different angles. I am patient so I hope you dont mind me bothering you about this. Victor - could you kindly quote me the relevant sutta name for this sutta - thanks in advance best wishes Ken O 29073 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 1:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <> Hi Ken O and all, Ken, the name of the sutta which the quote is from is Flowers, in Samyutta Nikaya, Khandhavagga, Khandhasamyutta (22.94). Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Micheal and (Victor) [snip] > Victor - could you kindly quote me the relevant sutta name for this > sutta - thanks in advance > > > > At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, I do not dispute with the world; rather, it > is the world that disputes with me. A proponent of the Dhamma does > not dispute with anyone in the world. Of that which the wise in the > world agree upon as not existing, I too say that it does not exist. > And of that which the wise in the world agree upon as existing, I > too say that it exists. > "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as > not existing, of which I too say that it does not exist? Form that > is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: this the wise > in the world agree upon as not existing, and I too say that it does > not exist. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … > Consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to > change: this the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, and I > too say that it does not exist. > "That, bhikkhus, is what the wise in the world agree upon as not > existing, of which I too say that it does not exist. > "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as > existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is > impermanent, suffering, subject to change: this the wise in the > world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling > … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is > impermanent, suffering, subject to change: this the wise in the > world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. > "That, bhikkhus, is what the wise in the world agree upon as > existing, of which I too say that it exists. > [3] > > > best wishes > Ken O 29074 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 7:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <> Hi RobK Thanks - Then I am confounded by his stance that nothing truly exist. - then that IMHO his preception of existence will lean toward nihistic views. I have earlier posed a qn to him when we experience the mental fabrication, does that experience exist or dont exist. Dhamma that exist out of conditions , is still existence - to me we cannot say it does not exist bc it will not be congruent with what Buddha taught. best wishes Ken O --- rjkjp1 wrote: > Dear Ken, > I think Michael is aware of this. Take this post from november: > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m22933.html > '''.>>>Dear Michael, > Could you tell us more about your view. How does it relate to this > sutta: > Samyutta nikaya Khanda vagga XXII 94 (p.950 of Bodhi translation) > "Rupa(matter, physical phenomena) that is impermanent, suffering > and > subject to change: this > the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say it > exists. Feeling...perception..volitional > formations..consciouness..that is impermanent, suffering and > subject to change..I too say that it exists" endquote>>>>> > RobertK > > 29075 From: Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 10:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <> Hi, Ken (and Robert and Michael) - In a message dated 1/14/04 6:09:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi RobK > > Thanks - Then I am confounded by his stance that nothing truly > exist. - then that IMHO his preception of existence will lean toward > nihistic views. I have earlier posed a qn to him when we experience > the mental fabrication, does that experience exist or dont exist. > Dhamma that exist out of conditions , is still existence - to me we > cannot say it does not exist bc it will not be congruent with what > Buddha taught. > > > best wishes > Ken O > ======================= I hope I'm not putting words into Michael's mouth, but it seems to me that he is using the terms 'existence' and 'nonexistence' as they were used by the Buddha in the Kaccayangotta Sutta, and as picked up by Nagarjuna centuries later, to wit: 'Existence' of something means self-existence, unconditional and absolute existence "from its own side", and 'nonexistence' means the diametrical opposite, namely no existence at all, being nothing at all, being at best imagined. In that sutta, but not in all suttas, that is how these words are used. Now, don't we all agree that IN THESE SENSES (!), paramattha dhammas such as hardness, visual objects, feelings, volition, and awareness are neither existent nor nonexistent? Don't we also agree, however, that each of these phenomena does truly arise dependent on conditions, thus having a conditional, dependent existence for a period, later to cease? Don't we agree that the existence really is a of kind of existence (else how could we experience it) but is neither inherent nor absolute, for if it were, if it were an independent existence, then the subsequent cessation could not occur? If all that is so, if we agree on all that, then it seems to me that with regard to so called paramattha dhammas we are all in agreement with regard to matters of existence except for terminology. It seems to me that while we think we are differing on substance, what we actually differ on is merely form - we are mistaking terminological differences for substantive differences. 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) 29076 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 4:53pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <> Hi Michael k: So far we have agreed on a few things, exist out of conditions, dhammas are distinct and the characteristics of dhamma is inseparable from the dhamma itself. What you disagree that dhamma is not instrinsic to the the arisen dhamma k: I have said many times ultimate reality is that it cannot be reduce further - that it what it meant and nothing else. If your prefer I would use the world emphrical or the most basic. I think your notion and attachment to the viewpoint that ultimate reality is something that arise on its own is something that you had and not that of the commentary stand. I have already in a two times quote you two different quotes from the commentary to prove it is conditioned and empty, yet I have not seen you quote those commentary that support your case. I personally feel that you are very unfair to the commentary bc in the first place did you really read the commentary. Or are you basing your commentary on others pples viewpoint. k: Secondly you also cannot logically disprove that feeling is irreducible and if you can find in the sutta that feelings can be further break down into parts, I will give three bows to you. The assumption that it can be further reduce is not supported anywhere in the suttas and again this assumption is based on your personal viewpoint which is unfair to the commentary. k: Thirdly you also cannot logically prove that characteristics that arise out of the dhammas are independent of the dhamma. The usage of this word intrinsic has been many times emphasis by me not meaning of an independent essence and I have also provide dictionary definition of it. Yet your stand is still basing on your viewpoint that it is independent which again not fair bc you prefer your own definition. kind regards Ken O 29077 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 9:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Space element a concept? Hi Herman, We usually see each other just from afar. Thanks for writing. I am not in a mood to debate much, though you make good points. op 13-01-2004 23:27 schreef Herman Hofman op hhofman@t...: > You talk above about a very small, insignificant rupa, space. Do > rupas have size? Does the rupa space have size? I always thought that > the notion of size comes from extension and being delimited by something > other. Is space delimited by space? N: Space itself delimits. Talking about size: you are very scientifical, I am not :-) But, O,O, I am comparing here, and thus banner conceit creeps in before we realize it. H: When I imagine myself as over a hundred years old, I become unhappy. Not > because of decline of health or fear of my own death, although that > might change when I get closer, but because if I am over a hundred, my > children will be between 70 and 80. The chance increases that my > children will die while I remain alive. Not a nice thought. N: Yes, we consider that too, he may survive all of us. Thanks for your good wishes, but his mind is up and down. The music helps to bring him back. He survives many dogs, and his Husky Sibi is very special: one brown and one blue eye. When the Music is Bach and older, she lies flat, eyes open, listening. Once Lodewijk played Schubert, and then Sibi ran out slamming the door. Nice talking to you, and best regards from Lodewijk, Nina. 29078 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 9:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] HTOO: heart base. Dear Htoo, I added notes to Larry's thread, but since you have so many Emails it may be difficult to trace. It is hadaya vatthu, and in the Patthana called: that rupa, without specification. Among the 28 rupas. In earlier days there were flaming articles about heart, even Rhys Davids time. People were making a big issue out of it. (See Compendium, at end). Perhaps difficult for people who have strong believes in brain. Nina. op 14-01-2004 14:53 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: Heartbase is a controversial subject I > think. Is it Hadaya Vatthu of 28 Paramattha Rupa? Where does it > exist? Is it in the heart? I am looking forward to hearing from you. > I will search and read up Larry's thread later. 29079 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 9:53pm Subject: Heart base Dear Htoo, I edited this old post to make it easier to read for you. In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Robert Kirkpatrick <> > > > The visuddhimagga (viii, 111)says about hadaya-vatthu (heart > > basis): > > they describe the heart and then note that inside the heart > > "there is hollow the size of a punnaga seeds bed where half a > > pastata measure of blood is kept, with which as their support > > the mind element and mind-consciousness element occur." > > Note that it is not the heart itself that is the hadaya-vatthu > > NOR is it the blood inside the heart but rather as the > > Paramatthamanjusa (see vis.xiii note 5 ) says "the heart basis > > occurs with this blood as its support". > > ************************************************************ > > Ranjith: > > I have read this part of the Visuddimagga written in Sinhala. > > Sinhala > > version used the word "patha" in place of "pastata". In > > Sinhala, > > the 'patha' > > is a measure for liquid which accounts for about 100 mili > > liters. Therefore, > > half a 'patha' could be about 50 ml. My belief is the human > > heart contains > > much more quantity of blood in it at any given time. If we > > want > > to take it > > as it is probably, we can assume that the 'Vinnana' can > > resides > > in the > > hadaya-vatthu' as long as there is half a patha of blood in > > there. > > > > ************************************************************ Robert: You see the actual hadaya-vatthu is incredibly sublime - in scientific measure it wouldn't even amount to a tiny fraction of a gram. It might even be so refined as to be unmeasuarable by > > scientific instruments. > > ************************************************************ > > Ranjith: > > In this statement what do you refer to by the word of > > hadaya-vatthu? > > > > > > > > ************************************************************ Dear Ranjith, What is essential to realise is that hadaya-vatthu (heart base) is not the heart nor is it the blood in the heart that we can see. It is a special type of rupa that is conditioned only by kamma and it arises in association with some of the blood in the heart. In the space of a flash of lightning more than a billion moments of hadaya-vatthu have arisen and fallen away. If we think of heart in conventional terms (and mistake this for hadaya-vatthu) we are lost in the world of concept- and will not understand the deep meaning in the Visuddhimagga. _____________________________________________________________ > > Ranjith: However, I still can not understand what answers I have for > > following > > questions. > > > > If the seat of the Vinnana is the hadaya-vatthu; > > > > 1. What would happen to the Vinnana during the time of an open > > heart surgery > > where the heart is inactive for the function of pumping blood? > > > > 2. Does the Vinnana get changed from one heart tissue to > > another > > in case of > > the heart transplant? > > > > 3. Where does Vinnana reside during the period of tissue > > transition (several > > hours)? > > > > 4. In case of using an artificial heart, we can assume that > > engineers do not > > make any provision for the tiny heart hole' as they are not > > aware of the > > requirement. But we know the person who carry the 'heart pump' > > live > > normally. In this case what happens to the Vinnana? > > _______________________________________________ Robert:None of this can be surprising if we understand hadaya-vatthu. That special kammic matter will arise wherever there is the suitable conditions, including blood (or even a blood substitute). Although now, for us, it arises inside the body inside the heart, it can certainly arise in a pump, or anywhere suitable. Vinnana lasts even a shorter time than the heartbase so there is no question of it going anywhere . Vinnana has no time to go anywhere- it can't change from tissue to anywhere. It arises, performs its function (depending on the type of vinnana) and immediatley falls away. But it conditions the next vinnana to arise. It is this continuity that deceives us into believing that things can last. Even if we think something lasts only for a split second we are still caught up in vipallasa of permanence. It is all much more ephemeral than that and so only vipassana that insights (not us) can understand the difference between nama and rupa and so overcome doubt on these matters. This applies also to the other sense organs (pasada rupa). The Atthasalini remarks that the very purpose of using the term pasada is to dismiss the popular misconception of what we think an eye or an ear is. (see karunadasa p45)The actual sensitive matter in the eye and ear is very refined. If someone dies then the ear-sense and eye sense (sotapasada and cakkhu-pasada ) are immediately no longer produced (they are produced by kamma only) yet one would not notice much outward change looking at the eye and ear(at least for the first few minutes before decomposition sets in). The same applies to the heart - the blood in the heart would have the same volume after death and yet the hadaya-vatthu is no longer present. > > ************************************************************ > > Ranjith:Yes, the 'pasada-rupa' is not the organ itself. But I > > think it is the name > > given to the ability of the 'rupa' (organ) to receive an > > 'arammana' in a > > specific form and translate that into another form of 'rupa' > > to > > send the > > message to 'Vinnana'(consciousness) which is constantly > > monitoring the 'six > > sens doors' for inputs. I have shown this process clearly in > > the > > diagram I > > have posted sometimes ago. > > ________________ Robert: The pasada rupa doesn't translate into anything. It arises and performs its function which is to be the base and meeting point for cakkhu-vinnana to arise and contact the rupa which is visible object. It is so anatta- so uncontrollable. the pasada is conditioned, the cakkhu vinnana is conditioned by different conditions, the rupa which is visible object (vanayatana or rupayatana) is conditioned by different conditions again. All of them so ephemeral and yet they all arise and meet. That is all life is- through different doors. Because of deep ignorance we imagine that we can control this process. Seeing into this process is understanding paticcasamupada. It is so deep and yet sadly these days we have people who can think about anatta or have unusual experiences while meditating and believe this means they have had insight. Very hard to help. ________________ > > Ranjith:When a person die, all pasada rupas 'appear' to die > > immediately. But they > > don't. What dies is the Mind so that it can no longer monitor > > the sense > > doors and receive arammanas. This happens immediately after > > the > > death. That > > is the reason for me to use the words "permanent separation of > > the Mind from > > the Matter" to describe the death. However, the ability of > > some > > of those > > sense organs to function normally remain intact for sometime. > > That is how > > the surgeons use the Eye tissue of a dead person to transplant > > into another > > person, giving the vision to the second one. Removal of the > > eye > > tissue can > > take place even an hour after the death. I am aware of a > > situations where a > > medical team has recovered eyes of a dead man few hours after > > his death as > > the man died at home and relatives did not call the nearest > > Eye > > Bank for > > hours. > > > > _________________ Robert: This is mixing conventional thinking with Dhamma and so confusions occur. You write "When a person die, all pasada rupas 'appear' to die immediately. But they don't. What dies is the Mind so that it can no longer monitor the sense doors and receive arammanas. This happens immediately after the death." No. Immediately after cuticitta (death consciousness) arises (not even a split second delay)there are no more of any of the sense bases. They are all produced by kamma and already patisandicitta has arisen in a new existence - maybe in another world and another plane far from here. But the eyes, ears and so forth - these organs where the pasada arises still exist, are still visible, because they are not conditioned solely by kamma. And certainly they can act as a support for new pasada rupa -conditioned by anothers kamma. That is why transplants can work. If this is still not clear please ask more as these subtle points where conventional ideas and the sublime Dhamma intersect can show us much about the clinging that there is to concept and story. >robert 29080 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 9:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <> Hi Howard I agree with you but does Michael agree to it. I think he does not think so, he think ultimate reality is some kind of bogus, an independent entity ;-). best wishes Ken O . It seems to me that > while we > think we are differing on substance, what we actually differ on is > merely form > - we are mistaking terminological differences for substantive > differences. > > With metta, > Howard 29081 From: Herman Hofman Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 10:15pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Space element a concept? Hi Nina, Thanks for your post. I can live without debating, too :-) I have not touched an ebony or ivory (or plastic) key for months. Shame, shame, shame, but I still listen very keenly, very often. It is amazing how each time I hear the same piece, I hear things that seem totally new. Next week we will know whether my son gets into University to do his Music degree. Secretly I cry when I hear him play. How is such invention possible, I wonder to myself. Sibi has very definite taste in music by the sound of it. Very funny story about Schubert. Poor young Franz. All the best Herman -----Original Message----- From: nina van gorkom [mailto:nilo@e...] Sent: Thursday, 15 January 2004 4:16 PM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsg] Space element a concept? Hi Herman, We usually see each other just from afar. Thanks for writing. I am not in a mood to debate much, though you make good points. op 13-01-2004 23:27 schreef Herman Hofman op hhofman@t...: > You talk above about a very small, insignificant rupa, space. Do > rupas have size? Does the rupa space have size? I always thought that > the notion of size comes from extension and being delimited by something > other. Is space delimited by space? N: Space itself delimits. Talking about size: you are very scientifical, I am not :-) But, O,O, I am comparing here, and thus banner conceit creeps in before we realize it. H: When I imagine myself as over a hundred years old, I become unhappy. Not > because of decline of health or fear of my own death, although that > might change when I get closer, but because if I am over a hundred, my > children will be between 70 and 80. The chance increases that my > children will die while I remain alive. Not a nice thought. N: Yes, we consider that too, he may survive all of us. Thanks for your good wishes, but his mind is up and down. The music helps to bring him back. He survives many dogs, and his Husky Sibi is very special: one brown and one blue eye. When the Music is Bach and older, she lies flat, eyes open, listening. Once Lodewijk played Schubert, and then Sibi ran out slamming the door. Nice talking to you, and best regards from Lodewijk, Nina. 29082 From: Herman Hofman Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 10:30pm Subject: Kamma and action Hi everybody, Are action and intention synonymous in the Canon? Nyanatiloka has kamma as wholesome and unwholesome action, but then includes cetana "Volition (cetaná), o monks, is what I call action (cetanáham bhikkhave kammam vadámi), for through volition one performs the action by body, speech or mind. . There is karma (action), o monks, that ripens in hell.... Karma that ripens in the animal world.. Karma that ripens in the world of men.... Karma that ripens in the heavenly world.... Threefold, however, is the fruit of karma: ripening during the life-time (dittha-dhamma-vedaníya-kamma), ripening in the next birth (upapajja-vedaníya-kamma), ripening in later births (aparápariya-vedaníya kamma) ...." (A.VI.63). According to the Canon, does the possibility exist to intend bodily without acting bodily or opposite to the intention? All the best Herman 29083 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 11:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Dear Eznir, You are making a lot of helpful contributions, but I question a couple about the commentaries you’ve made more than once I think: --- Eznir wrote: > eznir: > First, The Commentaries! They are, as the word Commentaries mean, > comments on what Lord Buddha and his Noble Disciples said so that > those of lesser intelligence would understand what was said, under > what circumstances and in what context. .... Yes, and with detailed explanation of what had been said. .... Eznir: >The commentaries are made by > ordinary people if not intellectuals in the Dhamma and not by Arahats > of those times! Therefore these commentaries should be taken with a > pinch of salt! .... We’ve had a lot of discussion on the commentaries and I’d be glad if you’d take your time to read the posts under ‘commentaries’ at this link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts I don’t believe the ancient Pali commentaries have been taken ‘with a pinch of salt’ at the great Councils. Quite the reverse. Indeed, the Buddha encouraged and foresaw the need for later clarifications and detail. For example, 3)From Atthasalini transl (‘Expositor’, PTS p.6) “Now when he laid down the table of contents he foresaw that, two hudnred and eighteen years after his death, Tissa, Moggali’s son, seated in the midst of one thousand bhikkhus, would elaborate the Kathavatthu....So Tissa, Moggali’s son, expounded the book not by his own knowledge but according to the table of contents laid down, as well as by the method given, by the Teacher. Hence the entire book became the WORD OF THE BUDDHA.” These early texts and commentaries which were handed down ‘by way of the unimpeachable succession of teachers’ (intro to DA), all constitute the Buddhavacana (word of the Buddha). .... Eznir: > These type of clarifications were made even during Lord Buddha's > times by Venerables Sariputta, Ananda, etc. Fortunately Lord Buddha > himself was there to give his stamp of assurance to its credibility! > They are therefore included in the main body of the tripitaka. .... It’s true that as it says in the introductory discourse in the Atthasalini, that after the buddha gave his approval ‘the whole suttanta became the word of the Buddha’, even though some suttas were given after his parinibbana or at least elaborated on. I don’t think there is any evidence at all that any of the Pali commentaries were given by ‘ordinary people’ and certainly those like the great arahant Mahinda who played such an important role in preserving the ancient commentaries, were very far from ordinary and so was their respect for these texts. Eznir: > Finally, just as a man whose fallen into a well can only come out > from inside the well, no matter how much we theorize and reason > things out and seem to understand things, true knowledge will arise > only through constant observation of your own world (the limited > vision one has when one is in the well), i.e., your 5 aggregates > (Rupa, Vedana, Sanna, Sanskara and vinnana)! ... Well explained. Indeed the aggregates are the only ‘All’ or ‘World’ that can be known at this very moment. Most the time we live in a fantasy world and don’t see the real worlds as they really are. Look forward to more of your contributions. I'll be glad to discuss more about the commentaries, but it'll have to be after I get back from our trip I think and after you've read those other posts, perhaps;-) Metta, Sarah p.s. James, thx for the compliment, but I assure you I've only read a very small fragment of the commentaries, and then only in translation, so I don't think I qualify for the crown;-);-) ===== 29084 From: Carl Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 0:27am Subject: chat? hanging out on chat for about 1 hour. starting 12:30am usa westcoast time. hope to chat with you 29085 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:04am Subject: Re: chat? Hello Carl, Had a try (about 7.00 p.m. Brisbane time - which I think is 1.00 a.m. L.A. time?) - but I am not technologically adept, and haven't used a chat room. Hope others got there. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Carl" wrote: > hanging out on chat for about 1 hour. starting 12:30am usa > westcoast time. hope to chat with you 29086 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] life-faculty, explanation Hi Azita & Howard (& James), --- gazita2002 wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > I am really enjoying reading these posts. Rupa fascinates me and > I guess its the concept of rupa that I'm talking about. > I'm a bit of a sci-fi buff, and while I know the reality of rupa > is definitely not sci-fi, to me the concept somewhat is. Don't try to > make any sense out of this, just my bias and tendency!! ...... Well, we can see the Dhamma is for all biases and tendencies, in the sense that it’s the Truth to be known, regardless of inclinations and interests. For example, I’ve never had the slightest interest in sci-fi and am bored to having to walk out of sci-fi movies, much to Jon’s dismay;-) I don’t have any particular fascination with rupas either, but again and again what we read can be tested and proved to be right and then there is growing confidence and consideration of the non-tested, non-proved rupas too. For example, Howard, I appreciate everything you say about space element. Before we might have said the same about visible object or sound which are obvious and acceptable now, at least in theory as we speak. If you say to other ‘ordinary’ folk that they only see visible object, not ‘people’ or ‘computers’, it will sound as crazed to them as what you read about space element now seems to you. When we read the detalils about rupas that were apparent to the Buddha and great disciples, we shouldn’t assume that these are concepts because that is how they seem to us. It’ll just depend on accumulations what is and will be known directly, I think. Even conceptual/intellectual considerations can be very helpful. Like about bhavanga cittas in deep sleep and between processes and space around the kalapas as a way of demarkation. I have an idea that this is of far greater importance than I am able to appreciate at any level now. .... A: > Hoping you are making a 'little book of questions' for Bkk. ... At the moment I’m just putting aside various scraps of paper which I’ll spend some time on before Bkk. I’ll miss you and your book, Azita. Still, Nina is helping me this time and I will start a book and jot down hers, mine and everyone else’s topics each day as we did last time. Have them ready, those coming to Bkk!! Too precious an opportunity, imho, to sit in silence. .... A: > I would definitly like to hear more about this - good idea about > discussing it in Bkk. ... Your comment is about space. The comments in my last post were from a discussion I had in Burma with K.Sujin. I’ve been asking a little each time for some time now, but like Howard, I find it very difficult and his qus remind me of my own. We need to listen many times and from many angles. It's the same when we read the suttas and other texts, we need to consider over and over again. .... A: > Knowing, theoretically, how fast cittas arise and fall, I'm almost > overwhelmed and therefore know for sure it cannot be known by just > thinking about it, when I think about Nibbana and how just potent > [for the want of a better description] the lokkutara citta and > accompanying cetasikas must be. > Sometimes I think its hardly worth discussing, esp when I read > your last passage above. However, I do occasionally feel quite > excited about the journey! .... Yes. when we think about the speed or feel overwhelmed etc, it is only thinking and quite different from direct awareness. One reason it’s well worth discussing is to clarify how little awareness there really is and how what may have seemed like insights or great experiences of concentration or calm in the past were quite other than they seemed and more indicative of attachment than anything else. In this sense, I think that James’s recent comments about fearful experiences and changing mind-states may be quite useful. Sometimes it can be shocking or frightening to begin to see that there really isn’t any control over the mind and that any attachment or attempts to guide it or focus on it are likely to bring more suffering. I still recall how stunned I was after following an intensive (‘vipassana’) meditation practice to begin to study and consider the Abhidhamma and to begin to comprehend just a little, for the first time, that there really was no self to control or guide or do anything. As James reminds us, we glibly talk about anatta, but still cling to an idea of self all the time. Vipassana refers to the developed insight into the nature of namas and rupas as not-self, not a focussing on sensations, mind-states or anything else with a subtle sense of ‘I’ directing the show. I doubt my comments will be any consolation, James, but from all your recent posts, sutta comments and reflections, it seems to me that you’re doing very fine as you are, so no need to be unduly concerned or change your pattern or to think you 'shouldn't' have such experiences of fear. You always had a lot of confidence in the teachings of the Buddha, and that seems to have grown even more. I’m sorry that I don’t have the right words to give this encouragement without it sounding like a pat on the back, but you’ll understand again;-) .... A: > Lots of pressure on you now Sarah, to have no blank spaces on the > tapes that will be made of the upcoming discussions ;( - just > kidding. .... Oh, I enjoy that kind of pressure, especially with Nina and other friends helping. Just like here;-) .... A: > Q1. do all rupas need to be known eventually? > > will try to get more q. to you before you go. .... Good, good. Could you elaborate with more detail on Q1. KS will ask, what do you mean by ‘eventually’? Yes, just fire out any others with any detail and take it that I have them jotted. Metta, Sarah Azita, we may have a couple of other old friends from the 70s days joining too - (Vince Tassiello, Nancy and Nina V ;-) We'll try to encourage them to participate here afterwards. Howard, I have a friend from NY visiting this week. She always asks when I'm going to get to NY...one day, esp. now we have direct flights!! ===== 29087 From: connie Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:33am Subject: Re: heartbase, note 4 c Rob M, where are you? Nina quoted: U Narada, p. 33: during the process of dying: Does this mean that heart-base is the object of the current bhavangas? thank you to anyone who might answer, connie 29088 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 2:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] On the Momentariness of Mind States Hi Howard, --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sarah - > > Thank you for the following detailed and well-thought-out post. > The > bottom line, I think, however, is that we simply disagree on this one. > The > instantaneous, film-frame view of mindstates that you believe in I do > not. I do not > see the necessity for it, and I do see a number of problems with it. ..... No problem. I think that reading and considering the details can help us to more clearly distinguish between the thinking about impermanence and direct realization of this characteristic of all namas and rupas. There is a debate in the Kathavatthu on the duration of consciousness. The Andhakas are said to believe in the ‘appaent continuity both of consciousness in Jhana and of sub-consciousness, a single state of consciousness lasted for a length of time’. It quotes AN i.10 : “I consider, bhikkhus, that there is no phenomenon that comes and goes so quickly as mind. It is not easy to find a simile to show how quickly mind comes and goes.” Also SN ii.95 “Just as a monkey faring through the dense forest catches one bough, and, letting it go, catches another, and then another, even so bhikkhus, with what is called thought, or mind , or consciousness, by day as by night, one arises when another perishes.” In the Visuddhimagga, XX94, we read under ‘Knowledge or Rise and Fall’: “..Here in the text: ‘How is it that understanding of contemplating present states’ change is knowledge of contemplation of rise and fall? Present materiality is born [materiality]; the characteristic of its generation is rise, the characteristic of its change is fall, the contemplation is knowledge. Present feeling ... perception .... formations......consciousness....eye....(etc)....Present becoming is born [becoming]; the characteristic of its generation is rise, the characteristic of its change is fall, the contemplation is knowledge.(Psi54)” This comes under the fourth vipassana ~naa.na (knowledge) which clearly understands the arising and falling away of the rapid succession of namas and rupas. There are a lot more details in the Vism. There can only be this degree of insight or vipassana when sufficient detachment to all conditioned phenomena has been developed and after the tender insights have been realized, clearly distinguishing namas and rupas, understanding their conditioned nature, and comprehension by groups as a result of knowing directly rather than theoretically, the fast succession of cittas, cetasikas and rupas. I think the theoretical appreciation of realities changing so rapidly helps again to condition detachment from an idea of self and to help us appreciate how thinking about, say the breakdown of a computer or the changing nature of sounds right now is not the same as the deep insight into the impermanence of presently arising and falling namas and rupas. I know that we have no problem disagreeing anytime, Howard;-) ' "Life, person, pleasure, pain - just these alone join in one conscious moment that flicks by. Ceased aggregates of those dead or alive Are all alike, gone never to return...'"Vism, V111 39 We've quote these lines a lot and yet each time I read them, they're a reminder to me of the very shortness of life and all we hold dear, just the present aggregates flicking by already. Nothing else exists but these very temporary, very conditioned, very impermanent khandhas now, without self, core, store or sub-conscious. Metta, Sarah H: > Non-duration is not what makes a phenomenon "real" or not. Abhidhamma, > itself, allows > for a rupa to last for the duration of 17 mindstates. So ... do rupas > become > "unreal" due to that. > In any case, whether namas or rupas are instantaneous or not > (though I > don't think we*ever* observe anything that has zero duration), is really > not > a critical matter. What is critical is that all (conditioned) phenomena > are > impermanent, unsatisfying, and impersonal and insubstantial, and that we > should > not attempt to grasp the ungraspable, for that is the source of our > suffering. =============== 29089 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 2:28am Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi Sarah, Sarah: James, thx for the compliment, but I assure you I've only read a very small fragment of the commentaries, and then only in translation, so I don't think I qualify for the crown;-);-) James: You're welcome. Hey, in this day and age it takes very little to qualify as royalty! ;-)) Sarah: I'll be glad to discuss more about the commentaries, but it'll have to be after I get back from our trip I think and after you've read those other posts, perhaps;-) James: I am curious about the `Useful Posts' section you often refer members, especially newcomers, to. Are they `useful' because they are well-argued and present various points-of-view or are they `useful' because they happen to support your point-of-view?? No offense intended but I don't think that a biased compilation of posts should be considered useful to anyone (even to those who compiled it). For example, the section "Abhidhamma- its origins" has 14 posts: four are written by Robert K; four are written by Nina; and five are written by you, Sarah. They all present the one viewpoint that the first book of the Abhidhamma was taught by the Buddha to Ven. Sariputta and subsequently presented at the First Council. Now, I have written some posts that challenge this idea and present contrary evidence that no part of the Abhidhamma was presented until the Third Council and therefore it couldn't have been taught by the Buddha to the extent suggested. Why are none of my posts, or other posts stating the same thing, about this matter in the `Useful Posts' section? Why are you presenting just one side of this issue? Granted, some of the posts contain contrary arguments by others, for example some excellent arguments by Howard in post 4639, but they are not presented alone and as also possibly valid. It is presented like "It is useful for everyone to know how wrong Howard is about this issue." Okay. That isn't very fair. Why don't you provide some links to posts that you don't necessarily agree with but are presented convincingly? Why don't you create contrasting sections under each of the topics so that different viewpoints can be presented? Frankly, I find the `Useful Posts' section very self- serving; you might as well rename it "Useful Posts For Sarah". However, this doesn't reflect my opinion about this group and your superb leadership. It is the best and most intelligent group I have encountered on the Internet. Metta, James 29090 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 2:45am Subject: Re: life-faculty, explanation Hi Sarah, Sarah: I doubt my comments will be any consolation, James, but from all your recent posts, sutta comments and reflections, it seems to me that you're doing very fine as you are, so no need to be unduly concerned or change your pattern or to think you 'shouldn't' have such experiences of fear. James: Thank you Sarah for the nice comments. And you don't have to doubt if they are a consolation, they are a consolation. Very sweet of you, thanks again. Metta, James 29091 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 4:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > James: You're welcome. Hey, in this day and age it takes very little > to qualify as royalty! ;-)) ... You mean commentary royalty??;-) ..... > James: I am curious about the `Useful Posts' section you often refer > members, especially newcomers, to. Are they `useful' because they > are well-argued and present various points-of-view or are > they `useful' because they happen to support your point-of-view?? .... Just that;-) That’s why we’ve added a note at the top about it being a selection by the moderators or sth similar. If it were a selection of well-argued and presenting various points-of-view, there'd probably be a lot of candidates every day which would be too hard for us and mean a lot more scrolling...hence the archives. .... > No > offense intended but I don't think that a biased compilation of posts > should be considered useful to anyone (even to those who compiled > it). .... Well, some people tell us repeatedly that they find it helpful. Others like Herman swear they’ll never look again. That’s OK. Just call it a perk of the job of having been here from the start and setting the undemocratic rules;-) ..... > Why don't you create contrasting sections > under each of the topics so that different viewpoints can be > presented? .... More work and frankly it’s hard enough and time-consuming already without further criteria. There are also size and space issues. Perhaps when Kom has added the alphabet at the top, saving the need for long scrolling, we could consider sth further. Or you or anyone else would be welcome to set up your own alternative UP according to the criteria you suggest. (If so, contact us off-list first about size of files etc as space is a big issue in files). ..... >Frankly, I find the `Useful Posts' section very self- > serving; you might as well rename it "Useful Posts For Sarah". .... ;-) That's about how it started - It was really just sharing my saved folder after asking a few others if they'd do it with no takers. That's why it's such a simple, modest effort. We could at least add a ‘biased’ in the description under UP or maybe it should stand out more like a kind of warning...we'll look at it. ..... > However, this doesn't reflect my opinion about this group and your > superb leadership. It is the best and most intelligent group I have > encountered on the Internet. .... James, I know you’ve been using the internet for quite some time and checked other groups (or they’ve checked you;-)), so thank you. It sounds like a cliche, but really the value is only as good as the members and their views expressed...and all the differing opinions, even if they don’t make the biased ‘hall of fame’;-)We greatly appreciate your regular support. Metta, Sarah p.s You have posts in the UP, but I believe you when you say they aren’t under ‘Abhidhamma - its Origins’;-) =========================================== 29092 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:05am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi Sarah, Sarah: That's about how it started - It was really just sharing my saved folder after asking a few others if they'd do it with no takers. That's why it's such a simple, modest effort. We could at least add a `biased' in the description under UP or maybe it should stand out more like a kind of warning...we'll look at it. James: Okay, that's cool. I just think that the title "Useful Posts" is somewhat misleading. "Biased" has a negative connotation though, may I humbly suggest "Favorite". But since it is already established, I guess nothing really has to be changed; as long as it is understandable that they are not committee selected or anything like that (I think that is what most people are thinking...but I could be wrong). Sarah: You have posts in the UP, but I believe you when you say they aren't under `Abhidhamma - its Origins';-). James: Yes, I know, and I am probably like Herman in the regard that I would rather them not be in there (even the ones to the Star Kids). I have a feeling that years from now I will read back on them and consider them naïve, useless garbage! ;-)) Better if there was no evidence. ;-) Metta, James 29093 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 6:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > James: Okay, that's cool. I just think that the title "Useful Posts" > is somewhat misleading. "Biased" has a negative connotation though, > may I humbly suggest "Favorite". .... Or maybe “Favourite” ;-) We’ll look at it. it’s a valid point. At least we could make it clearer perhaps. ... >But since it is already > established, I guess nothing really has to be changed; as long as it > is understandable that they are not committee selected or anything > like that (I think that is what most people are thinking...but I > could be wrong). .... In the beginning I did ask a small group for selections and used to get some, but we were all just too busy for committees and off-list discussions, so it just evolved as it has with me doing most the work, Kom helping on the techie side and Jon sometimes giving his views. .... > James: Yes, I know, and I am probably like Herman in the regard that > I would rather them not be in there (even the ones to the Star > Kids). I have a feeling that years from now I will read back on them > and consider them naïve, useless garbage! ;-)) Better if there was > no evidence. ;-) .... Ah, but the archives are saved anyway, so no escape;-) Anyway, you have us vetting, so don’t worry there won’t be any ‘useless garbage’ there ;-) Your bathtub post was a dilemma and a bit of an exception to what I said in my last post. We didn’t really agree with the message but it was very funny and exceptionally well written, imho of course, so it got included in ‘children - letters to’, I think it’s called. Often posts are left out very reluctantly I assure you and everyone else, like other posts of yours to the kids. By the way, are you still working on your book for children? I’ll be seeing the kids again tomorrow and Saturday if you want a prompt. Herman sent a post in his early days that I found hysterical, even though it was quite off topic and so we started a ‘Light Relief’ section at the very bottom of UP if anyone hasn’t seen it. So we do break our own rules occasionally too;-) One thing we’ve often said would be useful would be a section with people’s introductions for newcomers to look at. I remember yours was wild;-)It wasn't started and it would be hard to find them all now, however. Metta, Sarah p.s I think I’ll take anything further on UP off-list now, if you don’t mind. If anyone has further suggestions for us or wishes to work on an alternative compilation, also pls let us know off-list or just do it! ======================= 29094 From: Michael Beisert Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <> Hello Howard, Howard: Now, don't we all agree that IN THESE SENSES (!), paramattha dhammas such as hardness, visual objects, feelings, volition, and awareness are neither existent nor nonexistent? Don't we also agree, however, that each of these phenomena does truly arise dependent on conditions, thus having a conditional, dependent existence for a period, later to cease? Don't we agree that the existence really is a of kind of existence (else how could we experience it) but is neither inherent nor absolute, for if it were, if it were an independent existence, then the subsequent cessation could not occur? It seems to me that while we think we are differing on substance, what we actually differ on is merely form - we are mistaking terminological differences for substantive differences. Michael: I don’t think it is just a question of terminology. But if it where only terminology I still think one should be precise and not characterize things that only exist based upon conditions as ultimate reality. But I say it is not terminology because there is another factor in conditioned phenomena which is that they are compounded, i.e. made up of parts, I don’t think this idea is accpetable by the defenders of dhammas being ultimate realities. I still view the definition of dhammas as paramatha/sabhava as a confused thinking because it considers that dhammas can be at the same time ultimate realities with true existence and impermanent/conditioned. Those characteristics are incompatible and impossible. Metta Michael 29095 From: Michael Beisert Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:56am Subject: RE: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <> Hello Ken, Comments below >From: Kenneth Ong >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: RE: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <> >Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:53:40 +0000 (GMT) > >Hi Michael > > >k: So far we have agreed on a few things, exist out of conditions, >dhammas are distinct and the characteristics of dhamma is inseparable >from the dhamma itself. What you disagree that dhamma is not >instrinsic to the the arisen dhamma I don't say that the characteristics are inseparable from the dhammas. I say that dhammas and characteristics arise interdependently. > >k: I have said many times ultimate reality is that it cannot be >reduce further - that it what it meant and nothing else. If your >prefer I would use the world emphrical or the most basic. I think >your notion and attachment to the viewpoint that ultimate reality is >something that arise on its own is something that you had and not >that of the commentary stand. I have already in a two times quote >you two different quotes from the commentary to prove it is >conditioned and empty, yet I have not seen you quote those commentary >that support your case. I personally feel that you are very unfair >to the commentary bc in the first place did you really read the >commentary. Or are you basing your commentary on others pples >viewpoint. > The word ultimate reality means what it means. You may not like it but that's what it is. Now if you don't intent to convey the idea of an ultimate reality then don't use those words. The Buddha never used them. I don't think the commentators were that dumm. They knew what they were writing about and they have chosen to define dhammas as ultimate realities. >k: Secondly you also cannot logically disprove that feeling is >irreducible and if you can find in the sutta that feelings can be >further break down into parts, I will give three bows to you. The >assumption that it can be further reduce is not supported anywhere in >the suttas and again this assumption is based on your personal >viewpoint which is unfair to the commentary. I say dhammas can be reduced further because that is what is observable in other conditioned phenomena and if dhammas are a conditioned phenomena then they must be subject to further reduction. But you are right, there is no sutta to confirm that. It is my own reasoning. I don't think it is unfair to the commentaries. Remember Canki Sutta - MN 95 - How to preserve the truth and how to find out the truth. > > >k: Thirdly you also cannot logically prove that characteristics that >arise out of the dhammas are independent of the dhamma. The usage of >this word intrinsic has been many times emphasis by me not meaning of >an independent essence and I have also provide dictionary definition >of it. Yet your stand is still basing on your viewpoint that it is >independent which again not fair bc you prefer your own definition. > > I am not saying that characteristics exist on their own, and I am not saying that the dhammas own the characteristic because that would be the same as an essence, something intrinsic. Therefore the logic is that characteristics and dhammas arise interdependently. > >kind regards >Ken O > Metta Michael 29096 From: Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 3:19am Subject: Some Thoughts on Naturality Hi, all - My future daughter-in-law gave me one of those "Zen calendars" for my desk - you know, the kind that has another "saying" for each day of the month. Today's saying is "No snowflake ever falls in the wrong place." In thinking about what this means, it seemed to me that it means that a snowflake doesn't think or will, but just "does". That then got me to thinking about human beings. Now, we both think and we will. Also, there seem to be two kinds of willing: Willing that "just happens" and which we might call "natural," and willing which involves an imposition of "self" and of thought. (Perhaps this is three kinds - there can be thinking without an interposing of "self.") Then I got to thinking about the implication that the "natural" willing is good, but the other is bad. Well, I'm not entirely certain about that. I think that very much depends on the characteristics of the person willing and acting. An advanced ariyan, and certainly an arahant, will, when willing and acting "naturally," act usefully, beneficially, out of a wholesome state of mind. But what of a worldling who is filled with selfish, self-serving desires and inclinations? When s/he acts "naturally," automatically, and without interpo sing "self" or thought, s/he quite typically acts in service to desires and emotions, and may well cause great harm! I recall a sutta, probably more than one, in which the Buddha advised *stopping* and *considering* before acting! It is not just that he said to act with sharp awareness, sharp mindfulness and clear comprehension, but to actually cease for a moment and to think carefully about what one is about to say or do. Now that is not "natural," but for most of us, it *is* good - very good. What do you folks think? 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) 29097 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:02am Subject: Re: Heart base Dear Robert K, Thank you very much for your effort and I am happy with heart base. But here a question arises. Do Pasada Rupa solely caused by Kamma or are also caused by others? With much respect, Htoo Naing -------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear Htoo, > But the eyes, ears and so forth - these organs where the > pasada > arises still exist, are still visible, because they are not > conditioned solely by kamma. And certainly they can act as a > support for new pasada rupa -conditioned by anothers kamma. > That > is why transplants can work. If this is still not clear please > ask more as these subtle points where conventional ideas and > the > sublime Dhamma intersect can show us much about the clinging > that there is to concept and story. > > >robert 29098 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:05am Subject: Re: heartbase, note 4 c Dear Connie, If in Pancavokara Bhumi that is if in sensual sphere and material sphere then the answer is yes. If in immaterial sphere then the answer is no. Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > Rob M, where are you? > > Nina quoted: > > U Narada, p. 33: during the process of dying: object and base] it is this heart-base that is taken as object by all > the > dying impulsions even if there is delight, grief, doubt or restlessness > at > the time.> > > Does this mean that heart-base is the object of the current bhavangas? > > thank you to anyone who might answer, > connie 29099 From: Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 4:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] life-faculty, explanation Sounds great, Sarah! With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/15/04 4:20:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Howard, I have a friend from NY visiting this week. She always asks when > I'm going to get to NY...one day, esp. now we have direct flights!! > /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) 29100 From: Htoo Naing Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:54am Subject: Contemplation On Own Body ( 04 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, The Dhamma practitioner is striving to get through the Samsara. He has been practising formal sitting meditation for an hour mainly concentrating on his own breath. After an hour, he changes his meditation to another type, walking meditation. Walking meditation is good for maturation of wisdom as it is already supported by a good effort that is Viriya. He recognizes everything whenever they arise at their respective sense door. At some time he tries to sit again and practise sitting meditation. Actually meditation is not that easy as you read through the post (01) to (11) of 'How To Get Through The Samsara '. So the meditator starts to contemplate on his own body. First he has been contemplating on each part of body as disgusting things. This contemplation helps the meditator in striking down sensual thoughts. Another method of contemplation on own body is grouping of elements. Actually there is no body, no one. When he contemplates on his own body, he does not find anyone or any life or anything like that. Hair, hairs, nail, skin... these are earth element. Flesh, sinew, heart, kidneys etc etc are earth element. Tear, urine, blood, pus, bile etc etc are water element. Inside of lungs, inside of intestine, inside of stomach etc etc are wind element. There also is fire element in the body and it passes and spread all over in tissues and the whole body. There is nothing to be attached and the whole body is just combination of earth element, water element, wind element, and fire element. When he is contemplating on elements, there is no time to step on sensual thoughts. And the contemplator cannot go on hatred or other bad thoughts. May you all be free from bad thoughts. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 29101 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:07am Subject: Re: Icaro's packing list, to Connie Dear Connie, I answer you on line. op 15-01-2004 01:36 schreef connie op nichicon@h...: > In case Nina's busy doing her Icaro prepares for bootcamp packing > routine: N: This was his packing list: solidity (or extension) cohesion temperature motion eyesense earsense nose (smellingsense) tongue (tastingsense) bodysense visible object sound odour flavour femininity masculinity heart-base life faculty nutrition space bodily intimation speech intimation lightness plasticity wieldiness birth or integration continuity decay impermanence A picture of the whole! Yes, I often think of his natural way of learning about the 28 rupas, just realities in daily life. They are right at hand. His presence was so refreshing, Abhidhamma straight. It happens that today I am with my packing list for Bgk. I am so inspired by Icaro!! Visible object is just to be seen, hardness is to be touched, sound is to be heard. There are the eight inseparables, avinibhogas, as real as anything. All around. Rupas, no concepts!! Packing without stress, it is fun. I was looking for some red slippers in the cupboard, and yes, only one was there, why never in pairs? Then quietly looking in some boxes, Icaros' list in hand. There was the second one, and colour was seen. After that defining: a slipper. Colour is the only, only rupa of this list that can be seen. I will not let all of you look further into my untidy cupboard. I hope he has more time for us in Febr. Did you hear from him? I received the Yamaka from PTS and Jim was so kind to give me the Commentary. I would like to share my enthusiasm with Icaro, a pity he is not here. Thank you for your kindness giving the Pali signs on line. Some signs of this Tipitaka org are the same, but Sarah thought that maybe their code changed. I had no time yet, but will check after Bgk. A problem is also difference in computers, but Sarah and I have the same. Appreciating, Nina 29102 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the Momentariness of Mind States Dear James, op 14-01-2004 22:13 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > I hope I haven't rambled on too much (Gosh, I feel like this > is `Buddhist True Confessions' or something! ;-)) N: No, you did not ramble and since the subject is mental development, yes, it seems like a confession, but we are just talking about the many changing states of mind. I appreciate your sincere post. First of all, I really sympathize with your fear. I have little knowledge and no experience with the meditation you describe. But now I try to think of saying something in general which may be helpful, or not, I do not know. I asked Lodewijk, and he said: I could add something. It is wise that you are doing this already, with the Suttas. We have to check ourselves all the time, are we overreaching, wanting more than we are up to? Then lobha is around the corner. I overreach in other fields, like my study, trying too hard to answer all Emails, wanting to do things too perfectly. As to the negative kind of fear, that is, accompanied by unhappy feeling, fear that disturbs, it is a sign. It is dangerous, because one will easily accumulate more of that. It is a warning sign I would say. It could become worse and worse. We have to find out what conditions it. As Lodewijk said, we always have to check our mind. Clinging is a condition for fear. It has to do with overreaching. Then we are not on the right track. At times, I realize that I am clinging to awareness, but I also know that this is not the right Path. I find that every little bit of understanding is a gain, it helps me in my daily life. I am very grateful to the Buddha for that. Also this contact in dsg helps me to consider the Dhamma more, to reflect more, to develop understanding. This is also thanks to the excellent way Sarah and Jon are leading this forum, it is good to say this sometimes. Lodewijk also sends you his best regards, Nina. 29103 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Heart base Dear Rob K, I enjoyed your posts, glad you reposted it, I have no time for going to webs or following links, appreciating, Nina. op 15-01-2004 06:53 schreef rjkjp1 op rjkjp1@y...: > Robert:None of this can be surprising if we understand hadaya-vatthu. > That special kammic matter will arise wherever there is the > suitable conditions, including blood (or even a blood > substitute). 29104 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: heartbase, note 4 c Dear Connie, op 15-01-2004 10:33 schreef connie op nichicon@h...: > Nina quoted: > > U Narada, p. 33: during the process of dying: object and base] it is this heart-base that is taken as object by all > the > dying impulsions even if there is delight, grief, doubt or restlessness > at > the time.> > > Does this mean that heart-base is the object of the current bhavangas? N: it could never be the object of the bhavangas of that life, these only have one object: the same as the rebirth-consciousness which is the same as the last javanas of the previous life. Rebirth-consciousness, bhavangacitta and dying-consciousness of one life always have the same object, they are door-freed and process-freed. As to the last javanacittas in a life: these can take the heartbase as object, thus, these are not bhavangacittas. They are followed by the dying-consciousness of that life (that has, as said, its own object) and then the rebirth-consciousness of next life has the same object as the last javanas of the previous life, in this case the heartbase. Is there anything not yet clear? Nina. 29105 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:04pm Subject: latent tendencies, Ch 1, no 6 latent tendencies, Ch 1, no 6 The ³Visuddhimagga², in the explanation about ³Purity by Knowledge and Vision² (Ch XXII, 81-86), gives an additional explication about ³arisen in the sense of having obtained a soil². It states: ³While unprofitable [kamma] is still unabolished in any given soil [plane] [13], it is called arisen by having soil [to grow in].² This refers to the latent tendencies that lie dormant in the citta. We read further on (82): ³And here the difference between Œsoil¹ and Œhaving obtained a soil¹ should be understood. For Œsoil¹ (plane) means the five aggregates in the three planes of becoming, which are the objects of insight 14] . ŒWhat has obtained a soil¹ is an expression for defilements, capable of arising with respect to those aggregates. Those defilements have that soil (plane). That is why Œby having soil [to grow in]¹ is said. And that is not meant in the sense of just making them the object 15]. For defilements occupied with an object arise with respect to any aggregates including past or future ones as well [as present], and also with respect to the [subjectively] fully-understood aggregates in someone [else] whose cankers are destroyed, like those that arise in the rich man Soreyya with respect to the aggregates in Mahå-Kaccåna (Dh A. I, 325) and in the brahman student Nanda with respect to Uppalavaùùa (Dh A. II, 49), and so on. And if that were what is called Œarisen by having soil [to grow in]¹, no one could abandon the root of becoming because it would be unabandonable. But Œarisen by having soil [to grow in]¹ should be understood [subjectively] with respect to the bases [for them in oneself]. For the defilements that are the root of the round are inherent in [one¹s own]aggregates not fully-understood by insight from the instant those aggregates arise. And that is what should be understood as Œarisen by having soil [to grow in]¹, in the sense of its being unabandoned. Now when defilements are inherent, in the sense of being unabandoned, in someone¹s aggregates, it is only those aggregates of his that are basis for those defilements, not aggregates belonging to another. And only past aggregates, not others, are basis for defilements that inhere unabandoned in past aggregates. Likewise in the case of future aggregates, and so on. Similarly too only sense-sphere aggregates, not others, are the basis for defilements that inhere unabandoned in sense-sphere aggregates. Likewise in the case of the fine material and immaterial. But in the case of the Stream Enterer, etc., when a given defilement, which is a root of the round, has been abandoned by means of a given path in a given Noble Person¹s aggregates, then, his aggregates are no longer called Œsoil¹ for such defilement since they are no longer a basis for it...² Therefore, the defilements that are dormant in the citta, the latent tendencies, are realities which each have their own characteristic. These can be eradicated by the development of insight, and this means, by knowing the true nature of the aggregates or the realities which appear. Footnotes: 13. Bhúmi is translated as plane or soil, depending on the context. The Tíka to the Visuddhimagga explains as to plane in this context: ³the aggregates as objects of clinging, reckoned as a human or a divine person.² 14. The not fully-understood state of the aggregates. 15. Making them the object: as will be explained further on, the defilements that are the root of the round are inherent in [one¹s own]aggregates not fully-understood by insight. And that is what should be understood as Œarisen by having soil [to grow in]¹, in the sense of its being unabandoned. Someone may have another person¹s aggregates as object, even the aggregates of an arahat, but he could not be released from the cycle of birth and death by having someone else¹s aggregates as object. So long as his own aggregates are not fully understood by insight there are still latent tendencies that have a fertile soil to grow in. The example of Soreyya is given here (see Pali Proper Names II, p. 1311). Soreyya saw the body of the arahat Mahå Kaccåyana and had clinging to it. The aggregates of someone else was the object of his defilements. His desire caused him to become a woman and he married the Treaserer of Takkasilå. Later on he asked Mahå Kaccåyana forgiveness and eventually he himself became an arahat. **** Nina. 29106 From: Eznir Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:03pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Dear Sarah & Friends! When I was new to this mode of discussion my first contribution to a certain group regarding a particular thread was to address the issue itself which was how the thread began and named after, (ie the original post that started it). The person who originated that thread, after having welcomed me to the group, was highly amused to read my post, since it realigned the thread to the original point under discussion, which shows how much it had drifted from the main issue! Similarly, if one doesn't have the Dhamma, being discussed, in focus, one would find the views of the commentaries of the Dhamma under discussion, being discussed! This was the main point I was trying to drive in my post regarding commentries. I do not intend any disrespect to the commentators themselves! This happens even during ones meditation practice, one's main object of concentration is waylaid, rather discreetly, by a series of thoughts, connecting one to another, not pertaining to the object of concentration. Some of the threads under discussion, is an explicit example of meditation in general, before the 'Nivaranas' are overcome! This tread "Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )" is a case in point! Perhaps, I am being rather idealistic, to expect discussions in this mode, to simulate a good meditation session! :-)) Nevertheless, wouldn't it be wonderful, if one could gather just those cluster of "thinking and pondering" necessary, focussed to address the issue of the thread under discussion! One is then being mindful of one's "vacisankhara", are we not? May you be Happy! eznir --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear Eznir, > > You are making a lot of helpful contributions, but I question a couple > about the commentaries you've made more than once I think: > > --- Eznir wrote: etc ..etc... > > Metta, > > Sarah > > p.s. James, thx for the compliment, but I assure you I've only read a very > small fragment of the commentaries, and then only in translation, so I > don't think I qualify for the crown;-);-) > ===== 29107 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:35pm Subject: RE: [dsg] On the Momentariness of Mind States Hi Herman, You raise good qus about the mixing of conceptual terms with ‘absolutes’. It’s inevitable that we often use conceptual terms for shorthand and we read this throughout the texts as well, even in the Abhidhamma. --- Herman Hofman wrote: ======================================================================== > = > > H> We have recently been discussing space and time. At no time did > anyone suggest time was anything but a concept. So when we are > discussing rupas (absolutes) how can there be a series (concept) of > them? Where did time suddenly creep in? And how can rupas (absolutes) be > falling away in time (concept), all the time (concept)? > ======================================================================== > = S: The series referred to “a series (vithi) of mind moments”, which refers to the sense door and mind door cittas which condition the next one and so on (absolutely). Series is a short-hand concept to refer to these cittas (absolutes). Production, continuity, decay and impermanence are characteristics (absolutes) of all rupas (absolutes) whenever they occur (absolutely) and can be directly known by developed wisdom (absolute). Rupas are conditioned in various ways (absolutely) by cittas, kamma, temperature and nutrition (absolutes). ======================================================================== > === > > H> Is a moment an absolute or a concept? How is it that absolutes arise > and fall within concepts? > > ======================================================================== > === S: Moment (concept) is shorthand here for saying that cittas arise and fall away (absolutely) extremely rapidly, conditioning the next without interval. The cittas (absolutes) don’t arise and fall within concepts. The concepts, such as the ones I gave yesterday from the suttas to indicate the great speed, are just to give an indication of the nature of these absolutes only. In the Abhidhamma, the term ‘kha.nikapaccuppanna’ is used to refer to the momentary present when absolutes occur. If you have Bodhi’s CMA, see ch 111,Comp.of the Misc.,17. ======================================================================== > ==== > H> Here you say that dhammas (absolutes) are brief. Is that briefness > (brevity) a characteristic of that dhamma? To me briefness is a > comparative measurement and surely that is conceptual? > > ======================================================================== > ==== S: A conceptual term referring to the absolute characteristics of dhammas which fall away as soon as they’ve arisen and can be experienced as such. ======================================================================== > ==== > H> Same again. Speed is a comparative measurement. Is high speed a > characteristic of dhammas? Or is it a characteristic of observation? Or > what? > ======================================================================== > = S: In CMA, iV, Guide to 6, Bodhi gives more detail on all these points. He adds: “ ‘There are three conditioned characteristics of the conditioned: arising, passing away, and the alteration of that which stands’ (A.3:47/i,152). Here the presence moment is identified with ‘the alteration of that which stands’ (.thitassa a~nnathatta). “ When there is insight, there is no thought of time, but the nature of rapidly changing succession of namas and rupas can be known directly at the third stage onwards and so there is no doubt about the speed at which they occur. I understand your good and challenging questions, but I think these only arise in the thinking rather than the direct experiencing of these absolutes. More on ‘time’ in Nyanaponika’s ‘Abhidhamma Studies’ and under ‘Time’ in UP (oops!)Again as Htoo wrote, the more understanding there is of paramattha dhammas, the less confusion there will be about what concepts are too. ======================================================================== > ==== > H> Now I think I can understand, but isn't the "dhamma itself" therefore > an inference and not a reality? > ======================================================================== > ==== S: It depends whether there is any understanding and awareness now. There can be thinking about ‘hardness’ (concept) as we type or there can be direct awareness of the characteristic (absolute) as it’s experienced. Only panna (understanding) can differentiate and know which. ======================================================================== > == > H> Now this I really do understand. You are speaking conventionally. In > the whole paragraph!!! I hope you have an absolute wow of a time in > Bangkok. :-) .... S: You got it! Thanks, Herman and hope you can join us some time, somewhere (lots more concepts). Let me know if you don’t agree absolutely or conceptually with anything here. You’re raising important issues in this and in other posts and I liked your verse in reply to Christine’s;-) Metta (absolute) Sarah (concept) ============ 29108 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:56pm Subject: All directions (was Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )) Hi Eznir, I understand your point about how threads go off in all directions, just as we’re doing here;-) I apologise for barking up the wrong tree with regard to your comments on the commentaries and I’m glad to read of your respect in that regard;-) --- Eznir wrote: > Dear Sarah & Friends! > Perhaps, I am being rather idealistic, to expect discussions in this > mode, to simulate a good meditation session! :-)) Nevertheless, > wouldn't it be wonderful, if one could gather just those cluster > of "thinking and pondering" necessary, focussed to address the issue > of the thread under discussion! One is then being mindful of > one's "vacisankhara", are we not? .... That’s another branch of discussion we could follow too;-) I think some others would prefer the list and discussions to be more structured and focussed (Larry??), while others of us enjoy taking threads in various directions and often see great value in say, looking at what the commentaries or other writers have to say about particular aspects. I don’t think we can say one is better or more wholesome than the other - we can learn about our own cittas when we speak or write, I think. Perhaps this relates to our various views on 'focussed meditation' too. Thanks for clarifying your concerns, Eznir and feel free to come back to the original post in a thread or to follow any branch you prefer. Let me know if you have other ideas on this branch. Metta, Sarah ====== 29109 From: Sarah Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 0:18am Subject: RE: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi KenO;-)) Hi Michael, --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Sarah, > > Sarah; > 1. A clear distinction is shown between worldly truths and > realtites/actualities/the khandhas. > > Michael: > A clear distinction is shown between the way people usually perceive the > > world as existing/non existing and conditioned existence. .... S2: i.e the khandhas - conditioned ‘existence’ ... M: >The split > between > worldly truaths and realities/actualities falls into the trap of > existence/non existence. .... S2: Obviously when the Buddha differentiated and described worldly truths and khandhas, existing impermanently (as we found in the suttas), there was no trap. The trap is only a manifestation of any wrong view we may have in appreciating the significance. .... M: >The khandhas are not realities in the sense of > truly existing or in the sense of an ultimate reality, they are > conditioned > realities. A truly existing reality or actuality cannot be subject to > conditions. .... S2: We agree that khandhas are conditioned realities. You use ‘ultimate reality’ or ‘existing reality’ in a different sense to the way the commentarie and we use these terms, so be it. Rupas, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana exist momentarily by conditions and then fall away. Whether they are referred to as paramattha or ‘existing’ or ‘actual’, they are like the foam, the water bubble, the mirage, the plaintain or the magician’s trick, without self, lasting essence or core and knowable by insight. .... > S: > 2. The khandhas never refer to pannatti (concepts), but refer to cittas, > cetasikas and rupas. > > M: > Khandhas are the same as cittas. cetasikas and rupa. Khandhas and > paññatti > are both conditioned realities none of them are ultimate realities nor > non > existent. .... S2: I notice that even though I avoided all mention of ultimate realities, you introduce it into each point;-) Nowhere in the Tipitaka is there any suggestion that pannatti are conditioned realities. this is why I quoted from the khandavagga to show that only the khandhas - *Not pannatti*- are conditioned and to be understood by insight. .... > S: > 3. Only the khandhas are conditioned, arise and fall, not concepts. > > M: > Therefore concepts are non existent. Again the dichotomy into existing > (khandhas) and non existing (concepts). To me both are conditioned > realities. ... S2: Exactly, concepts are non existent except as imaginary constructs. This is the point in the suttas quoted and Abhidhamma text about Self and Tathagata. They don’t exist, they are only *thought* to exist. While we cling to the idea of self existing, we also cling to the idea of people and things in the same way. The sotapanna has no more wrong idea about self and concepts existing. .... > S: > 4. The development of insight/satipatthana is the direct understanding > and > knowledge of the khandhas and eventually of nibbana too. It is not the > insight of concepts. > > M: > Insight is the direct understanding and knowledge of the three > characteristics. Any conditioned phenomena has the three characteristics > and > therefore can be an object of insight. When you see conditionality you > see > the Dhamma. ... S2: The three characteristics of namas and rupas. If there is no understanding of namas and rupas and distinction from selves, computers and so on, there cannot be higher insights which understand the tri-lakkhana of these realities. Any conditioned phenomena means any conditioned nama or rupa. When you see namas and rupas as they are, the knowledge of their conditioned nature becomes more and more apparent. .... > S: > 5.The khandhas are ‘real and actual’ (saccato thetato) as opposed to > Beings, Self, the Buddha, computers and elephants. Unlike the latter, > the > khandhas have characteristics or qualities that are to be known for what > they are. > > M: > If the khandhas are ‘real and actual’ then they cannot be subject to > conditionality because for something to be ‘real and actual’ it has to > have > something which gives it that ‘real and actual’ quality and that is the > same > as an essence, whether you call it like that or not, that is the > assumption > behind calling them ‘real and actual’. .... S2: I think that when the Buddha used these words he was pointing out the exact opposite to what you are saying. He was pointing out that by knowing the ‘real and actual’ as opposed to concepts, slowly the idea of self will be eradicated. When there is touching of hardness, there can be awareness of the characteristic. We don’t have to give it a name, but it is real or actual or experienced in a way that concepts never can be. .... > S: > 6. Concepts and entities do not have the characteristics which can be > penetrated and directly understood by the eightfold path factors. > Therefore, it is essential to distinguish between concepts and khandhas. > > M: > As I said before both concepts and entities are conditioned and > therefore > share the three characteristics and can be an object of insight. .... S2: Could you give me some Tipitaka references which suggest that concepts and entities are conditioned, share the 3 characteristics and can be object of insight. .... M:> I don’t’ see room for a consensus Sarah and we better agree to disagree. ... S2:I think we might reach consensus that we’re talking about more than terminology differences as Howard suggested;-) We might also agree that we’re still a long way apart, but as I keep saying, I value these discussions. Metta, Sarah p.s sorry if this sounds rushed - kids at the door. I'll post anyway as I won't have time later or tomorrow. ====== 29110 From: icarofranca Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 0:34am Subject: Re: Icaro's packing list, to Connie Dear Nina et all N: This was his packing list: > > solidity (or extension) > cohesion > temperature > motion > eyesense > earsense > nose (smellingsense) > tongue (tastingsense) > bodysense > visible object > sound > odour > flavour > femininity > masculinity > heart-base > life faculty > nutrition > space > bodily intimation > speech intimation > lightness > plasticity > wieldiness > birth or integration > continuity > decay > impermanence -------------------------------------------------------------------- Such Paramattha Dhammas list has got some interesting remarks, as a goo= d rendition to the term "eyesense", "earsense" as CakkuDhatu and so on. My o= wn list could show a different Niyama on these terms! --------------------------------------------------------------- > Packing without stress, it is fun. -------------------------------------------------------------- With a little help of Niyama and friends, everything becomes more easy! -------------------------------------------------------------- > Thank you for your kindness giving the Pali signs on line. Some signs of > this Tipitaka org are the same, but Sarah thought that maybe their code > changed. I had no time yet, but will check after Bgk. A problem is also > difference in computers, but Sarah and I have the same. > Appreciating, --------------------------------------------------------------- Pali codification of Tipitaka.org - since you configure your browser, of= course - hasn´t so much difficulty to read on. Missing you all too much... I hope get more free time to be with you mo= re frequently! Mettaya, Ícaro > Nina 29111 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:19am Subject: Abhidhamma-fatigue Dear Group, I understand the purpose of studying the Abhidhamma in all its microscopic particulars is as an aid to realise the complete impermanence and anattaness of all dhammas. But, there is a problem - for me, at least. I find I've turned off and tuned out - actually several weeks ago - no longer read any of the technical posts and can't relate to the enthusiasm others seem to feel for discussing nama and rupa in infinite detail. Perhaps it's just a phase. Can't see anything about Abhidhamma-fatigue in the Useful Posts though ... I guess it's a little late for a prophylaxis, but is there any antidote? metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 29112 From: Eznir Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 2:31am Subject: Re: Kamma and action Dear Herman Herman: Are action and intention synonymous in the Canon? eznir: Yes. Herman: According to the Canon, does the possibility exist to intend bodily... eznir: No. Intending is something of the mind, Nama, defined as vedana, sanna, cetana(intention), passa and manasikara. Whereas 'bodily' is something of matter, ie., Rupa. Therefore to intend bodily....... Herman: ....without acting bodily....... eznir: .... without acting bodily is impossible isn't it? Unless ofcourse, you mean 'intend mentally' and not bodily. But then you would have said so! And even 'mentally' is a form of action. Action is of three types, body, speech and mind. 'Intend bodily without acting bodily' is not coherent speech, is it? Notice how language has evolved in line with our thoughts! When we speak non-sense it doesn't sound sensible either! Herman: ........or opposite to the intention? eznir: Perhaps you mean the type of action that doesn't result in Kamma. Yes. These type of actions can be done only by Arahats, the Noble Ones! As they have got rid of craving, conceit and views and their Consciousness is said to be 'anidassana' or non-pointing. It doesn't indicate or signify a self. Intention is Action. They are synonymous. This is not outwardly seen. That is why in meditiation one is supposed to be mindful of every action, while walking, lying, sitting, bathing, changing clothes, etc etc as in Satipatthana Sutta so that this synonymity is exposed. One finds that every action is preceeded by an intention. May you be Happy! eznir --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > Hi everybody, > > Are action and intention synonymous in the Canon? Nyanatiloka has kamma > as wholesome and unwholesome action, but then includes cetana > > "Volition (cetaná), o monks, is what I call action (cetanáham bhikkhave > kammam vadámi), for through volition one performs the action by body, > speech or mind. . There is karma (action), o monks, that ripens in > hell.... Karma that ripens in the animal world.. Karma that ripens in > the world of men.... Karma that ripens in the heavenly world.... > Threefold, however, is the fruit of karma: ripening during the life- time > (dittha-dhamma-vedaníya-kamma), ripening in the next birth > (upapajja-vedaníya-kamma), ripening in later births > (aparápariya-vedaníya kamma) ...." (A.VI.63). > > According to the Canon, does the possibility exist to intend bodily > without acting bodily or opposite to the intention? > > All the best > > > Herman 29113 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 3:07am Subject: [dsg] Re: heartbase, note 4 c Dear Nina and Connie and all, Nama have to depend on Rupa when in Pancavokara Bhumi that is the realms where there are Rupa as beings. Bhavangacittas also have to depend on Rupa. In this Rupa is Hadaya Vatthu or heartbase. I did not mean Hadaya Vatthu or heartbase as an object for Bhavangacittas. When in Catuvokara Bhumi that is four Arupa Brahma Bhumi, Bhavangacittas do not have to depend on any Rupa as there is no Rupa in Arupa Bhumi. Patisandhicitta ( linking consciousness or rebirth consciousness ), Bhavangacitta ( life continuum consciousness ), and Cuticitta ( dying consciousness ) are all the same. The only difference is temporal placing. The first in a life is Patisandhicitta ( rebirth consciousness ) and the last in a life is Cuticitta or dying consciousness ( not death consciousness as the dead cannot be consciousness ). These three Citta are doorfree Citta. This means they do not need to appear at any door ( eye, ear, nose, tongue, body ) and mind-door. The last Bhavangacitta just before Vithicitta ( conscious mind ) is said to be mind-sense door but Bhavangacittas never appear at 6 doors. With Metta, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Connie, > Nina quoted: > > U Narada, p. 33: during the process of dying: > the dying impulsions even if there is delight, grief, doubt or restlessness at the time. > > Does this mean that heart-base is the object of the current bhavangas? > N: it could never be the object of the bhavangas of that life, these only > have one object: the same as the rebirth-consciousness which is the same as > the last javanas of the previous life. > Rebirth-consciousness, bhavangacitta and dying-consciousness of one life > always have the same object, they are door-freed and process-freed. > As to the last javanacittas in a life: these can take the heartbase as > object, thus, these are not bhavangacittas. They are followed by the > dying-consciousness of that life (that has, as said, its own object) and > then the rebirth-consciousness of next life has the same object as the last > javanas of the previous life, in this case the heartbase. > Is there anything not yet clear? > Nina. 29114 From: Sarah Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 5:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma-fatigue Hi Christine, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Group, > > I understand the purpose of studying the Abhidhamma in all its > microscopic particulars is as an aid to realise the complete > impermanence and anattaness of all dhammas. But, there is a > problem - for me, at least. I find I've turned off and tuned out - > actually several weeks ago - no longer read any of the technical > posts and can't relate to the enthusiasm others seem to feel for > discussing nama and rupa in infinite detail. ..... I’m not sure why this is a problem -- after all, it is the understanding of realities whether reading miscroscopic particulars or having fun/not having fun in any other way that counts. .... >Perhaps it's just a > phase. Can't see anything about Abhidhamma-fatigue in the Useful > Posts though ... .... Ah, maybe that’ll change too;-) .... > I guess it's a little late for a prophylaxis, but is there any > antidote? .... If we’re looking for an antidote to the ‘turn off’, doesn’t it suggest the problem is not the particulars, but the idea that this is what we should be enthusiastic about at this moment? In other words, yet another chance to know the present realities regardless of the objects of thinking and ‘turn off’. No rules or one size fits all in this regard. A few years ago when I was working extremely long hours, I hardly opened a dhamma book and would often fall asleep as soon as I did so. The namas and rupas were just as real as these days when I’m reading more. It may be different again tomorrow for us both. Have a good weekend and let us hear more about your non-microscopic particular reflections. I know that in your case, you’ll still be reading plenty of Dhamma material;-) How are we going with Kosalasamyutta? Perhaps Eznir will join in and help keep us a little focussed;-) Metta, Sarah ======= 29115 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 6:41am Subject: Antidote For Abhidhamma-Fatigue Dear Dhammafriends, First of all, fatigue has to be defined. If well defined, then antidote will possibly be there at some corner. I do not think that Christine wants to say about sloth and torpor. But these may well be related. Hearing words of unfamilarity may possibly fatigue some. Anyway, I try here an antidote for Christine and possibly for others. If not working fedback is favourable. People want to avoid experiencing bad things even though they are doing bad things in a daily basis and to be exact at each moment. This thought is just comparison to doing good things. In this paragraph, people I mean people in general. Experiencing bad things? In which way? How do they happen? When they feel bad at their body, they become unhappy. When they feel bad in their mind they become unhappy. Otherwise they will go unchecked and unnoticed. When feel bad, it actually is not bad. But it becomes bad when they think that it is bad. Why are they thinking those bad experiences bad. Because they want something different that they think is good. Why are they thinking something is good? Because they like that something. Here liking is the chief source that create everything. If liking is dropped where it is picked up, there will no more problem. And this include fatigue. Fatigue of all kinds not only Abhidhamma-Fatigue. I hear this. I hear this word. I hear these words. I hear this sentence. I hear these sentences. I hear this sound. I hear these sounds. I hear noice. I hear a noice. I hear those noices. I see a letter. I see a word. I see words. I see a sentence. I see sentences. I see a paragraph. I see paragraphs. I see a passage. I see passages. I see a coulour. I see colours. I see a form. I see forms. I see shape. I see a shape.I see shapes. I experience smell. I smell a smell. I smell smells. I taste taste. I taste a taste. I taste tastes. I feel it hard. I feel it soft. I feel it smooth. I feel it rough. I feel it hot. I feel it warm. I feel it cold. I feel it springing. I feel it pressing. I feel it tense. I feel it move. I feel it support. I feel it push. If all these are dropped at their respective door, there will no more be fatigue. Fatigue is actually noticed later on after we all have picked it up and we store it deeply in our mind. The best antidote for fatigue is prevention of it arising by watching the picker. As soon as you drop it, you are liberated from its binding up. May all beings free from fatigue. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 29116 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 8:48am Subject: Contemplation On Own Body ( 05 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, There is a way how to get through the Samsara or wheel of life. To get through the Samsara, one who wants such an achievement needs to practise special contemplation on own body, contemplation of any feeling whenever arise, contemplation on own mind and contemplation on Dhamma. As described in the related posts, the Dhamma practitioner has been striving to achieve a state. Dhamma is so good that even though the final goal has not been achieved, there always is a good output from practising Dhamma at every stage at every step and achievement is there all the time since practising Dhamma. First, the practitioner contemplates on his own breath. He knows everything connected with his own breath. This means he knows when the breath is long as long and short as when short and he calms down all the process of breathing with special contemplation along with great mindfulness. Human is made up of parts of body and they do need balance and nutrition. As the practitioner knows this, he frequently changes his body position say about an hour. He knows whenever he changes the position. He knows his body position. He knows his changing of body positions. Moreover, he knows all the process of changing at his bodily environments. This means that he knows going forward as going forward and back as back. He knows looking straight ahead as he looks straight ahead and if else where as looking else where. He also knows all the body process of changing like changes in the process of dressing, carrying something, eating, drinking, chewing, savouring, urinating, defecating, walking, standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking, speaking, and even when he is silent, he contemplates that he is silent. He has full understanding on what is happening at his own body. If this happens to individual, there is no problem and what he needs to do is just continue his practice steadfastly and this finally say about 7 years will lead him to enlightenment. Let alone 7 years, 6,5,4,3,2, or 1 year may suffice. Let alone 1 year, 7 months may suffice to be enlightenment. Let alone 7 months, 6,5,4,3,2,1, or even 14 days may suffice to be enlightened provided he is in real practice and not just thinking and reasoning. This is so hard even though easy to read them up. First try to sit for a complete hour. There will arise a lot of problems. Mind does not stay still. It is moving all the time. Mind is mixed with Moha, Lobha, Dosa and so on. Even 2 minutes may make the sitting meditator shattered and put him into a disaster. But with practice this can be overcome. Mind is moving all the time. Sometimes, it does not obey intended direction and frequently fall on sensual thinking and sensual thoughts become prevailed. This may go unnoticed and unchecked and realized only after a long period. To crack down this, another contemplation on own body has to practised. It is focusing on 32 body parts. After some time, sensual thughts are a bit settled down under the command of Patikulamanasikara or contemplation on 32 body parts or Kayagatasati Anussati Kammatthana. At another time, the practitioner contemplates on his own body focusing on 4 elements as there is nothing but 4 elements. When we die, our body is just a corpse. If we died today, it would become a corpse today. All people know that one day we will definitely die. The Dhamma practitioner knows this as well. He is going to contemplate on his potential corpse soon. May you all be able to contemplate on your own body. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing JourneyToNibbana 29117 From: Eddie Lou Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 10:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Angulimala Hi, Sarah, I am glad to be of some contribution and very respectful of your wisdom. Metta, Eddie Lou --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Vijita & All, > > I’m glad to see another post from you and I’ve >...(snip)... > discrepancies. As Eddie summarised, ‘unfortunately, > we live in a world > well dominated with idea of punishment and we are > more or less > influenced’. > > Many thanks to everyone for all the helpful > reminders and especially to > Christine for raising the thread and encouraging the > discussion;-) Vijita, > I look forward to more of your contributions. Also > Eddie and everyone else > too. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= > === message truncated === 29118 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 10:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Elements, no 1. Dear Howard, op 14-01-2004 00:03 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: ...you mention the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta below, and you include quotes from the commentary on it. I decided to look at the sutta directly in my copy of The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, and I just don't see in the sutta what the commentary sees. It seems to me that the commentary is "Abhidhamma-bound" to an uncalled for degree. As I read this sutta, everything that I see presented is quite conventional, and that applies as much to space as it does to earth element, fire element, air element, and water element. All these items are mentioned, but all are dealt with quite conventionally with ven a hint of "Abhidhammic fragrance." I see this sutta as a straightforward > one teaching non-clinging to all aspects of materiality in the conventional > sense > (bodily solids, liquids, air, winds, humours, cavities and apertures etc) as > well as non-clinging to a variety of namas, plus considerable teaching about > meditation to Rahula.... (snip) N: I am so glad you notice the Abhidhammic fragrance. Now a next step will be the Satipatthanic fragrance :-). Now in all earnest: it is difficult and time consuming, but the Dhamma student should read all or many, many suttas, and then he can evaluate what the Buddha¹s message is. Today, I took up other Rahula suttas in K II. Ch XIV, On Element. § 11: seven elements, and certainly, space-infinity-element included here is a subject for jhana. Rahula had accumulated skill for jhana. But, jhana is not enough. The three characteristics of paramattha dhammas, of the khandhas, have to be realized. Only thus could he attain arahatship. We read, Ch XVIII, § 1, the eye: that the Buddha asked Rahula: ³Is the eye abiding or fleeting?² Remark: the Pali has: nicca, permanent, or anicca, impermanent. Rahula answered that it is impermanent. The same is asked concerning dukkha and anatta. Then the same is asked about the other sense-organs and the mind. The next paras: the same about the sense objects, cognitions through the six doorways, contact, feeling, perception, volition, craving elements, aggregates. As to elements, this is referred to as the four great elements. Points of consideration for the Dhamma student: is the teaching contained in this sutta Abhidhamma as well as satipatthana or not. Does the Buddha teach here the ultimate realities or not. And is the purpose to develop direct understanding of realities so that they eventually can be realized as impermanent, dukkha and non-self, or not. We also read in Vis. XI, 27, etc. that the elements are a subject of samatha. But what is the meaning? Jhana is not enough, their true nature should be realized by vipassana. We read, XI, 43: The Dhamma student may attain jhana with this subject, but only with insight he can realize the three characteristics of what are mere elements. I have more to say, later on, on the satipatthanic fragrance. I do not know how much time I have, have to play it by ear. There is my packing list, full of Abhidhammic and satipatthanic fragrance! Nina. P.S. The points of consideration given above should just be seen as a long term project of discoveries by the Dhamma students. I am also in for a long, long term study project. 29119 From: Michael Beisert Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 11:01am Subject: RE: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi KenO;-)) Hello Sarah, S2: I think that when the Buddha used these words (khandhas) he was pointing out the exact opposite to what you are saying. He was pointing out that by knowing the ‘real and actual’ as opposed to concepts, slowly the idea of self will be eradicated. Michael: I don’t see the Buddha pointing out the ‘real and actual’. I see him rejecting the notion that there is a ‘real and actual’ as well as its opposite ‘not real and not actual.’ I see the Buddha pointing towards dependent origination all the time. And dependent origination is not ‘real and actual’ nor ‘not real and not actual.’ S2: Could you give me some Tipitaka references which suggest that concepts and entities are conditioned, share the 3 characteristics and can be object of insight. S2: Exactly, concepts are non existent except as imaginary constructs. Michael: Concepts = Paññatti, for example a human being. Entities = Khandhas. Can you give me a sutta which states that paññatti, or a human being, is non existent. Metta Michael 29120 From: Michael Beisert Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 11:14am Subject: RE: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi KenO;-)) Hello Sarah, S2: You use ‘ultimate reality’ or ‘existing reality’ in a different sense to the way the commentarie and we use these terms, so be it. Rupas, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana exist momentarily by conditions and then fall away. Whether they are referred to as paramattha or ‘existing’ or ‘actual’, they are like the foam, the water bubble, the mirage, the plaintain or the magician’s trick, without self, lasting essence or core and knowable by insight.. Michael: Again the same story of using words that have a very clear meaning but pretending they mean something else. But another point here is how can you say that something ‘exists momentarily’? Either the thing exists or it does not exist. Because for a thing to exist it has to have something in it that justifies its existence. And non existence is the absence of that. So how is it possible that a thing exists and then loses that something and suddenly does not exist anymore. Show me a sutta where the Buddha said that things exist momentarily. Not commentaries, suttas. Metta Michael 29121 From: Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 7:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi KenO;-)) Hi, Michael (and Sarah) - In a message dated 1/16/04 2:24:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, mbeisert@h... writes: > Hello Sarah, > > S2: You use ‘ultimate reality’ or ‘existing reality’ in a different sense > to > the way the > commentarie and we use these terms, so be it. Rupas, vedana, sanna, > sankhara and vinnana exist momentarily by conditions and then fall away. > Whether they are referred to as paramattha or ‘existing’ or ‘actual’, they > are like the foam, the water bubble, the mirage, the plaintain or the > magician’s trick, without self, lasting essence or core and knowable by > insight.. > > Michael: > Again the same story of using words that have a very clear meaning but > pretending they mean something else. But another point here is how can you > say that something ‘exists momentarily’? Either the thing exists or it does > > not exist. Because for a thing to exist it has to have something in it that > justifies its existence. And non existence is the absence of that. So how is > > it possible that a thing exists and then loses that something and suddenly > does not exist anymore. Show me a sutta where the Buddha said that things > exist momentarily. Not commentaries, suttas. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Michael, I tend to agree with you about momentariness, but not about what it means to exist. The key point, as I see it, is your claim that "for a thing to exist it has to have something in it that justifies its existence." I just don't get that insisting on such a restricted sense of 'exist'. For a condition to hold/exist there must have been prior and co-occurring conditions for it to appear. I see nothing more or less needed. To assume that there must be some core or essence is to allow the substantialists to steal with the term 'exist'. The Buddha accepted neither substantial self-existence of conditions nor nihilistic nonexistence, but the middle-way phenomenon of conditioned existence. ------------------------------------------------------- > > Metta > Michael > ============================= 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) 29122 From: Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 7:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi KenO;-)) Hi again, Michael - I wrote my last post to you quickly, with some typos. Permit to repair it: > Howard: > Michael, I tend to agree with you about momentariness, but not about > what it means to exist. The key point, as I see it, is your claim that "for > a > thing to exist it has to have something in it that justifies its existence." > I > just don't get that - insisting on such a restricted sense of 'exist'. For a > > condition to hold/exist there must have been prior and co-occurring > conditions > for it to appear. I see nothing more or less needed. To assume that there > must > be some core or essence is to allow the substantialists to steal the term > 'exist'. The Buddha accepted neither substantial self-existence of > conditions > nor nihilistic nonexistence of conditions, but, rather, the middle-way > phenomenon of conditioned existence. > ========================== 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) 29123 From: connie Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:51pm Subject: red slippers Dear Nina, I see Icaro has posted again! You reminded me of a an old tale about a girl who was so overjoyed to put on a beautiful pair of red slippers only to find that she couldn't stop dancing or take them off... all our infatuations with our packings and carrying on. Whatever the font problem was with my computer, the VRI font now shows up the way it should, but I believe the Tipitaka site is still using that one. The secret decoder ring insert follows for those who might be interested in seeing Apples through my Windows. peace, connie VRI code: ¼ 1/4 = .l ½ 1/2 = .m ¾ 3/4 = Aa ± combined +_ = aa µ u w/long tail in front = .t ñ = ~n superscripts: º 0 = .n ¹ 1 = .d ² 2 = ii ³ 3 = uu ª a = "n (n with a dot on top) Þ longhorn = .D Ý y fwdhat = .T ì i bkwdhat = " (dbl quote) î i duncehat = "n (n w/dot on top) 29124 From: Michael Beisert Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 2:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi KenO;-)) Hello Howard, I agree with what you say. Maybe I am being a little bit picky, but I prefer to be careful and whenever possible refrain from saying that things exist because of the loaded connotation of ‘existence.’ If existence is used it should always be clear that it is conditioned existence. Metta Michael >From: upasaka@a... >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi >KenO;-)) >Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:36:56 EST > >Hi again, Michael - > > I wrote my last post to you quickly, with some typos. Permit to >repair >it: > > > Howard: > > Michael, I tend to agree with you about momentariness, but not about > > what it means to exist. The key point, as I see it, is your claim that >"for > > a > > thing to exist it has to have something in it that justifies its >existence." > > I > > just don't get that - insisting on such a restricted sense of 'exist'. >For a > > > > condition to hold/exist there must have been prior and co-occurring > > conditions > > for it to appear. I see nothing more or less needed. To assume that >there > > must > > be some core or essence is to allow the substantialists to steal the >term > > 'exist'. The Buddha accepted neither substantial self-existence of > > conditions > > nor nihilistic nonexistence of conditions, but, rather, the middle-way > > phenomenon of conditioned existence. > > >========================== >With metta, >Howard 29125 From: icarofranca Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 2:58pm Subject: Re: red slippers Dear Connie: Connie:" I see Icaro has posted again!" ------------------------------------------------------------------- Right!!! Time and again, having free time I surely do post here! Everything changes, everything flows...sometimes our lives´ stuff are gr= ounded only on Sammuit-sacca: shallow concepts, and such concepts easily com= e, easily go! Abhidhamma at everyday life begins with Kusala, Akusala and Kusalaskusal= a dhammas.At the other end, seeing Nama, Rupa and Nibbana as beyond general= ities about concepts is a great step for mind! ----------------------------------------------------------------- > You reminded me of a an old tale about a girl who was so overjoyed to > put on a beautiful pair of red slippers only to find that she couldn't > stop dancing or take them off... ------------------------------------------------------------------- I hope not stop dancing at this floor... Buddhaghosa still fools me wit= h all that Baroque Pali of Tikas!!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------- all our infatuations with our packings > and carrying on. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Relax, Connie! -------------------------------------------------------------- > Whatever the font problem was with my computer, the VRI font now shows > up the way it should, but I believe the Tipitaka site is still using > that one. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fortunately the Pali texts are O.K.!!!! Mettaya, Ícaro 29126 From: Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 10:31am Subject: An Abhidhamma-Related Mathematical Model of Consciousness WARNING: Reading the following message may be dangerous to one's health, causing a reaction of nausea in any who are allergic either to Abhidhamma or to Mathematics! Hi, all - The following interval-model of consciousness has occurred to me and is presented here for your inspection: ___________________________ 1) An object (via any sense door) is an object of awareness during a time interval that corresponds to an OPEN interval on the real line, (start-time, end-time), within which the awareness of that object occurs. Call such an interval an "object interval." It corresponds roughly to the time during which a process (in the Abhidhammic sense) occurs. Note that neither the object and nor the awareness of the object exist at the interval endpoints. 2) A mental concomitant occurs also during a time interval that corresponds to an OPEN interval on the real line. Call such an interval a "concomitant interval." 3) No two objects have identical or even overlapping intervals. For every object interval, A, there is an immediately preceding object interval, A1, and an immediately subsequent object interval, A2, and, moreover, whenever B and C are two object intervals with C the immediate successor of B, the end-time of B is identical with the start-time of C. Adjacent object intervals are associated with different objects. [Recall that an object interval corresponds to a process, not a citta.] This guarantees that there is exactly one object of consciousness at any time. It also makes the start-time and end-time interval-boundary points times at which there is no object of consciousness present, but note that these are mere zero-duration points in time, and they amount to no more than blips/spikes in consciousness. 4) Concomitant intervals only occur contained within object intervals (making awareness of objects primary), and each object interval is covered (in the mathematical sense) by a finite number of concomitant intervals. This covering requirement guarantees that there is no consciousness of an object without at least one concomitant in effect as well. (Obviously, Abhidhamma would impose a further breakdown into types of objects and concomitants, and would impose additional co-occurence restrictions.) 5) Of two concomitant intervals, they may overlap, be disjoint, or one may contain another. No restrictions are imposed except, of course, for type restrictions - love and hate, for example, will not co-occur. 6) Define a "citta" or "mindstate" as occurring within a single arammanic interval, A, and starting at a boundary-point within A, and ending at the very next boundary-point within A. Thus, a citta or mindstate begins and ends with the arising or ceasing of the awareness of an object or of a mental concomitant to that awareness; and an object interval, corresponding to a process, consists of a sequence of consecutive mindstates. ---------------------------------------------------------- I would be very interested in hearing from those of you who have both knowledge of Abhidhamma and of Mathematics, what you think of this model, what you think its implications about consciousness are, and what are its strengths and weaknesses as a model. Certainly, I will also be pleased to hear from those of you without knowledge/interest in Abhidhamma or Mathematics, or both! ;-) With model 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) 29127 From: Herman Hofman Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 7:57pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Kamma and action Hi Eznir, Thank you for your reply. Some comments interspersed below. -----Original Message----- From: Eznir [mailto:eznir2003@y...] Sent: Friday, 16 January 2004 9:32 PM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: Kamma and action Dear Herman Herman: Are action and intention synonymous in the Canon? eznir: Yes. Herman: According to the Canon, does the possibility exist to intend bodily... eznir: No. Intending is something of the mind, Nama, defined as vedana, sanna, cetana(intention), passa and manasikara. Whereas 'bodily' is something of matter, ie., Rupa. Therefore to intend bodily....... Herman: ....without acting bodily....... eznir: .... without acting bodily is impossible isn't it? Unless ofcourse, you mean 'intend mentally' and not bodily. But then you would have said so! And even 'mentally' is a form of action. Action is of three types, body, speech and mind. 'Intend bodily without acting bodily' is not coherent speech, is it? Notice how language has evolved in line with our thoughts! When we speak non-sense it doesn't sound sensible either! ==================================================================== Eznir, you are a funny girl. I asked about the relation between intention/action in the context of the Buddhist canon, because I didn't know, and now you tell me about my incoherent, non-sense speech because I didn't use the Buddhist usage. Yeah, right! :-) Modern physiology distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary neural systems. The involuntary nervous system makes the body work and act without any reference to the mind at all. In fact, the body can be kept alive for decades without a head or heart or any other base you may care to name. There are billions of impulses traversing the body each second that not even a Buddha could be aware of. You have not convinced me that bodily intention to act bodily is as incoherent or non-sensical as you make out. =================================================================== Eznir: Intention is Action. They are synonymous. May you be Happy! ======================================================================== == Thank you for answering my question. All the best Herman eznir 29128 From: Eznir Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 10:25pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Kamma and action Dear Herman, When I said, "When we speak non-sense it doesn't sound sensible either!", I didn't mean to be-little you! I was trying to make the point to show how language exposes the flaws in our thinking pattern. Which is why I preceeded that statement with, "Notice how language has evolved in line with our thoughts!" That is to say that the clause in your statement "...to intend bodily without acting bodily..." doesn't sound ok! Which should point to the fact that something is wrong either in the thinking pattern or in the way it is presented. Re-reading your full statememt in question, I find that you have qualified it with "According to the Canon...." which implies that your thinking pattern is of a different 'environment', which I NOW realize, AFTER having read your reply, to be in line with "Modern physiology distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary neural systems." Had you stated this para first.... "Modern physiology distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary neural systems. The involuntary nervous system makes the body work and act without any reference to the mind at all. In fact, the body can be kept alive for decades without a head or heart or any other base you may care to name. There are billions of impulses traversing the body each second that not even a Buddha could be aware of." ..... and then posed your question it would have made sense! I repeat, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. May you be happy! eznir --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > Hi Eznir, > > Thank you for your reply. Some comments interspersed below. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eznir [mailto:eznir2003@y...] > Sent: Friday, 16 January 2004 9:32 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: Kamma and action > > Dear Herman > > Herman: > Are action and intention synonymous in the Canon? > > eznir: > Yes. > > Herman: > According to the Canon, does the possibility exist to intend bodily... > > eznir: > No. Intending is something of the mind, Nama, defined as vedana, > sanna, cetana(intention), passa and manasikara. Whereas 'bodily' is > something of matter, ie., Rupa. Therefore to intend bodily....... > > Herman: > ....without acting bodily....... > > eznir: > .... without acting bodily is impossible isn't it? Unless ofcourse, > you mean 'intend mentally' and not bodily. But then you would have > said so! And even 'mentally' is a form of action. Action is of three > types, body, speech and mind. > > 'Intend bodily without acting bodily' is not coherent speech, is it? > Notice how language has evolved in line with our thoughts! When we > speak non-sense it doesn't sound sensible either! > ==================================================================== > Eznir, you are a funny girl. I asked about the relation between > intention/action in the context of the Buddhist canon, because I didn't > know, and now you tell me about my incoherent, non-sense speech because > I didn't use the Buddhist usage. Yeah, right! :-) > > Modern physiology distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary neural > systems. The involuntary nervous system makes the body work and act > without any reference to the mind at all. In fact, the body can be kept > alive for decades without a head or heart or any other base you may care > to name. There are billions of impulses traversing the body each second > that not even a Buddha could be aware of. > > You have not convinced me that bodily intention to act bodily is as > incoherent or non-sensical as you make out. > =================================================================== > Eznir: > Intention is Action. They are synonymous. > > > May you be Happy! > > ====================================================================== == > == > > Thank you for answering my question. > > All the best > > Herman > > > eznir 29129 From: Herman Hofman Date: Fri Jan 16, 2004 11:05pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Kamma and action Hi Eznir, There is no problem at all. I am happy to have received your answer. The content of your answer ie that action and intention, in the Buddhist canon, are identical, raises many questions for me. These questions are probably due to me not having a "Buddhist paradigm" at a gut level. I will leave the questions, for the time being. Thanks again for your reply. Herman -----Original Message----- From: Eznir [mailto:eznir2003@y...] Sent: Saturday, 17 January 2004 5:26 PM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: Kamma and action Dear Herman, When I said, "When we speak non-sense it doesn't sound sensible either!", I didn't mean to be-little you! I was trying to make the point to show how language exposes the flaws in our thinking pattern. Which is why I preceeded that statement with, "Notice how language has evolved in line with our thoughts!" That is to say that the clause in your statement "...to intend bodily without acting bodily..." doesn't sound ok! Which should point to the fact that something is wrong either in the thinking pattern or in the way it is presented. Re-reading your full statememt in question, I find that you have qualified it with "According to the Canon...." which implies that your thinking pattern is of a different 'environment', which I NOW realize, AFTER having read your reply, to be in line with "Modern physiology distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary neural systems." Had you stated this para first.... "Modern physiology distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary neural systems. The involuntary nervous system makes the body work and act without any reference to the mind at all. In fact, the body can be kept alive for decades without a head or heart or any other base you may care to name. There are billions of impulses traversing the body each second that not even a Buddha could be aware of." ..... and then posed your question it would have made sense! I repeat, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. May you be happy! eznir 29130 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 0:01am Subject: RE: [dsg] Some Thoughts on Naturality Hi Howard, -----Original Message----- From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] Sent: Friday, 16 January 2004 3:19 AM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Some Thoughts on Naturality Hi, all - My future daughter-in-law gave me one of those "Zen calendars" for my desk - you know, the kind that has another "saying" for each day of the month. ================================================================== HH]It is one of my ambitions to have a future daughter-in-law like yours :-) ================================================================== Today's saying is "No snowflake ever falls in the wrong place." In thinking about what this means, it seemed to me that it means that a snowflake doesn't think or will, but just "does". That then got me to thinking about human beings. Now, we both think and we will. Also, there seem to be two kinds of willing: Willing that "just happens" and which we might call "natural," and willing which involves an imposition of "self" and of thought. (Perhaps this is three kinds - there can be thinking without an interposing of "self.") ================================================================= HH] Howard, have you ever come across the following schema to explain human behaviour re a certain activity or goal? (1) unconscious incompetence (2) conscious incompetence (3) conscious competence (4) unconscious competence It sounds like your "natural" willing could be either 1 or 4. 1 is not aware that they will and that it doesn't achieve it's goal. 4 is not aware that they will and that it reaches it's goal I think folks in the category 2 or 3 show plenty of neurotic behaviour while learning the task at hand. 2 is full of "shoulds" and "musts". 3 may well be less than a pleasant companion, what with all that "look at me" stuff :-) ================================================================== Then I got to thinking about the implication that the "natural" willing is good, but the other is bad. Well, I'm not entirely certain about that. I think that very much depends on the characteristics of the person willing and acting. An advanced ariyan, and certainly an arahant, will, when willing and acting "naturally," act usefully, beneficially, out of a wholesome state of mind. But what of a worldling who is filled with selfish, self-serving desires and inclinations? When s/he acts "naturally," automatically, and without interpo sing "self" or thought, s/he quite typically acts in service to desires and emotions, and may well cause great harm! I recall a sutta, probably more than one, in which the Buddha advised *stopping* and *considering* before acting! It is not just that he said to act with sharp awareness, sharp mindfulness and clear comprehension, but to actually cease for a moment and to think carefully about what one is about to say or do. Now that is not "natural," but for most of us, it *is* good - very good. What do you folks think? ======================================================================= Being aware of what one doesn't know i.e. being aware that what one is attempting to achieve ain't working, is a vital step in learning. And being aware that what one is trying to achieve is working is also a vital step in learning. Once the task is learned, awareness of it's execution is not necessary. All good and well for learning a piece on the piano, or riding a bike, but what are we actually willing to achieve? All the best Herman ================================================================= 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) 29131 From: connie Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 0:34am Subject: Re: heartbase/rebirth Dear Htoo Naing, Nina, op 15-01-2004 10:33 schreef connie op nichicon@h...: > Nina quoted: U Narada, p. 33: during the process of dying: > > Does this mean that heart-base is the object of the current bhavangas? N: it could never be the object of the bhavangas of that life, these only have one object: the same as the rebirth-consciousness which is the same as the last javanas of the previous life. Rebirth-consciousness, bhavangacitta and dying-consciousness of one life always have the same object, they are door-freed and process-freed. As to the last javanacittas in a life: these can take the heartbase as object, thus, these are not bhavangacittas. They are followed by the dying-consciousness of that life (that has, as said, its own object) and then the rebirth-consciousness of next life has the same object as the last javanas of the previous life, in this case the heartbase. Is there anything not yet clear? Nina. C: The dying javanas of pastConnie, say Bonnie, take Bonnie heartbase as object and pass that object onto the patisandhi of Connie, so all bhavangas of Connie have Bonnie's heartbase as their object is still how I read it. And when Connie dies, the future Donnie's bhavangas would come up with Connie's heartbase as their object. But no, because the Bonnie cuti follows the last 5 Bonnie javanas and cuti has it's own object and that cuti object has to be what is passed to the Connie patisandhi, not the javana's object. And I guess that Bonnie's heartbase rupa would be at it's 17th moment as the Connie patisandhi was arising. Also, the heartbase would not necessarily be the object of the last javanas, would it? And is it always the javanas that preceed the cuti? connie 29132 From: sinweiy Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 1:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma-fatigue As there is a saying that goes - Learn Buddhadharma for a year, Buddha is next to you; Learn Buddhadharma for 2 years, Buddha is up in the sky. Learn Buddhadharma for 3 years, Buddha is cover up by the clouds. Perhaps it's because of the over to the dharma or to the technique of "swimming" and is not really living it up with daily life or jumping into the real water? In reality, the Buddha never wished to spend time on speculative (or metaphysical) issues of the Universe as they have little value for spiritual development towards True Happiness. When reached the other shore, what for do i need the boat? It's time to do some true renouncing, which is the renouncing of the inside, five skandhas. From the Heart Sutra:- "…O Shariputra, a son or daughter of noble family who wishes to practice the profound prajnaparamita should see in this way: seeing the five skandhas to be empty of nature. ... In the same way, feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness are emptiness. Thus, Shariputra, all dharmas are emptiness. …" Might start from our worldly processions. OM GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SVAHA amtb, sinweiy ps: On living it with the microscopic particulars & infinite detail, want to try Avatamsaka (or Hua Yen or Flower Ornament) Sutra http://www.superprajna.com/Buddhism/Avatamsaka.html (With commentary) ... a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Christine, > > --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Group, > > > > I understand the purpose of studying the Abhidhamma in all its > > microscopic particulars is as an aid to realise the complete > > impermanence and anattaness of all dhammas. But, there is a > > problem - for me, at least. I find I've turned off and tuned out - > > actually several weeks ago - no longer read any of the technical > > posts and can't relate to the enthusiasm others seem to feel for > > discussing nama and rupa in infinite detail. > ..... > I'm not sure why this is a problem -- after all, it is the understanding > of realities whether reading miscroscopic particulars or having fun/not > having fun in any other way that counts. > .... > >Perhaps it's just a > > phase. Can't see anything about Abhidhamma-fatigue in the Useful > > Posts though ... > .... 29133 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 2:13am Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi Sarah, Sarah: I think I'll take anything further on UP off-list now, if you don't mind. If anyone has further suggestions for us or wishes to work on an alternative compilation, also pls let us know off-list or just do it! James: Yes, you are completely right. It was stupid of me to even mention it on-list. It is unrelated to the dhamma and it isn't a big deal; it is rather petty really. People in this group have the ability to think for themselves. I was just thinking outloud about the issue. Sometimes I forget that you and I are not having a private discussion in this forum because most people stay out of our discussions. Sorry again and I will try to be more mindful of this in the future. Please don't respond to this post…I want everyone to just forget this ugly business. (See…I don't want lingering evidence of my mistakes! ;-)) Sarah: By the way, are you still working on your book for children? I'll be seeing the kids again tomorrow and Saturday if you want a prompt. James: No, I feel that I still have a lot more to learn about the dhamma before I feel qualified to teach it to anyone…even children. I am waiting on that one. Metta, James 29134 From: icarofranca Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 2:34am Subject: Re: heartbase/rebirth Dear Connie Respectfully butting in... > C: The dying javanas of pastConnie, say Bonnie, take Bonnie heartbase as > object and pass that object onto the patisandhi of Connie, so all > bhavangas of Connie have Bonnie's heartbase as their object is still how > I read it. And when Connie dies, the future Donnie's bhavangas would > come up with Connie's heartbase as their object. > > But no, because the Bonnie cuti follows the last 5 Bonnie javanas and > cuti has it's own object and that cuti object has to be what is passed > to the Connie patisandhi, not the javana's object. And I guess that > Bonnie's heartbase rupa would be at it's 17th moment as the Connie > patisandhi was arising. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Well exposed and done, Connie! At my viewpoint, this Trio Patisandhi-Bhavanga-Cuti is better understood as Jhanas with Resultants at Form-sphere ( Since jhanas are built on heartbase, there is a strong connection between these issues!) So You got the Joy and Happiness of Bonnie resulting up, by the grace of the Jhana and its heartbase, at the Joy, happiness AND One- pointness with sustained application of Connie. Such Joy, Happiness and One-pointness sustained application of Connie are going to result - via heartbase always! - at the equanimity, Joy, happiness, atc, of Donnie, Tonnie, Gonnie... What a lucky girl you are! What is passing on by and by is Patisansdhi and not the Javana´s object, due its analogy with the Jhanas - even at the form sphere! > Also, the heartbase would not necessarily be the object of the last > javanas, would it? Why not? Equanimity, happiness, joy...are all grounded on heartbase and are find even at more ethereal Jhanas!!! > > And is it always the javanas that preceed the cuti? When you got the Functional Jhana Resultants, you have got Javanas AFTER Cuti Mettaya, Ícaro 29135 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 2:51am Subject: Re: heartbase/rebirth Dear Connie, I hope these comments will help. With Unlimited Metta, htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > Dear Htoo Naing, Nina, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Connie: The dying javanas of pastConnie, say Bonnie, take Bonnie heartbase as object and pass that object onto the patisandhi of Connie, so all bhavangas of Connie have Bonnie's heartbase as their object is still how I read it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo : No. Connie. The dying Javanas of Bonnie had to depend on Bonnie's heartbase as their home. But their object ( Arammana ) as a sense was different that is not heartbase. Bonnie's heartbase died out when he died. So,Bonnie could not give her heartbase to Connie. But Bonnie was sensing something consciously in his last moments. That sense is now unconsciously being sensed by Connie. The connection is there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Connie : And when Connie dies, the future Donnie's bhavangas would come up with Connie's heartbase as their object. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo : No. This has been explained above. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Connie :But no, because the Bonnie cuti follows the last 5 Bonnie javanas and cuti has it's own object and that cuti object has to be what is passed to the Connie patisandhi, not the javana's object. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo : Connie. You seem to be confused. Bonnie's Cuti seated Bonnie's heartbase and it was sensing Gonnie's( past Bonnie ) Javana object. Bonnie Cuti object and Connie are not related and not connected. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Connie : And I guess that Bonnie's heartbase rupa would be at it's 17th moment as the Connie patisandhi was arising. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo : No. When Bonnie's heartbase was at its 17th moment, there was no Patisandhi of Connie. When Bonnie's heartbase died out, Connie's Patisandhi arised. This is without interval and known as Anantara ( An- Antara ,no interval/space). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Connie : Also, the heartbase would not necessarily be the object of the last javanas, would it? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo : Heartbase is never the object ( Arammana ) of Javana. Object of Javana are Kamma, Kamma Nimitta, Gati Nimitta. Not a heartbase. But last Javanas do depend on heart base as mind seat. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Connie :And is it always the javanas that preceed the cuti? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo : No. Not always. Sometimes Bhavanga Citta preceeds the Cuti. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > connie 29136 From: Sarah Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: heartbase/rebirth Hi Chris (& Icaro), I haven't followed the logic of it yet, but perhaps even a quick glance at an Icaro post (with Connie's help) is surely enough to get anyone through 'Abhidhamma fatigue';-) --- icarofranca wrote: > Dear Connie > So You got the Joy and Happiness of Bonnie resulting up, by the > grace of the Jhana and its heartbase, at the Joy, happiness AND One- > pointness with sustained application of Connie. Such Joy, Happiness > and One-pointness sustained application of Connie are going to > result - via heartbase always! - at the equanimity, Joy, happiness, > atc, of Donnie, Tonnie, Gonnie... > > What a lucky girl you are! .... Great to see you back, Icaro with your own practical solutions to lost red slippers, Abhidhamma napping and heart to hearts;-) Metta, Sarah p.s. space has been made in the photo album section for your (temp.) folder of boot-camp..... New members, lots of room for member pix now!! ====== 29137 From: icarofranca Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:34am Subject: Re: heartbase/rebirth Dera Htoo > > I hope these comments will help. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Respectfully butting in II... ------------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > Htoo : No. Connie. The dying Javanas of Bonnie had to depend on > Bonnie's heartbase as their home. But their object ( Arammana ) as a > sense was different that is not heartbase. Bonnie's heartbase died > out when he died. > > So,Bonnie could not give her heartbase to Connie. But Bonnie was > sensing something consciously in his last moments. That sense is now > unconsciously being sensed by Connie. The connection is there. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- There are six kinds of bases: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and heart, all these found in the sense-sphere...but the mind element, namely, the five-door averting consciousness and the two receiving consciousness, that rest in dependence of the heart base, the same with the remaining-mind-conscious-element ( that in my opinion is linked with rebirth),the same with Kusala, akusala, Functional, resultant etc. The only one independent of the heart-base is the formless-sphere resultant. (Vatthu sangaho) "Vatthusangahe vatthuni nama cakkhu sota ghana jivha kaya hadayavatthu c´ati chabbidhani bhavanti", etc,"Tani kamaloke sabbani ´pi labbhanti. Rupaloke pana ghanadittiyam natthi. Arupaloke pana sabbani ´pi na samvijjanti," and so on... Following up your reasoning, Htoo, the one form of consciousness Bonnie could transmit to Connie and so on is the Formless- sphere- resultants, since by your hipothesis the heart-base dies with each individual. Seems to me that the Abhidhamma Puggala states something different...but I may be wrong!!! Mettaya, Ícaro 29138 From: icarofranca Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:41am Subject: [dsg] Re: heartbase/rebirth Dear Sarah: Hi Chris (& Icaro), > > I haven't followed the logic of it yet, but perhaps even a quick glance at > an Icaro post (with Connie's help) is surely enough to get anyone through > 'Abhidhamma fatigue';-) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Geeeezzzz.... it´s good to be back!!!! Mettaya, Ícaro 29139 From: Htoo Naing Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:57am Subject: Contemplation On Own Body ( 06 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, The Dhamma practitioner has been striving his Mahasatipatthana( meditation ) practice diligently. He has practised breathing meditation in detail. He has meditated on his body positions. He also has meditated on all his bodily movements. He has contemplated on each of 32 parts of his body. He has contemplated on basic four elements of his own body. He is still striving to attain a special wisdom. Now he realises that he is made up of body and mind. He is made up of Nama and Rupa. Nama or mind has to depend on Rupa ( body ). When the body does not admit this, when his Kamma does not admit him to stay any longer, when both body and Kamma do not allow him to stay in his very present life or even before the end of his present bodily life and Kamma life when he is no more allowed to stay in his very present life, Nama or mind does not have a chance to stay any more moment on the present body. If so, the left body will be just a corpse. This will happen surely at some time in his life. This is universal and all beings have to face one day. This kind of contemplation is a form of repeatitive contemplation called Anussati Kammatthana ( contemplating meditation ). As it is related to death, it is called Marana Anussati or death contemplation. The practitioner is contemplating on death. It is quite possible that one day he will definitely die. All his ancestors have died and they all left their respective bodies. When mind can no more stay on its co-existing body then the body is just a corpse. It will be like a log thrown on roadside, in forest, in jungle, and etc. When the corpse is a day or two or three days old, the body parts become swollen, become blueish, bloated, and festering as there are many reactions inside of that corpse and this is called Utuja Rupa. That corpse is not to be attached and no one will occupy that swollen corpse. After 3 days onward, the corpse will be bitten and nicked by crows, hawks, vultures, herons, dogs, tigers, leopards, jackals, worms etc etc. They will eat away the parts they like and the corpse will be thrown into a disfigured corpse with unidentifiable identity. As all the flesh of corpse has been eaten away, there left little flesh. The whole corpse is like just a skeleton. But that skeleton has some flesh and there is blood stick to some bones and some flesh. After that the corpse will not have any flesh and the whole corpse will be just a collection of bones fitted into a recognizable as human skeleton. But in that skeleton there is some blood smeared here and there as a remanant. After that stage the corpse will be seen as just a human skeleton and that skeleton is as dry as stone and there is no trace of blood and the whole skeleton is completely dry. In due course, the corpse becomes just loose bones and the bones are scattered here and there and there is just some recognition as human bones or may not be recognized as human bones. After that, the corpse is just scattered bones and the bones become white and dry. This happens on the corpse and after a year the bones become just bones and they start to decay. They become rotten, disintegrate and become just dust and finally there is nothing but dust and just Rupa that is four basis elements. In this way, the meditator contemplate on death and contemplate on his own body as potential corpse. There is nothing to be attached to own body as own or self identity or anything like that but just body and just Rupa. May you all be able to contemplate on your own body as a corpse. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 29140 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 6:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: heartbase/rebirth Hi Icaro and (Htoo) To me, heartbase must die when the cuti citta cease to exist, a new heartbase will be arise with rebirth-linking citta conditioned by kamma (only in the case where there is nama and rupa). Htoo - That sense is now unconsciously being sensed by Connie. The connection is there. Could you clarify bc I am abit confused by what you are saying, the connection should be kamma and not others. best wishes Ken O 29141 From: ashkenn2k Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 7:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <> Hi Michael M: > I don't say that the characteristics are inseparable from the dhammas. I say that dhammas and characteristics arise interdependently. k: I dont think they are interdependently, bc dhamma dont depend on its characteristics to arise, it is the characteristic that needed the dhamma to arise in order to manifest itself. M: The word ultimate reality means what it means. You may not like it but that's what it is. Now if you don't intent to convey the idea of an ultimate reality then don't use those words. The Buddha never used them. I don't think the commentators were that dumm. They knew what they were writing about and they have chosen to define dhammas as ultimate realities. k: I check the meaning of ultimate - highest and undistorted sense; or it is the sense that comes within the sphere of knowledge that is highest and ultimate - is there anything imply here that is substanlism. So an ultimate reality is just describing khandhas (khandhas are paramathas dhamma) comes within the highest sphere of knowlegde - I think dont think this is not congruent with what Buddha describe the way to liberation throught the usage of khandhas as an expedient. k: Canki Sutta I encourage to look at the commentary yourself and not from any of us in DSG to tell you what the commentary writes. Read the commentary with a critical mind, investigate yourself and observe for yourself and not from other, this is what the Canki sutta is all about. Then it will be more fruitful and I sincerely hope you see for yourself. Best wishes Ken O 29142 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Math Hi Howard, thanks :-) See below. op 17-01-2004 00:31 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > WARNING: Reading the following message may be dangerous to one's health, > causing a reaction of nausea in any who are allergic either to Abhidhamma or > to > Mathematics! N: It depends on people's accumulated biasses and inclinations how they react to this. As to old timers here, it is quite predictable how they react. Some Dhamma students with scientific background may take to your presentation, they are bound to like it. Others who suffer from Abhidhamma fatigue, when they read your article, may find that the Abhidhamma in this way is indeed like a valley of dry bones, as Rhys Davis said. Others again may find that there is something missing here, that there is no connection with daily life. What that something is that is missing I cannot and will not explain in one sentence or one Email, but only step by step. I am sure you guess what it is! Thank you all the same, this Mail makes it even clearer to me which dilemmas can arise for the Dhamma student, Nina. 29143 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: brave soldiers, to Icaro Dear Icaro op 16-01-2004 23:58 schreef icarofranca op icarofranca@y...: > Abhidhamma at everyday life begins with Kusala, Akusala and Kusalaakusala > dhammas.At the other end, seeing Nama, Rupa and Nibbana as beyond generalities > about concepts is a great step for mind! N: Here we come to the essence. When we think only of concepts we never come to the heart of the matter, we always miss it. I: You reminded me of a an old tale about a girl who was so overjoyed to >> put on a beautiful pair of red slippers only to find that she couldn't >> stop dancing or take them off... > I hope not stop dancing at this floor.. N: When I received my Yamaka Pali and Co. I thought of you dancing when having downloaded all from Tipitaka org. I felt also like dancing, although I cannot dance. When we read the Yamaka there are questions and answers, and it is not easy reading. But with the Co these become so much more meaningful. The text comes to life. I: . Buddhaghosa still fools me with all that Baroque Pali of Tikas!!!!! N: Visuddhimagga is from Buddhaghosa, and the Tiika is from Dhammapaala, a later Commentator, but firmly rooted in the ancient commentarial tradition. Worth while to try him out, and then we see that he is so helpful. Now as to the Pali of the Tiika: at first I thought that I could not read it, but, like a good soldier we should never give up. Just going on, and then, here we go. Even though I know that I make mistakes. And also: never retreat, never give up satipatthana just now, the packing list is right at hand. Like brave Dhamma soldiers. In this sense I like the military spirit! All the best and success! Nina. 29144 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 10:03am Subject: beginners Dear Sarah, Another point. Alan wrote to me saying that he is interested in a tape for beginners. He will put this on his computer. But, this is the question: who is a beginner and who is not? About what do we talk to those who have never studied the Dhamma before? We can ask Kh Sujin, this can be very interesting. It is easy to get a selection for Alan and no problem to send them from here to England. Nina. 29145 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] red slippers Dear Connie, op 16-01-2004 22:51 schreef connie op nichicon@h...: I believe the Tipitaka site is still using > that one. The secret decoder ring insert follows for those who might be > interested in seeing Apples through my Windows. > VRI code: N: Yes, the same, thank you. Only we usually keep it simple, not using capitals. Thus those longhorns we do not need, and difficult to use in command: search and replace. And the quote signs, but I am used to these. Nina. > > Þ longhorn = .D > Ý y fwdhat = .T > > ì i bkwdhat = " (dbl quote) > î i duncehat = "n (n w/dot on top) > 29146 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 2:01pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: heartbase/rebirth Hi Ken and everyone, Wouldn't it be better to just wait till you die, and make a mental note of what is actually happening? All the best Herman -----Original Message----- From: Kenneth Ong [mailto:ashkenn2k@y...] Sent: Sunday, 18 January 2004 1:10 AM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: heartbase/rebirth Hi Icaro and (Htoo) To me, heartbase must die when the cuti citta cease to exist, a new heartbase will be arise with rebirth-linking citta conditioned by kamma (only in the case where there is nama and rupa). Htoo - That sense is now unconsciously being sensed by Connie. The connection is there. Could you clarify bc I am abit confused by what you are saying, the connection should be kamma and not others. best wishes Ken O 29147 From: Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Thoughts on Naturality Hi, Herman - In a message dated 1/17/04 3:02:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, hhofman@t... writes: > HH] Howard, have you ever come across the following schema to explain > human behaviour re a certain activity or goal? > > (1) unconscious incompetence > (2) conscious incompetence > (3) conscious competence > (4) unconscious competence > > It sounds like your "natural" willing could be either 1 or 4. > > 1 is not aware that they will and that it doesn't achieve it's goal. > 4 is not aware that they will and that it reaches it's goal > > I think folks in the category 2 or 3 show plenty of neurotic behaviour > while learning the task at hand. 2 is full of "shoulds" and "musts". 3 > may well be less than a pleasant companion, what with all that "look at > me" stuff :-) > ========================= I haven't heard of this, but it is interesting. Yes, I guess natural willing could indeed be 1 or 4. I picture 4, in its ultimate perfection, as the mode of action of an arahant. I picture 1 as the mode of action of one who sleepwalks through life. And I think that 2 and 3, in varying combinations and strengths constitute the mode of actions of most of us. 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) 29148 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:09pm Subject: Re: An Abhidhamma-Related Mathematical Model of Consciousness Hi Howard, Howard: Certainly, I will also be pleased to hear from those of you without knowledge/interest in Abhidhamma or Mathematics, or both! ;-) James: Well, I guess I qualify in both areas! Okay, I have gotten over my math phobia and taken a look at your model! ;-) First, bottom line, I don't agree with your model even though it is nicely planned out. Here is why: You are describing consciousness as a self-regulating, repeating, phenomena of `open intervals' during which objects may or may not be cognized singly. This is in order to justify a `continuous stream' model of consciousness which you favor over a `namarupic' dependent stream. These intervals are supposed to have `zero duration points' at which they change, but there is never a break in consciousness. Any type of break in consciousness would be because the rupa fell away during an open interval before another arose and therefore would seem to be a break in consciousness but wouldn't be an actual break. Running in tandem with these open intervals would be `concomitant intervals' which also have zero points and may or may not overlap. These concomitant intervals would account for such things as emotions and moods. Am I following you so far? This model reminds me of Adobe Premiere which has video editing, special effects editing, and sound editing running concurrently on different timelines. It is also a bit like Flash which uses various timelines to create animations. The problem is that consciousness is dependent on rupa to arise and when the rupa ceases, the consciousness ceases. Consciousness isn't a self-regulating process of `open intervals' waiting for an object, it depends on the rupa to arise and when the rupa ceases, it will also disappear. Only the consciousness of the enlightened isn't dependent on rupa to arise and therefore doesn't cease. One citta must completely disappear before the next arises and one rupa will equal seventeen moments of citta until that citta has no more object and so that series of cittas will cease until there is another rupa that arises to attach to. The rupa is like a magnet that draws the cittas into being but the cittas oscillate, they aren't constant. They arise/fall, arise/fall, arise/fall, arise/fall, arise/fall…etc. When the rupa finally falls away, the citta process is quick to follow after that. I believe in this model because I have seen it for myself in very deep meditation. I have seen that the consciousness of a particular object (rupa) will attach to that object several times in succession and the consciousness isn't always the same and the object of attention isn't the same, like I wrote before: inside, outside, close, far, above, below, etc. When that object finally falls away, the consciousness that was attached to it falls away also. I have seen that the object (rupa) falls away first. Then consciousness doesn't begin again until there is another rupa to serve as a `magnet' for it. I know it sounds weird, and it is the darndest thing to experience, because it is completely out of your control (all you can do is watch it). Now, if this lack of control at the microscopic level means lack of control at the macroscopic level is debatable, but I am keeping an open mind about that. Metta, James Ps. I am just going to reply to your post on this list if you don't mind. It could get confusing otherwise. 29149 From: connie Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 4:41pm Subject: the return of Angulimala Dear Well-Rested and Fatigued, Let me confess that I awoke in the middle of the night under a big white flag with the motto "how stupid" for dancing about trying to find the object of bhavangas and wonder if I might hide myself at James' while I relax with a Pali dictionary, Icaro's influence on me. But maybe I can distract you with a tale about a certain necklace as given in the Mongolian Jatakas. I apologize for the length, but it's the best I could do without losing the nice flavour. peace, connie Angulimala's father was a wise, intelligent, exceedingly wealthy minister to King Prasejanit and from the highest caste. His gentle natured wife had become even more so as soon as the child had entered her womb, rejoicing on hearing of others' virtues and goodness and unhappy hearing of faults or evils, with great compassion on destitute beggars so the soothsayer called to name the child said his "name must be that of one who performs virute. His name will be Angulimala". This boy could run faster than horses, was stronger than an elephant and jumped as high as birds can fly. This was because he had once been a monk during the time of Kasyapa who had been unable to wade through the water to find anything to protect a crop he had been weeding when a terrible storm came up and he had vowed to have these strengths. He also prayed to meet the future Buddha Shakyamuni and be liberated from the Round. When he went to his teacher, he learned in a single day what took the others a year and the brahmin's wife fell in love with the lad. Once, when a master of gifts invited the school to help him for 3 months, Angulimala was left behind to help the wife and when he refused to satisfy the woman's passion, she decided upon revenge. Her husband found her on the floor with a torn dress and scratched cheek, sobbing over what she claimed was too shameful to tell. Naturally, the husband devised the ruse of the great secret teaching requiring 7 days of fasting and the necklace that would ensure rebirth as Brahma to punish this powerful son of a nobleman. Being no fool, Angulimala had some doubt, but the teacher plunged a sword into the earth after enchanting it with a magic formula so that a great rage arose in the boy and he was able to collect the first 999 fingers in 7 days, but couldn't find a single person after that until his mother, knowing he hadn't eaten, came to bring him food and ask about his terrible deeds. When he explained, saying she was next, she just said "You are not going to kill me or take my fingers". Then the Buddha steps into view and Angie's strength was drained away so that he found himself unable to run and Buddha explained that He was always sitting because of having the power of the samadhis through having calmed his senses, but that Angie had learned the wrong teachings from an evil teacher and relied on evil acts. Then He dropped the monk disguise and showed his true shining and adorned body, whereupon our boy felt remorse, confessed and heard the teachings, attaining the eye of the Dharma and firm faith and wished to become a monk. Buddha said "Welcome" and Angie's beard and hair fell out and he was a monk. Still, the countryside was in such fear that even a cow elephant was unable to give birth until our born again Buddhist said, "Unborn from the very beginning, I have killed no man". The king and army searching for him were sidetracked when their animals stopped to enjoy the beautiful sounds of an exceedingly ugly arahant monk reciting scriptures. For 500 lives he had been reborn short and ugly as a result of his anger and laziness when he helped build a tremendous jeweled stupa during the time of Kasyapa, but had a beautiful voice because he had regretted his fault when it was done and hung a golden bell atop it with the vow that he would always have a voice others would rejoice to hear and that he would meet Shakyamuni. Then the discussion turned to Angulimala and Buddha explained that he was now a monk and the search was over, he would take the king to meet him. The king was so uncertain that even hearing Angulimala's cough as they were outside the door caused him to faint when he remembered the murdered people... just as in an earlier time Angie had been a poisonous deadly insect eating bird whose very shadow could wither trees and the king, then an elephant king, had fainted when he heard him. Buddha then tells the king the story of Stripefoot, a king who had been conceived in fear of a lioness when his father had been departed from his entourage while chasing an antelope. Once, when he had promised to sport with whichever of his two wives should catch him first, the brahmin wife who had stopped to worship at a shine had lost the race and in her anger when the diety hadn't helped her, destroyed the shrine and the deity, in anger and confusion, decided the king would pay. Thus, one day when a rishi didn't make his customary alms visit to the castle, the diety took his place and refused his usual servant's fare, stating that henceforth he would only eat meat and fish. Insulted by this offering the next day, the real rishi cursed the king, saying "may you eat nothing but human flesh for 12 years". As it happens, one day there was no meat, but the king's cook finally found a dead child along the road and served this to the king, who, even after the cook confessed, said that he would have only this excellent fare in the future. When the cook was finally captured kidnapping another child, he was brought before the king and when the ministers were enraged upon king's confession, agreed that the monstrous king should be done away with. With the soldiers, they caught him in his bathing pool and placed him under arrest, whereupon he promised to refrain from evil in the future and the ministers agreed to spare him if it rained black rain and a black serpent coiled itself around his head. Instead, the king prayed to become a dragon by the power of his past virutes and thereby made his escape into the firmament where he said "In the future may it be you who are killed and may I eat your beloved wives and children" and flew away to another country. Here, the people came to live in fear and the other dragons became his followers. In honor of this, 999 princes were captured for a feast, but there was one missing. The terrified princes convinced King Sripefoot to capture the clever Suasomaputra, knowing he would think of a way to set them free. He was captured while listening to the Dharma and cried like a baby at not being able to hear the rest, but as he'd never told a lie and promised to return in 7 days, Stripefoot let him go. The brahmin spoke verses about the kalpa's end and the never exhausted round where evil arises from desire as all effect arises from a cause and "the true and certain become false"; where all appear thru ignorance as in the magic show and the mind without reality, arising from non-knowing, dwells with the four serpents and grasps at pleasurable things. He asks how the eternal can be in either form or thought and how, as body and mind are separate, he could be departed from the kingdom and our good prince, thinking on the meaning, rejoiced. His ministers tried to talk him into building an iron castle to live in, but since it is better to die than lie, our man kept his word and returned to offer himself up to the dragon. As he was so happy upon his return, Stripefoot wanted to hear what had happened and decided to give up killing and release all the princes. As he was now tamed and knew the Dharma, and the 12 year curse had ended, Stripefoot returned to his former kingdom and ruled justly. Our fainting king's men were those who throughout all their births had wanted to kill Angie Stripefoot whom Buddha, tamer of men and he who had removed all obstacles, had always 'turned back from evil and brought to supreme happiness'. Now, the fainthearted king wondered why all this killing had come about in the first place and was told the tale of a younger prince who had become a hermit until after his father and then his elder brother had died and the ministers of the country had sought him out and beseeched him to have compassion and agree to be the protector of his people. Alas, he hadn't yet cut off attachment and his passion for women came to master him so that it was proclaimed that all the maidens must first come to him before they married, and this was done. Then one day at a gathering of many people, a certain woman made water in front of everyone and when the people burst out laughing she asked what was wrong with a woman doing so in front of only other women as there were no other men in the country besides the king for if the others were real men, they "would do the thing" themselves. In shame, the people agreed that the king's behaviour had departed from the good and he should be destroyed. Once again, the soldiers sprang upon him in his bath and this time said they'd spare him if black snow fell and a poison serpent wrapped itself about his neck. Angered, the king reminded them of his hermitage and reluctance to return and vowed that if they killed him, he would meet and kill them in future lives... and so he had done as retribution for evil is inevitable. In fact, Buddha told the king "Even now as Angulimala sits in his dwelling, the fires of hell blaze forth from the hairs of his body" and sent a monk to open Angie's door and peek in, but when he tried, the key melted in the lock. The final paragraph reads: Then Ananda, the monks, the king, and the great assembly, having heard the Buddha's exposition of the law of retribution, exerted themselves and thought on the Four Truths. Some became streamwinners, some became once-returners, some become never-returners, and some became arhats. Some brought forth a mind of Supreme Enlightenment. Some entered the realm of no-return. Some directed their body, speech, and mind toward virtue and having faith in the Buddha's word, rejoiced greatly. 29150 From: Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 5:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: heartbase/rebirth Hi Connie and Htoo, Would it be correct to say the heartbase could be an object of javana only if the javana consciousness were a very high degree of amoha (panna/wisdom)? At that level, presumably, there wouldn't be a future life. Even so, there is reason to doubt that this could happen. I see that the Vism. commentary says the heartbase is to be known "from scriptures and from reasoning", in other words, conceptually. Also, I was wondering what, if any, difference one's bhavanga citta makes. If my last conscious moment manifests as a hatred for apples, that javana series will have kammic consequences but will the hatred for apples that manifests countless times as bhavanga in my next life have any kammic consequences, become a latent tendency, or in any way characterize my behaviour? Larry 29151 From: Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 1:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Abhidhamma-Related Mathematical Model of Consciousness Hi, James - In a message dated 1/17/04 6:11:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Howard: Certainly, I will also be pleased to hear from those of you > without knowledge/interest in Abhidhamma or Mathematics, or both! > ;-) > > James: Well, I guess I qualify in both areas! Okay, I have gotten > over my math phobia and taken a look at your model! ;-) First, > bottom line, I don't agree with your model even though it is nicely > planned out. Here is why: You are describing consciousness as a > self-regulating, repeating, phenomena of `open intervals' during > which objects may or may not be cognized singly. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't understand. What do you mean by self-regulating? And why do you say objects may or may not be cognized singly? In this scheme there is consciousness when and only when there is an object of consciousness, and that is all the time except at the instants of object change, when there is neither consciousness nor object of consciousness. ---------------------------------------------------- This is in order to > > justify a `continuous stream' model of consciousness which you favor > over a `namarupic' dependent stream. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: The objects are nama and rupas, and every object co-occurs with the cognizing of it , and there is no cognizing without an object. ---------------------------------------------------- These intervals are supposed to > > have `zero duration points' at which they change, but there is never > a break in consciousness. Any type of break in consciousness would > be because the rupa fell away during an open interval before another > arose and therefore would seem to be a break in consciousness but > wouldn't be an actual break. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: It would be a break, but not a gap. By a gap, I mean a break of positive duration. ------------------------------------------------------ Running in tandem with these open > > intervals would be `concomitant intervals' which also have zero > points and may or may not overlap. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Actually, because of universal cetasikas, a number, at least seven I guess, if Abhidhamma is to be accepted, of concomitant intervals would all completely coincide with their entire object interval. ----------------------------------------------------- These concomitant intervals would > > account for such things as emotions and moods. Am I following you so > far? ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Each concomitant mental factor would occur in an associated concomitant interval. ------------------------------------------------------ This model reminds me of Adobe Premiere which has video > > editing, special effects editing, and sound editing running > concurrently on different timelines. It is also a bit like Flash > which uses various timelines to create animations. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know these. ------------------------------------------------------- > > The problem is that consciousness is dependent on rupa to arise and > when the rupa ceases, the consciousness ceases. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Why is that a problem? (Of course the object needn't be a rupa, but that's another issue.) That is exactly what this model says. That is built directly into the model. --------------------------------------------------------- Consciousness isn't > > a self-regulating process of `open intervals' waiting for an object, > it depends on the rupa to arise and when the rupa ceases, it will > also disappear. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The object intervals are exactly periods in which there is the consciousness of an object. When the object ceases so does the consciousness, and when the consciousness ceases, so does the object. There is no consciousness waiting in an interval for an object! That isn't being said at all. Whwn one arises, so does the other; when one ceases, so does the other. ----------------------------------------------------------- Only the consciousness of the enlightened isn't > > dependent on rupa to arise and therefore doesn't cease. One citta > must completely disappear before the next arises and one rupa will > equal seventeen moments of citta until that citta has no more object > and so that series of cittas will cease until there is another rupa > that arises to attach to. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: If you look at the definition of citta given in the model, you will see that no two cittas exist at the same time for even an instant. And the number of cittas occurring during an object interval simply isn't specified in this model. If one wanted to refine the model by building in the Abhidhammic restriction that there be 17 cittas in each object interval for an object that is a rupa, one could certainly do so. There are lots of details assumed in Abhidhamma that haven't been imposed on this model but could be. ---------------------------------------------------------- > The rupa is like a magnet that draws the > cittas into being but the cittas oscillate, they aren't constant. > They arise/fall, arise/fall, arise/fall, arise/fall, arise/fall…etc. > When the rupa finally falls away, the citta process is quick to > follow after that. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't follow what you are saying here. --------------------------------------------------------- I believe in this model because I have seen it > > for myself in very deep meditation. > I have seen that the > > consciousness of a particular object (rupa) will attach to that > object several times in succession and the consciousness isn't always > the same and the object of attention isn't the same, like I wrote > before: inside, outside, close, far, above, below, etc. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: In what Abhidhamma calls a process, there is but one object, lasting throughout the entire sequence of cittas. I'm trying to model the Abhidhammic view. When there is change of object, it is a new process. ---------------------------------------------------- When that > > object finally falls away, the consciousness that was attached to it > falls away also. I have seen that the object (rupa) falls away > first. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: The consciousness that experienced that object has also fallen away; it is no longer the same consciousness. ----------------------------------------------------------- Then consciousness doesn't begin again until there is another > > rupa to serve as a `magnet' for it. I know it sounds weird, and it > is the darndest thing to experience, because it is completely out of > your control (all you can do is watch it). > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree there is no control of this. Whatever arises (consciousness together with object) is conditioned by prior conditions, and that is that. But any*experienced* object (rupa or not) cannot precede the consciousness observing it, else it is not observed. There can be the fresh memory of it having just passed, but the experienced object and the experincing of it are co-occurring. ----------------------------------------------------------- Now, if this lack of > > control at the microscopic level means lack of control at the > macroscopic level is debatable, but I am keeping an open mind about > that. > > Metta, James > Ps. I am just going to reply to your post on this list if you don't > mind. It could get confusing otherwise. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Good. this list is really the proper venue for it, I think. ============================ 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) 29152 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 6:14pm Subject: Re: the return of Angulimala Holy Mackerel, Connie! Thanks for the Mother-of-All Incomprehensible Tales. Without T.V., I imagine this style of story would have stood in the place of the entertainment offered nowadays by T.V. movies and serials around the fire, by lamplight, on a dark winters' night in outer Mongolia. Same Old, same old though ... same old stereotypes, and same old mentality... In Cowells' translation of The Jataka Tales, (No. 537) Mahaa- Sutasoma-Jaataka tells how Angulmaala, cruel and bloodstained robber and man eater [so he was worse, then 'improves' in our sutta!], was also tamed by the Buddha when he (the Buddha) was "living in a previous stage of existence and in a condition of only limited knowledge." However - the Tale is 42 pages long, so I'll spare you. :-) Well! maybe the sutta version and explanations were not so bad! Everything is relative ... Certainly more entertaining than a summary offered at: http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/ay/angulimaala.htm metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" maybe I can > distract you with a tale about a certain necklace as given in the > Mongolian Jatakas. I apologize for the length, but it's the best I > could do without losing the nice flavour. > peace, > connie 29153 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 7:39pm Subject: Samyutta Nikaya 3 Kosalasamyutta 22 (2) Grandmother Dear Group, King Pasenadi's Nana dies, and miserable and hurting he goes to the Blessed One. He seems to have loved her very dearly, and like all of us, would have bargained with death, if only he could... metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- Samyutta Nikaya 3 Kosalasamyutta 22 (2) Grandmother "At Saavatthi. Then, in the middle of the day, King Pasenadi of Kosala approached the Blessed One... The Blessed One said to him as he was sitting to one side: "Where are you coming from, great king, in the middle of the day?" "Venerable sir, my grandmother has died. She was old, aged, burdened with years, advanced in life, come to the last stage, 120 years from birth. Venerable sir, my grandmother was dear and beloved to me. If, venerable sir, by means of th elephant-gem I could have redeemed her from death, I would have given away even the elephant-gem so that she would not have died. [n.251] If by means of the horse-gem I could have redeemed her from death ... If by a prize village I could have redeemed her from death ... If by means of the country I could have redeemed her from death, I would have given away even the country so that she would not have died." "All beings, great king, are subject to death, terminate in death, and cannot escape death." "It is wonderful, venerable sir! It is amazing, venerable sir! How well this has been stated by the Blessed One: 'All beings, great king, are subject to death, terminate in death, and cannot escape death.'" "So it is, great king! So it is, great king! All beings, great king, are subject to death, terminate in death, and cannot escape death. Just as all the potter's vessels, whether unbaked or baked, are subject to a breakup, terminate in their breakup, and cannot escape their breakup, so all beings are subject to death, terminate in death, and cannot escape death. "All beings will die, "For life ends in death, They will fare according to their deeds, Reaping the fruits of their merit and evil: The doers of evil go to hell, The doers of merit to a happy realm. "Therefore one should do what is good As a collection for the future life. Merits are the support for living beings ]When they arise] in the other world." in note 251 - Spk: When his mother died his grandmother filled her place in bringing him up; hence he had such a strong affection for her. The elephant-gem was an elephant worth 100,000 kahaapana, decked with ornaments worth the same amount. The same explanation applies to the horse-gem and the prize village. 29154 From: Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:05pm Subject: A Missing Feature (Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Math) Hi, Nina - I think that there is a feature missing from the model I gave that is important to mention, though it may wellnot be what you had in mind. Now, this may or may not be consistent with Abhidhamma, but I believe that nothing remains *exactly* the same even for a moment. At the very least, for any cetasika and for any experienced of an object, that cetasika or object changes in intensity during its interval of existence, first increasing, then peaking, then decreasing. As an example, there might be, at some point in time within a namarupic flow, no anger whatsoever, but then anger arises, grows gradually, peaks, then decreases, and finally ceases. (It could, of course, then arise once again, in a subsequrent citta.) So, I see a constant flux occurring at all times, with nothing at all remaining exactly the same. Without mentioning that, it might be taken that the model I gave explicity rules that out, but that was not my intention. With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/17/04 1:09:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > > Hi Howard, > thanks :-) > See below. > op 17-01-2004 00:31 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > >WARNING: Reading the following message may be dangerous to one's health, > >causing a reaction of nausea in any who are allergic either to Abhidhamma > or > >to > >Mathematics! > N: It depends on people's accumulated biasses and inclinations how they > react to this. As to old timers here, it is quite predictable how they > react. > Some Dhamma students with scientific background may take to your > presentation, they are bound to like it. Others who suffer from Abhidhamma > fatigue, when they read your article, may find that the Abhidhamma in this > way is indeed like a valley of dry bones, as Rhys Davis said. Others again > may find that there is something missing here, that there is no connection > with daily life. > What that something is that is missing I cannot and will not explain in one > sentence or one Email, but only step by step. I am sure you guess what it > is! > Thank you all the same, this Mail makes it even clearer to me which dilemmas > can arise for the Dhamma student, > Nina. > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 29155 From: Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 3:10pm Subject: Re: A Missing Feature (Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Math) Hi again, Nina - The following is a typo. > At the very least, > for any cetasika and for any experienced of an object, ... > It *should* read as follows: "At the very least, for any cetasika and for any experienced object, ..." 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) 29156 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: heartbase/rebirth Dear Connie, Donnie, Bonnie, op 17-01-2004 09:34 schreef connie op nichicon@h...: > Also, the heartbase would not necessarily be the object of the last > javanas, would it? N: Not at all, it can be any object through one of the six doors, and this depends on the kamma that will produce the following rebirth. However, as I quoted from U Narada, the last javanas can have heartbase as their object. He gave the example:U Narada, p. 33: during the process of dying: C: And is it always the javanas that preceed the cuti? N: These javanas conditioned by kamma are decisive for one's next life. But these javanas are usually only five and also they are weak. Still, it is kamma that conditions them. > C: The dying javanas of pastConnie, say Bonnie, take Bonnie heartbase as > object and pass that object onto the patisandhi of Connie, so all > bhavangas of Connie have Bonnie's heartbase as their object is still how > I read it. N: correct. C:And when Connie dies, the future Donnie's bhavangas would > come up with Connie's heartbase as their object. N: The object of rebirth, bhavangas and cuti of the Donnie life can change entirely. C: But no, because the Bonnie cuti follows the last 5 Bonnie javanas and > cuti has it's own object and that cuti object has to be what is passed > to the Connie patisandhi, not the javana's object. N: No. The cuticitta has nothing to pass, except accumulated tendencies. No object is passed from Bonnie cuti to the next Connie patisandhi. you have to look back at the last javanas of a life, that is what counts. We have to be careful with the expression: passing an object. C:And I guess that > Bonnie's heartbase rupa would be at it's 17th moment as the Connie > patisandhi was arising. N: Bonnie's heartbase rupa falls away completely after seventeen moments, and it is not passed on at all. When we say: the object of Connie patisandhi is the heartbase that was experienced during the last javanas of Bonnie, this means: the patisandhi has as it were an echo of that object. Not the rupa heartbase itself, that is already gone. I hope everything is clear, Bonnie, Connie, Donnie? Nina. 29157 From: Eznir Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 10:13pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Kamma and action Dear Herman, Quoting from the platform of Abhidamma: Material phenomena arises in four ways, (1) Kamma, (2) Mind, (3) Seasonal conditions (heat-element) and (4) Food. Herman: "The involuntary nervous system makes the body work and act without any reference to the mind at all." eznir: The causes of the behaviour of the involuntary nervous system, if not Kamma and Mind, would be due to the nutritive value in the food that we eat and the digestive system involving heat and of course the respiratory system apart from the actual intention of (though it appears autonomous) in-and-out-breathing. But note that even for (3) and (4) to be operative (1) and (2) must be already 'in place'. Perhaps this would be of some help. Be Happy! eznir --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > Hi Eznir, > > There is no problem at all. > > I am happy to have received your answer. The content of your answer ie> that action and intention, in the Buddhist canon, are identical, raises many questions for me. > > These questions are probably due to me not having a "Buddhist paradigm" at a gut level. > > I will leave the questions, for the time being. > > Thanks again for your reply. > > Herman > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eznir [mailto:eznir2003@y...] > Sent: Saturday, 17 January 2004 5:26 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: Kamma and action > > Dear Herman, > > When I said, "When we speak non-sense it doesn't sound sensible > either!", I didn't mean to be-little you! I was trying to make the > point to show how language exposes the flaws in our thinking pattern. > Which is why I preceeded that statement with, "Notice how language > has evolved in line with our thoughts!" That is to say that the > clause in your statement "...to intend bodily without acting > bodily..." doesn't sound ok! Which should point to the fact that > something is wrong either in the thinking pattern or in the way it is presented. > > Re-reading your full statememt in question, I find that you have > qualified it with "According to the Canon...." which implies that > your thinking pattern is of a different 'environment', which I NOW > realize, AFTER having read your reply, to be in line with "Modern > physiology distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary neural > systems." > > Had you stated this para first.... > > "Modern physiology distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary > neural systems. The involuntary nervous system makes the body work > and act without any reference to the mind at all. In fact, the body > can be kept alive for decades without a head or heart or any other > base you may care to name. There are billions of impulses traversing the body each second that not even a Buddha could be aware of." > > ..... and then posed your question it would have made sense! > > I repeat, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. > > May you be happy! > > eznir 29158 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 11:35pm Subject: [dsg] Re: An Abhidhamma-Related Mathematical Model of Consciousness Hi Howard, Howard: I don't understand. What do you mean by self-regulating? And why do you say objects may or may not be cognized singly? In this scheme there is consciousness when and only when there is an object of consciousness, and that is all the time except at the instants of object change, when there is neither consciousness nor object of consciousness. James: Oh, then I didn't understand your model. Sorry, I tried ;-)) Metta, James 29159 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 11:38pm Subject: Re: the return of Angulimala Hi Connie, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > Dear Well-Rested and Fatigued, > Let me confess that I awoke in the middle of the night under a big white > flag with the motto "how stupid" for dancing about trying to find the > object of bhavangas and wonder if I might hide myself at James' while I > relax with a Pali dictionary, Icaro's influence on me. Hmmm...are you trying to tell me something? Metta, James 29160 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 11:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What the Buddha taught Herman Hi. Thanks for your further comments, and my apologies for the delay in getting back to you. --- Egberdina wrote: > Hi Jon, ... > There seem to be a number of suttas relating to how the Buddha got > to where he got. From what I have gathered it came down to a > determination to not budge until he had found the answers he was > looking for. Seven days, whether an exact figure or indicative of > some fullness of time, of seated meditation, followed by three > night watches (again as above) of piercing analysis. What you refer to here was the final step of an incredibly long journey, so it should not be seen as the key factor in the final outcome, any more than was, say, what he had for breakfast that morning. Remember that Gotama was destined to become enlightened in that lifetime -- he could not have not made it (the power of conditions!). > I am not sure of what he did, but I'm pretty sure that he explained > it only to folks who were doing what he was doing. He explained the teaching to anyone who was ready to hear it, regardless of their current MO. It was part of the Buddha's daily routine to survey the world to see who was ready to hear about the truths, and to then seek out those persons. Actually, this is an important fact to keep in mind. It explains in part at least why the underlying meaning of the suttas is so difficult to discern. The suttas record an exchange between two persons on a complex subject in which both were highly skilled (one much more so that the other, of course), using everyday language and images but with certain specialised meanings. Given this, it's no wonder we need the help of the commentaries and the Abhidhamma to understand the suttas. > As I wrote to Dan earlier on today, if the path was a way of > acquiring something, what you say above makes sense. But we are > travelling in an opposite direction. Advice on how to become > unencumbered will never get one unencumbered. Willingness to ditch > some or all of our luggage will forever remain OUR choice. (nb The > willingness only) But wrong view is not something that can be 'ditched'. It gets replaced only to the extent that understanding/right view is developed. And anyway, we first need to know what wrong view is: wrong view *of what*, for example? > As far as I understand, any discussion of what happened to the > Buddha or how he did it was addressed to bhikkhus, not a fully- > fledged world limpet like myself. For this reason, I much > appreciated Victor's recent advice to Ben to seek out bhikkhus-in- > the-know to get his very profound questions answered. Bhikkhus do > what the Buddha did, and say what the Buddha said. As for me, I do > computer network maintenance, love my family, enjoy our exchanges > on the Internet, and resist all further conviction that flows from > reading the texts, and doing what they suggest. If the suttas and commentaries as they stand are not relevant to ordinary lay-folk like you and me how will your hypothetical bhikkhu-in-the-know be able to help (and how does one find such a person in the first place)? Another thing that needs to be considered is how (i.e., by reference to what criteria) should the listener evaluate the answers he is given? At some stage it all has to be figured out for oneself. The other person can only help keep one on the right path. Jon (fellow world-limpet ;-)) PS > The observation also does not hold true in the case of parents > versus children :-) ... > I'd be quite interested, purely out of interest, to see some of the > examples you have in mind. I was suggesting that in the case of a Buddha it would not be true to say that actions were a better indicator of beliefs that speech, and I was asking whether, in suggesting the opposite, you had any specific instances in mind. 29161 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 11:56pm Subject: Paramattha, samutti etc (was, characteristics) Michael (Sorry for the slow turnaround time ;-)) --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Jon M: To begin with, the Buddha never felt the need to make this distinction between paramatha and pannatti. J: There may be some terminological differences between us here. I see the distinctions made in the texts as being between paramattha and samutti, between dhamma and pannatti, and between sabhava and asabhava/abhava. And by the way, these are not distinctions of good vs. bad or right vs. wrong -- simply distinctions that need to be known and appreciated. The terms 'paramattha' and 'samutti' are often coupled with truths (sacca), or terms (vacana) or exposition (desana). A truth is said to be paramattha (from 'parama' = ultimate, highest, final, and 'attha' = reality, thing) if it is a truth about dhammas that holds good for all beings, during all ages, in all worlds. For example, "All dhammas are anatta". This is a truth 'in the highest sense' of the term. Surely there is no hidden substantialism here, despite the use of 'paramattha'? We could equally call these truths 'eternal truths', without necessarily implying any 'eternalistic' view. It is all a question of use of language. Likewise when applied to 'dhammas', 'paramattha' means 'in the highest/ultimate sense', so the expression 'paramattha dhammas' means 'realities in the highest sense' of the word. This indicates that there is nothing *more 'real'* than dhammas. Why should this be seen as implying substantiality? Both the Abhidhamma pitaka and the Sutta pitaka deal with paramattha sacca and paramattha dhammas, but they do so by using different approaches. The Sutta pitaka is characterised by 'conventional' expression (samutti vacana/desana), and the Abhidhamma by 'absolute/ultimate' expression (paramattha vacana/desana). However, as Nyanatiloka notes in his 'Buddhist Dictionary': <> I know you do not question the Abhidhamma -- I mention this to show that there is nothing necessarily sinister about the term 'paramattha', but rather that it serves a very useful purpose. M: Why? Because the khandhas do not represent the ‘truth,’ meaning a truth in an ultimate sense. There is no ultimate truth in the conditioned world. There is only conventional truth. Everything in the conditioned world is conventional truth. J: I'm not sure what you mean by, 'There is no ultimate truth in the conditioned world ... only conventional truth'. The truths discovered and taught by the Buddha are truths that can be known only by developed insight into the true nature of dhammas/the khandhas. The Buddha referred to these truths as 'noble' (ariyan) truths. They are certainly not regarded in the teachings as conventional in any sense, even when known at the mundane level. I see the distinction between conventional-sense truths and ultimate-sense truths as being a very important one and furthermore one that, had it not been explained, would not have been apparent to us from a bare reading of the suttas or Abhidhamma (i.e., without the assistance of the commentaries). By the way, an interesting example of a paramattha sacca that is expressed in both conventional and absolute terms is the first Noble Truth. The reference to birth, aging, death, separation etc expresses the truth in conventional terms, while the reference to the five khandhas expresses the same truth in absolute terms. Jon 29162 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 0:10am Subject: Aggregates and detachment (was, characteristics) Hi again, Michael --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Jon M: The reason the Buddha used the five aggregates is because they are the basis for clinging and his teaching was focused on elimination of suffering. ... But in my view, viewing the aggregates as completely empty, devoid of any characteristic of paramattha is more conducive to detachment. J: Yes, let's talk about detachment and the development of the path. The Dhamma is about the present moment. Detachment is the kusala that is the absence of attachment. Attachment is gradually eradicated as insight into the true nature of dhammas/the aggregates is developed. I think there is no disagreement here. What is the significance or relevance of how we view the aggregates in terms of paramattha, sabhava, emptiness etc? It is important I believe to realise that any idea we have about the aggregates as a result of reading or studying, whether the suttas, the Abhidhamma or the commentaries, is just a kind of *thinking about* the aggregates (or, more correctly, about *our concept of* the aggregates). There is no point in *trying to see* dhammas in that particular way (to my understanding, that would probably be wrong view leading the way to more accumulated wrong view). What is important is a correct intellectual grasp of what is or is not meant by the aggregates/khandhas (the dhammas that can be the object of insight), since without this the development of insight cannot begin. So mere *ideas about* dhammas as 'paramattha' or 'sabhava' are not part of the development of the path at the present moment. However, a strongly-held and innate *view* on that issue, if not a correct one, could constitute an obstacle to the development of the path (for reasons you have mentioned in the past). The Dhamma is all about the dhammas of this very moment and the truths relating to them. Seeing and visible-object, hearing and sound, etc. Thinking, feeling, attachment. The five khandhas, the elements, the sense-bases. Jon 29163 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 0:14am Subject: Re: [dsg]process cittas Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > Yes ... well, I'm not surprised that material foreshadowing > process-of-cittas concepts would appear in the Pts.M. While there > is plenty of material > in this work that I find of value, particularly the material on > anapanasati > and the comments on sabhava, I certainly doubt the (direct) source > of origin of this work being the Buddha. > --------------------------------------------------- I'll add process-of-cittas concepts and the Pts.M. to the list. ;-)) Jon 29164 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 0:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] author's rights, etc. Hi, Nina --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Jon, > Yes, it is finished, but the Pali accents are not correct I think. > And sending it to Zolag first is another problem. As mentioned, the > quotes from Ven. Nanamoli, allowed percentage? > Nina. I agree we need to consider the copyright aspect. We can discuss it further in Bangkok (not long to go now!). If necessary, I can seek permission from the copyright holder (if that means BPS then it should be fairly straightforward). Jon 29165 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 0:38am Subject: Sabhava, etc (was, characteristics) Michael Hi, again. --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Jon ... M: I have been hearing this argument a lot. The dictionary has an unmistakable definition of sabhava and paramatha. J: Not sure what dictionary you refer to here, sorry. M: I have also said before, that the Mulamadhyamakakarika is directed as a response to the believers in true existence, which is unmistakably the followers of the abhidhamma philosophy. J: Yes I'm aware of that, but I don't see any particular significance in that fact when, having heard what the author has to say, we can come to out own conslusions on the matter, since we still have the Abhidhamma and the commentaries on which the work is based. Now the argument you have been putting forward seems to be that the commentators were closet substantialists but either didn't realise it or didn't want to admit it (which is it supposed to be?), but that their cover was unwittingly blown by their choice of the term 'sabhava' to connote the 'distinctive quality' aspect of dhammas. The problem for that case, however, is that you cannot point us to a single utterance (as opposed the mere choice-of-terminology aspect) in the commentators' writings that betrays their supposed substantialist views. To my reading of the texts, the key point here is that each dhamma has a distinctive quality, different from the distinctive quality of any other dhamma, by which that particular dhamma can be known to panna. Do you agree with this analysis of the teachings? M: To me it is similar to look at a green object, and everybody agrees that it is green, but then someone comes along saying that the maker of that object has used the green color but that his intention was to view it as red. Doesn’t make any sense. J: It is not the same situation at all. There is room for considerable differences as to the likely or necessary connotations of the terms essence and inherent characteristic. But because these differences are not provable objectively either way, this discussion can probably only be resolved by finding specific references in the commentaries themselves. M: But anyway, I have an open mind, and was given the Kathavathu as a reference to find those ‘detailed explanations,’ as you say, of sabhava and paramatha. I was not given though clear directions where to look. I will be at the BCBS early in February and plan to check their library. If worthwhile I will buy the book. Apart from the Kathavathu I was not given any other pointers, just vague remarks, I would be happy to have clearer indications where I can find relevant material in the commentaries on those ‘detailed explanations.’ J: I'll have to start looking. Ken O has given some references already that I believe are relevant. I will check the Visuddhi-Magga since this is one of the 'offending' texts you have mentioned. Can't promise anything in a hurry, though ;-)) Jon 29166 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 1:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Space element a concept? Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Nina - ... H: One thing that I hoped you might address in the discussion of the issue of space as a rupa is the two questions I raised in my post to Htoo. The first of these pertains to space seemingly being experienced through more than one sense door. J: If you're anything like me, the "space seemingly being experienced through more than one sense door" is rather like the hardness that is seemingly perceived through more than one sense door too. In either case, whatever else there is, there is a lot of conceptualising about space or hardness. H: The answer which I understand Htoo to have given and you to concur with is that "that space" is mere concept, but the "real space," the paramattha dhamma, is a rupa - an unobserved rupa. J: There is no need to think of 'real space' as being a rupa, since we are unlikely to conceptulaise this correctly in any event, and it may only create internal conflict. Can we not just think of there being, according to the teachings, a rupa that has a certain function, characteristic and proximate cause and to which the name 'space' has been given, this rupa being one of several that are not observable (and, as far as I'm concerned, one of many, many more that will not be directly experienced in this lifetime at least!). H: But that then led to my *second* question: "Htoo, doesn't this strike you as a bit ironic, with the space that is experienced being "unreal," but the allegedly "real" space being unobservable? Hardness that is real is actually observed! Sounds that are real are actually observed! But "real" space - that's the sort of space we *cannot* observe!! J: I think you have just neatly summarised one of the essential points made by the Buddha, that what we think we experience is not real (is concept) while what is real (the dhammas) are not experienced as they truly are. H: (Something's wrooong here! ;-))" J: Yes, but nothing more than usual! ;-)) Jon 29167 From: gazita2002 Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 3:21am Subject: Vism.- elements, recap-Nina dear Nina, thank you for your assistance. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Azita, > op 12-01-2004 00:53 schreef gazita2002 op gazita2002@y...: > > > I require clarification on mind-element [manodhatu], is this the > > same as heart base? > N: The Abhidhamma is not for memorizing and when we understand, we shall > remember. I do believe this too Nina. I have been reading other posts on various aspects of rupa and it seems to me that to go 'back to basics' is a good idea. In Manual of Abhidhamma, Narada states 'to understand the intricacies of Abhidhamma one should critically read and re-read the Abhidhammattha Sangaha patiently and carefully, pondering at the same time on the profound teachings embodied therein.' When I went for a walk today, I had the thought that rupa is all around me. What I see, what I hear, what I feel, what I smell. That is on a very gross level. Then to read that 'it endures only for seventeen thought-moments. Rupa changes so rapidly that one cannot strike an identical place twice.' Lots of thinking, but I quite enjoy this kind of thinking. > I will be missing you in Bgk! > Nina. and I too, will miss you, I hope it is a very meaningful time for you, Nina, as I'm sure it will. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 29168 From: gazita2002 Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 3:50am Subject: Re: the return of Angulimala Dear Chris, I burst out laughing, loudly, when I read your comment as a similar thought had occured to me. However, thanks to Connie for the marathon effort she put into this - altho I'm still not sure who's who in this yarn. Maybe yarns in the form of Jataka stories could be suggested for Cooran, around the camp fire at night. See who can read out the scariest one! Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Holy Mackerel, Connie! Thanks for the Mother-of-All Incomprehensible > Tales. Without T.V., I imagine this style of story would have stood > in the place of the entertainment offered nowadays by T.V. movies and > serials around the fire, by lamplight, on a dark winters' night in > outer Mongolia. Same Old, same old though ... same old stereotypes, > and same old mentality... 29169 From: gazita2002 Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 4:05am Subject: Re: Space element a concept? Dear Jon, Hello there. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Howard > H: But that then led to my *second* question: "Htoo, doesn't this > strike you as a bit ironic, with the space that is experienced being > "unreal," but the allegedly "real" space being unobservable? Hardness > that is real is actually observed! Sounds that are real are actually > observed! But "real" space - that's the sort of space we *cannot* > observe!! > > J: I think you have just neatly summarised one of the essential > points made by the Buddha, that what we think we experience is not > real (is concept) while what is real (the dhammas) are not > experienced as they truly are. > A. and so neatly pointed out, Jon. I think we forget this time and time again, well at least I do, can really only speak for myself. I think that is why we are all still in Samsara. > H: (Something's wrooong here! ;-))" > > J: Yes, but nothing more than usual! ;-)) > > Jon Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita 29170 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 4:13am Subject: Bangkok Hi everyone, We are often reminded about conditions. And about understanding conditions. Well, the soon to happen and keenly anticipated get-together in Bangkok will come about through conditions as well. And some of those conditions depend entirely on the rejection of all metaphysical impositions from ignorant but dominant social groups. What is the name of that sutta that obliquely refers to aeronautical engineering? No doubt there will be penetrating awarenesses of heart bases, vittaka, the four great elements, the umpteen kusala cetasikas and so forth as the various Boeings head towards Bangkok. But it is precisely the rejection of metaphysical paradigms that allows your metal airships to glide through the skies, ladies and gentlemen, as you head towards another encounter with the great guru. If your pilot confuses the wind-element with something else, we'll read about it in the papers. It is gross dishonesty to live with the gypsies but talk as though you are catholic. Enjoy the trip, nonetheless. Herman 29171 From: icarofranca Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 4:18am Subject: [dsg] Re: What the Buddha taught Dear Jon- > Actually, this is an important fact to keep in mind. It explains in > part at least why the underlying meaning of the suttas is so > difficult to discern. The suttas record an exchange between two > persons on a complex subject in which both were highly skilled (one > much more so that the other, of course), using everyday language and > images but with certain specialised meanings. Given this, it's no > wonder we need the help of the commentaries and the Abhidhamma to > understand the suttas. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Respctfully butting in at a so relevant matter! An attentive Abhidhamma reader will note just at the beginning (at the Dhammasangani, for example) a profound concordance with the all Buddistic Suttas. If you got the Suttas as a Bona Fide registry of all the years Buddha spent preaching and teaching, the Abhidhamma is the real key for understanding all the structured pattern of thoughts used by Siddhartha Gautama in his dispensation and live (the tale of the Abhidhamma "in nuce" being preaching by Him to his Mother`s court just after his illumination is a good example of these interplay between hidden meanings - if any! - and litteral signification). The Old Cardinal Mazarin of France used to say that he had`t any plan or project on his writings but the grammar. The same with The Suttas: The Abdhidhamma, The Suttas, The Vinaya and the own Buddha's live are embedded in one ground of Wisdom and Experience. Concepts as General, Specific, Exoteric, Esoteric, Private, Public, Hidden and Expounded and so on are below the abysm even of Pali language and its grammar...only Sammuit-Sacca. Beyond these, the Ultimate Reality, The Nibbana. ------------------------------------------------------------------ And anyway, we first need to know what wrong view is: > wrong view *of what*, for example? ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Mahayanists get the wrong side when, building their reasonings over the Sanskrit Language, stand the viewpoint that the Samsara, the negative, Akusala patterns of our lives, can become The Real Nibbana by a mere change of our thoughts. Wrong. -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > If the suttas and commentaries as they stand are not relevant to > ordinary lay-folk like you and me how will your hypothetical > bhikkhu-in-the-know be able to help (and how does one find such a > person in the first place)? ------------------------------------------------------------------- The common basis of Wisdom - Panna - Experience and even grammar makes all these efforts if not a real Dhamma preaching ( we are not Bhikkhus at a Sangha anyway) at least a good foundation for better understanding of our lives. If you like to take up these issues to the Kamma level, so one could say that it is a good Kamma at the last end: a good simpleton viewpoint is a good viewpoint for any means, nes't pas ? -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Another thing that needs to be considered is how (i.e., by reference > to what criteria) should the listener evaluate the answers he is > given? At some stage it all has to be figured out for oneself. The > other person can only help keep one on the right path. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Ditto, Jon! Is it necessary to quote the Mahaparinibbana Sutta to clarify this question ? ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Jon > (fellow world-limpet ;-)) > > PS > > The observation also does not hold true in the case of parents > > versus children :-) > ... > > I'd be quite interested, purely out of interest, to see some of the > > examples you have in mind. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- I am struggling yet with the German translation of the Visuddhi Magga. Good Hermann could have got hints about it!!!! Mettaya, Ícaro 29172 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 4:33am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Kamma and action Hi Eznir, You told me about what the Abhidhamma says. I'd rather that you told me something that you experienced, like what you did today or how your computer pisses you off. You don't need to tell me how you passed some once nutritive elements into the toilet, I assumed that already. I'm sure it was hot, too. Be happy Herman -----Original Message----- From: Eznir [mailto:eznir2003@y...] Sent: Sunday, 18 January 2004 5:13 PM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: Kamma and action Dear Herman, Quoting from the platform of Abhidamma: Material phenomena arises in four ways, (1) Kamma, (2) Mind, (3) Seasonal conditions (heat-element) and (4) Food. Herman: "The involuntary nervous system makes the body work and act without any reference to the mind at all." eznir: The causes of the behaviour of the involuntary nervous system, if not Kamma and Mind, would be due to the nutritive value in the food that we eat and the digestive system involving heat and of course the respiratory system apart from the actual intention of (though it appears autonomous) in-and-out-breathing. But note that even for (3) and (4) to be operative (1) and (2) must be already 'in place'. Perhaps this would be of some help. Be Happy! eznir --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > Hi Eznir, > > There is no problem at all. > > I am happy to have received your answer. The content of your answer ie> that action and intention, in the Buddhist canon, are identical, raises many questions for me. > > These questions are probably due to me not having a "Buddhist paradigm" at a gut level. > > I will leave the questions, for the time being. > > Thanks again for your reply. > > Herman > > 29173 From: icarofranca Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 4:39am Subject: Re: Bangkok Dear Herman- > We are often reminded about conditions. And about understanding > conditions. ------------------------------------------------------------------- A Latin Proverb: Tacita Conditio non est conditio ------------------------------------------------------------- > > Well, the soon to happen and keenly anticipated get-together in Bangkok > will come about through conditions as well. And some of those conditions > depend entirely on the rejection of all metaphysical impositions from > ignorant but dominant social groups. What is the name of that sutta that > obliquely refers to aeronautical engineering? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Good Herman, I intend to spent my Vacances at bgk one day of these. .. people here says that is a wonderful place!!! At the Mahamangala Sutta we got a Deva or Devaki that comes down from heaven to hear Buddha's sermon, but I cannot say to you if he or she came by plane... --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > No doubt there will be penetrating awarenesses of heart bases, vittaka, > the four great elements, the umpteen kusala cetasikas and so forth as > the various Boeings head towards Bangkok. But it is precisely the > rejection of metaphysical paradigms that allows your metal airships --------------------------------------------------------------------- If Citta and Cetasika come together in good harmony at Pilot`s brains, afore the real fears of terrorism, bombs and panic you can put aside all metaphysical fears that your plane could not arrive at Bgk safely! -------------------------------------------------------------------- > It is gross dishonesty to live with the gypsies but talk as though you > are catholic. > > Enjoy the trip, nonetheless. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Seeya over there! Mettaya, Ícaro P.S.: have you ever read The German Translation of Buddhaghosa's Visuddhi Magga ? 29174 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 4:56am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Bangkok Hi Icaro, P.S.: have you ever read The German Translation of Buddhaghosa's Visuddhi Magga ? Why would I do such a thing? Buddhaghosa is to Buddha, what Paul is to Jesus. Neither would I read St Augustine,Willebrord or le Marquis de Sade in German. I am Dutch. Small matter of cross-border hatred. You wouldn't be one of those SS officers who fled to South America, would you? Icaro sounds remarkably like Klaus. Ciao Herman 29175 From: icarofranca Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 5:42am Subject: [dsg] Re: Bangkok Dear Herman > > > Why would I do such a thing? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Why not ? ------------------------------------------------------------------- Buddhaghosa is to Buddha, what Paul is to > Jesus. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hmmm...don't. Buddhagosa's comments are more obstruse and intrincate than Paul's Epistoles. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Neither would I read St Augustine,Willebrord or le Marquis de > Sade in German. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Augustine ressembles more Buddhaghosa than Paul Apostle, with their unique use of Latin Language to express christian concepts. ------------------------------------------------------------------- I am Dutch. Small matter of cross-border hatred. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Good for you! You can visit German or Belgique by Bicycle! -------------------------------------------------------------------- You > wouldn't be one of those SS officers who fled to South America, would > you? Icaro sounds remarkably like Klaus. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Spelling is definitively defunct here... Mettaya, Ícaro > > Ciao > > Herman 29176 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 7:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: heartbase/rebirth Hi Larry, op 18-01-2004 02:32 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Would it be correct to say the heartbase could be an object of javana > only if the javana consciousness were a very high degree of amoha > (panna/wisdom)? At that level, presumably, there wouldn't be a future > life. N: When looking at the Patthana we see that it can also be an object of attachment, etc. Thus, not only in the case of arahats who will not have a future life. L:Even so, there is reason to doubt that this could happen. N: We never know, it depends on conditions, we cannot speculate about this. Heartbase is a condition by way of base, and also it can be a condition by way of object at the same time, during life or at the end of life, as we have seen (U Narada, refers to Patthana). Some people find it hard to accept that what can only be experienced through the mind-door and what they cannot experience now is not necessarily a concept. Heartbase is a reality, a rupa-dhamma. A concept can be a condition by way of object, but it could never be a condition by way of physical base, as is the case with the heart-base. Thus, how could heartbase be a concept, an idea, a product of thinking? L: I see that the Vism. commentary says the heartbase is to be known "from > scriptures and from reasoning", in other words, conceptually. N: I am glad you mention this. We have to return to the Pali text: How can this be known? aagamato: by the scriptures. Yuttito: by application. There is nothing about logical reasoning in the Pali text, this is too limited. Yutta: yoked, connected, applied to. You see here that this is a much larger meaning? Applied not just by thinking, it can be by direct experience. From the scriptures, yes, had the Buddha not taught us, we would not know that there is a heart-base. People may doubt again. Only the sotapanna has eradicated doubt. By the development of satipatthana he has realized by direct experience many realities. Suppose many are realized but not all, this does not give rise to doubt, because of the confidence in the Dhamma has become unshakable. Because of direct experience through panna, confidence becomes steadfast and firm. L: Also, I was wondering what, if any, difference one's bhavanga citta > makes. If my last conscious moment manifests as a hatred for apples, > that javana series will have kammic consequences but will the hatred for > apples that manifests countless times as bhavanga in my next life have > any kammic consequences, become a latent tendency, or in any way > characterize my behaviour? N: Those last javanas with hate, dosa, condition an unhappy rebirth, in a woeful plane. The object taken by them can be an object through any of the six doors, it can be visible object (say, colour of apples), or a symbol of future rebirth, we cannot speculate about that. That same object , an echo of it, is experienced by the next rebirth-citta, and all bhavangacittas, but in those cases the object is not experienced through a doorway. The consequences: one has hatred accumulated as latent tendency, but also the other latent tendencies of desire, wrong view, etc. Dosa arises again and again, but not just dosa for apples! Dosa for countless objects. A Summary about heartbase: Rob K's posts have rendered many questions people may have about the heart, transplantation of heart, etc. He also explained that we may be clinging to an idea of my heart, but that the heartbase is a very subtle rupa that can only be experienced through the mind-door. Although we cannot experience it now, what can we learn about this? It is the physical basis for many cittas, included in mind-element and mind-consciousness element. It is a condition for other realities and it itself is conditioned by kamma which keeps on producing it throughout life, on and on. We are in a five khandha plane, meaning, what we call *we* are nama and rupa. Each citta takes a new base (be it sensebase or heartbase), except during the last javanacittas of a life which all depend on one heartbase. This study helps us to see at least intellectually, that the heartbase and the cittas that depend on it are very temporary, beyond control and not to be taken for mine or self. All these studies of details we do now are accumulated as a foundation so that later on panna can arise which understands the true nature of dhammas. Nina. 29177 From: Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 3:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Abhidhamma-Related Mathematical Model of Consciousness Hi, James - In a message dated 1/18/04 2:36:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Howard: I don't understand. What do you mean by self-regulating? And > why do you say objects may or may not be cognized singly? In this > scheme there is consciousness when and only when there is an object > of consciousness, and that is all the time except at the instants of > object change, when there is neither consciousness nor object of > consciousness. > > James: Oh, then I didn't understand your model. Sorry, I tried ;-)) > > Metta, James > =========================== I apologize for not having been clearer. Giving a clear presentation was my responsibility. (One excuse for my lack of clarity: I didn't want to go on too long with the details and implications of the model, because it was already probably "too much," and, moreover, my only real purpose was to attempt to show that the Abhidhammic take on the flow of cittas can, indeed, be represented by a largely "continuous," gapless model.) I think you grasped what I was saying for the most part very, very 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) 29178 From: Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 3:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Aggregates and detachment (was, characteristics) Hi, Jon (and Michael) - In a message dated 1/18/04 3:13:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Hi again, Michael > > --- Michael Beisert wrote: >Hello Jon > M: The reason the Buddha used the five aggregates is because they > are the basis for clinging and his teaching was focused on > elimination of suffering. ... But in my view, viewing the aggregates > as completely empty, devoid of any characteristic of paramattha is > more conducive to detachment. > > J: Yes, let's talk about detachment and the development of the path. > The Dhamma is about the present moment. > > Detachment is the kusala that is the absence of attachment. > Attachment is gradually eradicated as insight into the true nature of > dhammas/the aggregates is developed. I think there is no > disagreement here. > > What is the significance or relevance of how we view the aggregates > in terms of paramattha, sabhava, emptiness etc? > > It is important I believe to realise that any idea we have about the > aggregates as a result of reading or studying, whether the suttas, > the Abhidhamma or the commentaries, is just a kind of *thinking > about* the aggregates (or, more correctly, about *our concept of* the > aggregates). There is no point in *trying to see* dhammas in that > particular way (to my understanding, that would probably be wrong > view leading the way to more accumulated wrong view). > > What is important is a correct intellectual grasp of what is or is > not meant by the aggregates/khandhas (the dhammas that can be the > object of insight), since without this the development of insight > cannot begin. > > So mere *ideas about* dhammas as 'paramattha' or 'sabhava' are not > part of the development of the path at the present moment. However, > a strongly-held and innate *view* on that issue, if not a correct > one, could constitute an obstacle to the development of the path (for > reasons you have mentioned in the past). > > The Dhamma is all about the dhammas of this very moment and the > truths relating to them. Seeing and visible-object, hearing and > sound, etc. Thinking, feeling, attachment. The five khandhas, the > elements, the sense-bases. > > Jon > =============================== I see acquiring the knowing of anatta/su~n~nata as something that has an aspect of "layers" to it. An outer layer is the distinguishing of pa~n~natti from paramattha dhammas. To an ordinary worldling, paramattha dhammas such as anger are already recognized to some extent as being insubstantial and as not remaining, though this is not known at all well or deeply. However, the "person who gets angry from time to time," appears to be an enduring entity with changing features! This is the difference between paramattha dhamma and pa~n~natti, even for a worldling. Seeing through pa~n~natti is a "layer" of acquired wisdom. The further unraveling of our refiying of paramattha dhammas, seeing down to the bone their insubstantial, dependent, and ephemeral status - that is, freeing actualities from their current defiled conceptually-grasped status is a deeper "level." I think both are needed. 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) 29179 From: Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 3:26am Subject: Re: [dsg]process cittas Thanks, Jon. I very much appreciate your going to the effort to keep track of this! ;-)) With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/18/04 3:15:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > I'll add process-of-cittas concepts and the Pts.M. to the list. > > ;-)) > /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) 29180 From: Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 4:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Space element a concept? Hi, Jon - In a message dated 1/18/04 4:12:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Nina - > ... > H: One thing that I hoped you might address in the discussion > of the issue of space as a rupa is the two questions I raised in my > post to Htoo. The first of these pertains to space seemingly being > experienced through more than one sense door. > > J: If you're anything like me, the "space seemingly being > experienced through more than one sense door" is rather like the > hardness that is seemingly perceived through more than one sense door > too. In either case, whatever else there is, there is a lot of > conceptualising about space or hardness. ------------------------------------------- Howard: I only seem to exparience hardness through the body door. Of course, when one "sees" a table or rock etc, one assumes that "touching it" will result in hardness, or, to put it conventionally, that tables and rocks are hard. Perhaps that is what you mean. I find space to be different. It does seem to be experienced through eye door, body door, and ear door, but I believe that it is really *only* experienced through mind door, and not as a reality, but as pa~n~natti. ------------------------------------------- > > H: The answer which I understand Htoo to have given and you to > concur with is that "that space" is mere concept, but the "real > space," the paramattha dhamma, is a rupa - an unobserved rupa. > > J: There is no need to think of 'real space' as being a rupa, since > we are unlikely to conceptulaise this correctly in any event, and it > may only create internal conflict. Can we not just think of there > being, according to the teachings, a rupa that has a certain > function, characteristic and proximate cause and to which the name > 'space' has been given, this rupa being one of several that are not > observable (and, as far as I'm concerned, one of many, many more that > will not be directly experienced in this lifetime at least!). > --------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, as you know, I have no use for alleged unobservable rupas. --------------------------------------------- > > H: But that then led to my *second* question: "Htoo, doesn't this > strike you as a bit ironic, with the space that is experienced being > "unreal," but the allegedly "real" space being unobservable? Hardness > that is real is actually observed! Sounds that are real are actually > observed! But "real" space - that's the sort of space we *cannot* > observe!! > > J: I think you have just neatly summarised one of the essential > points made by the Buddha, that what we think we experience is not > real (is concept) while what is real (the dhammas) are not > experienced as they truly are. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Sorry, but there is a difference between an unobservable, on the one hand, and something observed wrongly or not currently observed. I do not believe in unobservables, because they are beyong confirmation or refutation. When something, such as a self, is unobservable, that is pragmatic basis for assuming its nonexistence. ------------------------------------------------- > > H: (Something's wrooong here! ;-))" > > J: Yes, but nothing more than usual! ;-)) ----------------------------------------------- Howard: LOL! ---------------------------------------------- > > 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) 29181 From: Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 6:12am Subject: Dismissing My Model - and All Models Hi, all - I have learned something. I've learned it by looking into my own mind. My model making has resulted in consternation in me, and neither peace nor insight. Any such exercise is a conceptual enterprise, but reality cannot be held onto by concept, and can't be truly known, with wisdom, by concept. We cannot think our way to realization, but only by looking at what is right here, right now - always. Model making leads only to clinging, and here is the laugh, clinging to a completely inadequate and false substitute for reality. What is actual is right here, and need only be seen. The Zen folks are right when they say "Look! Look!" The Buddha's teachings, themselves, can also be dead ends if they are handled wrongly. They only point the way. They are not the "truth". The truth is right here, right now. (There was truth that day when I sat in my college cafeteria and looked, not at anything in particular, but at the visual flux. There it was! Reality!!) What is critical in the Buddhadhamma is that we put it into practice, constantly. We can check back with the Dhamma to correct ourselves when we go astray, but we must not treat the Dhamma as a set of facts and rules to memorize and cling to. We must let go, and we must look! With metta, Howard P.S. I would like to cease discussing my "model". I think that both the model, and the activity of discussing it, are near worthless. /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) 29182 From: connie Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 10:54am Subject: Re: the return of Angulimala --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > Dear Well-Rested and Fatigued, > Let me confess that I awoke in the middle of the night under a big white > flag with the motto "how stupid" for dancing about trying to find the > object of bhavangas and wonder if I might hide myself at James' while I > relax with a Pali dictionary, Icaro's influence on me. Hmmm...are you trying to tell me something? Metta, James Yes and no, James... I was feeling foolish for having said the cuti passes it's object on and not even knowing where all my confusion lies so I have trouble making a coherent post & remembered your comment about not wanting any evidence left lying around later... maybe a UP thread? But I have thought a few times of telling you that I'm glad you haven't quit talking here. So please just take it as a friendly greeting, connie 29183 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 0:32pm Subject: Re: the return of Angulimala/ Azita Dear Azita (any lurking Cooranites), Andrew has assured me that he has had the place cleared of Bunyips, and that there is "nothing to worry about". And Andrew wouldn't lie.... .. Anyway, as a precaution, I always keep KenH and Steve between me and any likely waterhole. :-) [We only THINK it is the delinquent micro-wave oven that is causing KenH to keep Noble Silence, but what if ... maybe the Bunyip ..?] Cooran at night, is a bit of a worry - most of the men clear off and sleep in a little shed together up near the main house, and leave the ladies down the paddock to fend for themselves between two large dams ... a bit like the chosen sacrifices really. :-) Come to think of it, I DID hear scary growling sounds and 'something large' crashing around in the bushes - but just assumed it was AndyMcL looking for "the bathroom". :-) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" > > Maybe yarns in the form of Jataka stories could be suggested > for Cooran, around the camp fire at night. See who can read out the > scariest one! > > Patience, courage and good cheer, > Azita. 29184 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 3:20pm Subject: Re: Dismissing My Model - and All Models Hi Howard (and All), I want to express something to you and to everyone reading in, but I am not sure if I will do it justice. Please forgive me if I stumble. First, about your model of consciousness, I think it is brilliant!!...But probably only for you, if you can understand what I mean. You cannot transfer your thoughts and insights to anyone else with a model (as you have pointed out). That is, of course, why the Abhidhamma is inherently flawed and should not be taken so seriously by some folk around here ;-)). Was your model better or worse than the Abhidhamma? Same-Same. Models are just models: artificial constructs of the real thing. But the second point I want to make is: who cares? ;-)) It really does you justice to form such a model and to be willing to display it, unformed and all, in such a public forum. I really do wish that more people in this group were willing to take such risks and to have such open trust. This group is really advanced in the dhamma, as I have stated before, but that advancement has caused an unnatural need to be `perfect' and `correct' all the time with many members (it reminds me of my advanced classes…where competition was outrageously stiff). Again…conceit, conceit, conceit!!! I have said it before; I will say it again; and I will keep saying it until people listen. Was the Buddha perfect? `Perfect' doesn't apply. Was the Buddha `correct'? `Correct' doesn't apply. The Buddha was just `Awake'. Okay, now that I am off my soapbox! Hehehe… I hope that you will offer further thoughts and models and observations, and whatever… especially for the mathematically challenged like myself! ;-)). They do us all some good. Thanks for being you… Metta, James 29185 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 3:25pm Subject: Re: the return of Angulimala Hi Connie, Connie: Yes and no, James... I was feeling foolish for having said the cuti passes it's object on and not even knowing where all my confusion lies so I have trouble making a coherent post & remembered your comment about not wanting any evidence left lying around later... maybe a UP thread? But I have thought a few times of telling you that I'm glad you haven't quit talking here. So please just take it as a friendly greeting, James: Thanks for clarifying, Connie. I didn't really take offense (at least not when I thought about it deeply ;-) but I could sense that you were thinking about me in a very deep and a somewhat contradictory manner. Okay, glad you cleared that up. Take care. Metta, James 29186 From: Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 0:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dismissing My Model - and All Models Hi, James - Thank you. No need to say more. :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/18/04 6:23:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Hi Howard (and All), > > I want to express something to you and to everyone reading in, but I > am not sure if I will do it justice. Please forgive me if I > stumble. First, about your model of consciousness, I think it is > brilliant!!...But probably only for you, if you can understand what I > mean. You cannot transfer your thoughts and insights to anyone else > with a model (as you have pointed out). That is, of course, why the > Abhidhamma is inherently flawed and should not be taken so seriously > by some folk around here ;-)). Was your model better or worse than > the Abhidhamma? Same-Same. Models are just models: artificial > constructs of the real thing. > > But the second point I want to make is: who cares? ;-)) It really > does you justice to form such a model and to be willing to display > it, unformed and all, in such a public forum. I really do wish that > more people in this group were willing to take such risks and to have > such open trust. This group is really advanced in the dhamma, as I > have stated before, but that advancement has caused an unnatural need > to be `perfect' and `correct' all the time with many members (it > reminds me of my advanced classes…where competition was outrageously > stiff). Again…conceit, conceit, conceit!!! I have said it before; I > will say it again; and I will keep saying it until people listen. > Was the Buddha perfect? `Perfect' doesn't apply. Was the > Buddha `correct'? `Correct' doesn't apply. The Buddha was > just `Awake'. > > Okay, now that I am off my soapbox! Hehehe… I hope that you will > offer further thoughts and models and observations, and whatever… > especially for the mathematically challenged like myself! ;-)). They > do us all some good. Thanks for being you… > > Metta, 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) 29187 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 7:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the return of Angulimala Hi Connie Many thanks for the details I like the story very much. Do you have the details between Angulimala and Buddha when Buddha trying to educate him. I heard it is another moving story. The part that Angulimala body is burning with hell fire, partly substantial the principle of here and now of kamma. best wishes Ken O 29188 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 9:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the return of Angulimala Hello Connie, Ken O, Azita, and all, Hopefully my reply to Connie was seen only as good-natured teasing. If not, please know that that is all it was meant to be, and apologies if it didn't come across that way to anyone. I am still interested in Angulimala and the questions he raises for me concerning consequences for actions committed, what erases it, and what about the "collateral damage" of the wrecked lives of his victims relatives ... much of which would have continued for years, long after he had happily attained Nibbana ... I think the fact that there are so many stories, explaining things and filling in the ethical gaps, means that it raised a lot of quesitons for a lot of people since it was first told. I have taken into consideration, and still am thinking over, some of the great posts I got in return. Further reading I have come across: "How to Reform a Serial Killer: The Buddhist Approach to Restorative Justice" by David R. Loy. Journal of Buddhist Ethics http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/101789.htm "Angulimala: A Story of the Power of Compassion" (As told by Ven. Walpola Piyananda Thera in Love in Buddhism) http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/story/angulimala.html metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Connie > > Many thanks for the details I like the story very much. Do you have > the details between Angulimala and Buddha when Buddha trying to > educate him. I heard it is another moving story. > > The part that Angulimala body is burning with hell fire, partly > substantial the principle of here and now of kamma. > > > best wishes > Ken O 29189 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 10:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the return of Angulimala Hi Christine One thing about Kamma - it can look very cruel. From my own opinion, the deed of killing by Angulima is effected when he killed a person but what the family felt due to the death of the person(be it extreme grieve and later commit suicide) or the person is the sole bread winner and hence caused hardship to the famiy - got nothing to do with the killing. Angulima is not responsible for the consequences of the person death, he is only responsible for the immediate death of the person. This is what I think of kamma and I could be wrong. I will be delighted to be corrected. One of the reason I think kamma works this way bc if we keep accumulating the consquences there will be no end to kamma. thanks and regards Ken O 29190 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 10:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok Hi Herman H: If your pilot confuses the wind-element with something else, we'll read about it in the papers. k: Pse do send me flowers. Ahhh kamma, isn't it wonderful. I am the least worry about being crash or blow to death bc the death is seen to be instanteous, the fear is lesser as compare to my experience in the dentist chair ;-). I am also the least worry about last citta, bc it was too instanteous to know it is going to be kusala. Even it is the worst - going to the Avici Hell - so what - eventually the kamma will die out and *poof* I may be human again and if I am lucky I may happen to learn Buddhism again bc of accumulated tendecies. Hence I am the least worry ;-). Cheers Ken O p.s. - that reminds me of buying tour insurance. 29191 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 11:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi KenO;-)) Hi Victor, (Michael, Herman & All) --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah and all, > > I hope you don't mind me jumping in to this thread to share some > thoughts regarding the five aggregates (pancakkhandha), or for that > matter, the five aggregates of sustenance/clinging > (pancupadanakkhandha). ..... S: Of course, I was glad to have you jumping in - anytime!! Thank you for your well-considered and reasoned post. Excuse some big ‘snips’ for now. .... V: > When the Buddha taught the noble truth of dukkha, he started with > specific instances of what is dukkha and ended with the statement > > "in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering." > /"In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful." > > The phrase "in brief"/"in short", in the last statement is of > significance. It indicates a change from listing the specific to > stating the general. .... S: sankhitta - concisely, briefly. In other words, the 5 clinging-aggregates only. Jon wrote before: “note the implication of the words "In short", in relation to the other 11 preceding aspects of the truth. The Visuddhi-Magga says in connection with the 5 aggregates as the truth of suffering (Vis XVI): "60. It is impossible to tell it all without remainder, showing each kind of suffering, even by going on doing so for many aeons, so the Blessed One said 'In short the five aggregates [as objects] of clinging are suffering' in order to show in short how all that suffering is present in any of a five aggregates [as objects] of clinging in the same way that the taste of the water in the whole ocean is to be found in a single drop of its water." Jon: "....It seems to me that while the language is conventional the references are to paramattha dhammas. For example,birth is not only a conventional event, it is also the paramattha dhamma that is the first moment of consciousness in a given life(patisandhi citta), and the arising of each moment of consciousness.” ***** S: From SN1:25, Devatasamyutta, I quoted the following: “Though the wise one has transcended the conceived, he still might say, ‘I speak’, He might say too, ‘they speak to me.’ He uses such terms as mere expressions.” Whatever we are reading in the Tipitaka, we have to keep in mind that there are only the 5 khandhas of clinging appearing now. Other expressions are for mere convention. .... You quote from SN22:94, Flowers here: V:> > At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, I do not dispute with the world; rather, it > is the world that disputes with me. A proponent of the Dhamma does > not dispute with anyone in the world. Of that which the wise in the > world agree upon as not existing, I too say that it does not exist. > And of that which the wise in the world agree upon as existing, I > too say that it exists. > "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as > not existing, of which I too say that it does not exist? Form that > is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: this the wise > in the world agree upon as not existing, and I too say that it does > not exist. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … > Consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to > change: this the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, and I > too say that it does not exist. > "That, bhikkhus, is what the wise in the world agree upon as not > existing, of which I too say that it does not exist. > "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as > existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is > impermanent, suffering, subject to change: this the wise in the > world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling > … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is > impermanent, suffering, subject to change: this the wise in the > world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. > "That, bhikkhus, is what the wise in the world agree upon as > existing, of which I too say that it exists. > [3] > > So regarding the question whether computers exist or not, what the > Buddha said about what does not exist and what does can be of > reference. .... S: The sutta continues: “That, bhikkhus, is what the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say it exists.” [S: implication: other things do not exist such as computers. In 22:85 in the same section, it was already made clear that the Tathagata, self and things are not ‘real and actual’.] continuing with the sutta: “There is, bhikkhus, a world-phenomenon* in the world to which the Tathagata has awakened and broken through. Having done so, he explains it, proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyses it, elucidates it.” [S: we don’t need a Tathagata to awaken us to the ‘existence’ of computers and their impermanence!! This would be on a par with the idea that we are taught to be mindful of sitting, eating and washing up in the suttas. ] “And what is that world-phenomenon in the world to which the Tathagata has awakened and broken through? Form, bhikkhus, is a world-phenomenon in the world to which the Tathagata has awakened and broken through. Having done so, he explains it, teaches it, proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyses it, elucidates it. When it is being thus explained.......elucidated by the Tathagata, if anyone does not know or see, how can I do anything with that foolish worldling, blind and sightless, who does not know and does not see?” [S: rupas (form) are not seen for what they are and have to be understood to exist. Computers and vases are not rupas. Let’s not be foolish worldlings here;-))] “Feeling.....Perception......Volitional formations....Consciousness is a world-phenomenon in the world to which the Tathagata has awakened and broken through. Having done so, he explains it, teaches it, proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyses it, elucidates it. When it is being thus explained....and elucidated by the Tathagata, if anyone does not know and see, how can Ido anything with that foolish worldling, blind and sightless, who does not know and does not see? “Bhikkhus, just as a blue, red, or white lotus is born in the water and grows up in the water, but having risen up above the water, it stands unsullied by the water, so too the Tathagata was born in the world and grew up in the world, but having overcome the world, he dwells unsullied by the world.”** From: > [3] The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the > Samyutta Nikaya. Translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi, p.949-950 * note 186 “Lokadhamma. Spk: The five aggregates are called thus because it is their nature to disintegrate (lujjanasabhaavattaa). Loka is derived from lujjati at 35:82.” S: Michael, here we have sabhaava (nature/characteristic) linked with lujjana (to disintegrate) as referred to the khandhas in the comy note. The nature of conditioned realities, the khandhas is to exist temporarily and to disintegrate. ** note 187 “Spk: In this sutta three types of world are spoken of. When it is said, “I do not dispute with the world,” it is the world of beings (sattaloka). “A world-phenomenon in the world”: Here, the world of formations (sa’nkhaaraloka). “The Tathaagata was born in the world”: here, the geographic world (okaasaloka).” S: Herman, note how conventional and ultimate language are used and mixed all the time. It depends on the understanding of the listener whether the tangle will be disentangled.: SN1:23, Tangle “A tangle inside, a tangle outside, this generation is entangled in a tangle. I ask you this, O Gotama, Who can disentangle this tangle?” “A man established on virtue, wise, Developing the mind and wisdom, A bhikkhu ardent and discreet: He can disentangle this tangle.” Metta, Sarah p.s I look f/w to reading any replies, but any further responses from me will have to be later after my return to HK. Glad if others contribute further with pithy or non pithy comments meantime. ====== 29192 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 11:49pm Subject: Human Rebirth (Re: Bangkok) Hi Ken O and All, > k: Pse do send me flowers. Ahhh kamma, isn't it wonderful. I am > the least worry about being crash or blow to death bc the death is > seen to be instanteous, the fear is lesser as compare to my > experience in the dentist chair ;-). I am also the least worry about > last citta, bc it was too instanteous to know it is going to be > kusala. Even it is the worst - going to the Avici Hell - so what - > eventually the kamma will die out and *poof* I may be human again and > if I am lucky I may happen to learn Buddhism again bc of accumulated > tendecies. Hence I am the least worry ;-). Good attitude. You know, you bring up a subject I have been wondering about. It is said that being reborn in the human realm is the most fortuitous for learning the dhamma; however, from reading all of the deva suttas I have been reading I see that those who follow the dhamma in the human realm are more likely to be reborn a deva than a human if not reaching enlightenment. The Buddha also gave various suttas on how to be reborn a deva, but what about being reborn a human? What are the conditions that must be present for that? What is one wants to be reborn again in the human realm, what are the types of actions that must be done? Be good but not too good? ;-)) I know this might be a silly question but I was just wondering. Maybe someone here will have the answer. Metta, James 29193 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 0:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <> Hi James, You gave some helpful comments on this thread too: --- buddhatrue wrote: > Victor has provided a very important sutta, I am glad that you > appreciate it. However, Victor being the clever minx that he is ;-) > failed to provide his viewpoint of this sutta. I believe that you > both have misinterpreted this sutta; please allow me to explain and > provide another sutta that more clearly demonstrates the Buddha's > position. The important part of this sutta is the beginning: > > "Bhikkhus, I do not dispute with the world; rather, it > is the world that disputes with me. A proponent of the Dhamma does > not dispute with anyone in the world. Of that which the wise in the > world agree upon as not existing, I too say that it does not exist. > And of that which the wise in the world agree upon as existing, I > too say that it exists." > SN, 22, 93 "Flowers" > > In other words, the Buddha is going to use conventional language > of `existing' and `not existing', just as other people do, so as to > not dispute with them (obviously there are no Buddhas who post on > this list! ;-)). However, he did not truly believe in 'existence' > or 'non-existence' of anything, khandas included, and saw beyond such > dualistic concepts. .... S: I think we need to be careful with this word exists - the meaning depends on the context. Khandhas (form etc) exist in the sense they can be directly known, they arise and fall away. .... Let me quote another important sutta which > provides a counter-point: > SN, 12, 15(5) > > "Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the > Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As > he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, > right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?" > > "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its > object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. ... S: Pls read all the notes which BB helpfully provides on this. Here 'existence and non-existence' refer to the wrong views of eternalism and annihilationism. Pls read the commentary notes, some of which I gave in this post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/15227 Metta, Sarah p.s I agree with your kind comments and encouragement to Howard. Let's keep stumbling together and learn from our falls and test runs without conceit being an obstacle;-) Connie, thanks to you in this regard as well. ===================================== 29194 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 0:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok - kamma Hello KenO, Herman, and All, This is where kamma gives me another head-ache. How do all those people whose kammic seeds will ripen in a catastrophe manage to get together on the one plane at the one time? Or are there just so many 'catastrophe seeds' in everyone's continuum that there doesn't need to be a special gathering of those with catastrophe potential? ... we all have it?... metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Herman > > H: If your pilot confuses the wind-element with something else, we'll > read about it in the papers. > > > k: Pse do send me flowers. Ahhh kamma, isn't it wonderful. I am > the least worry about being crash or blow to death bc the death is > seen to be instanteous, the fear is lesser as compare to my > experience in the dentist chair ;-). I am also the least worry about > last citta, bc it was too instanteous to know it is going to be > kusala. Even it is the worst - going to the Avici Hell - so what - > eventually the kamma will die out and *poof* I may be human again and > if I am lucky I may happen to learn Buddhism again bc of accumulated > tendecies. Hence I am the least worry ;-). > > > Cheers > Ken O > > p.s. - that reminds me of buying tour insurance. 29195 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 1:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <> Hi Sarah, Sarah: You gave some helpful comments on this thread too: James: Don't I always? ;-)) Sarah: I think we need to be careful with this word exists - the meaning depends on the context. Khandhas (form etc) exist in the sense they can be directly known, they arise and fall away. James: No, I think YOU need to be careful with this word `exists'. Khandhas no more exist than anything else. Sarah: Pls read all the notes which BB helpfully provides on this. Here 'existence and non-existence' refer to the wrong views of eternalism and annihilationism. Pls read the commentary notes, some of which I gave in this post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/15227 James: Yes, I read them before I posted the sutta and I had no issue with them. `Eternalism" and `Annihilationism' relate to the Khandas also, not just conventional reality. You seem to be suffering the same `duality' in thinking that the Buddha warned against. Sarah: I agree with your kind comments and encouragement to Howard. Let's keep stumbling together and learn from our falls and test runs without conceit being an obstacle;-) James: I am glad that you agree. I went a bit over the top, but don't I always? ;-)) Howard is a great guy; Howard is a really, really great guy; I think we all need to give Howard and others encouragement (hehehe…I bet Howard is not liking this! ;-)) Okay, I better stop before he sends me a computer virus! ;-) Metta, James 29196 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 1:52am Subject: RE: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi KenO;-)) Hi Michael, --- Michael Beisert wrote: M: >But another point here is how can > you > say that something ‘exists momentarily’? Either the thing exists or it > does > not exist. Because for a thing to exist it has to have something in it > that > justifies its existence. And non existence is the absence of that. .... S: Exactly. Khandhas have characteristics and are conditioned, hence they exist *momentarily* and disintegrate by conditions too. The exception, of course, is the non-conditioned reality, nibbana. .... M: >So > how is > it possible that a thing exists and then loses that something and > suddenly > does not exist anymore. ..... S: Conditions, conditions. It is the conditioned nature of realities to arise and fall away. Hence the dukkha, hence the first Noble Truth. “Momentary present” (kha.nikapaccuppanna), existing momentarily. In particular, conditions such as contiguity (samanantara paccaya) and other crucial conditions ensure the continuous succession of cittas. In the article by Karunadasa, ‘Time and Space’ , a lot of helpful detail and quotes from the commentaries were given. He wrote: “Thus from the point of view of the Abhidhamma doctrine of momentariness, past means the dhammas which have ceased after having gone through the three moments of origination, existence, and dissolution (tayo khane patva niruddha); future means the dhammas which have not yet arrived at the three moments (tayo khane asampatta); and present means the dhammas that pass through the three moments (tayo khane sampatta, khanattaya-pariyapanna).” Lots of detail is given in the Atthasalini on the meanings of Time (Expositor, PTS, Analysis of Terms). For example: “Very small is the interval for exercising moral thoughts,and the extreme rarity of such moments may be understood from the Commentary on the sutta (of Dalhadhanuggaha, SNii.266), where it is said,‘Bhikkhus, there is the speed of this man; greater is the speed of the sun and the moon; greater is the speed of the Yama God who runs before the sun and the moon; swifter yet than that is the perishing of life’s activities.’ “Here, first of all, the short duration of the physical life-control is described......And no illustration can convey the shortness of time they occupy. Hence the Blessed One has said: Bhikkhus, it is no easy matter to illustrate the quickness of thoughts in their changing. (AN i.10).” ***** I wrote more details on the various meanings of Time from the Atthasalini and Kathavatthu before (pls look if you have time;-)) and recently to Howard on examples of suttas indicating the speed of time: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/11927 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/12391 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/29088 At the end of one of the quoted passages from the Kathavatthu, it says: “A: does the mind of the devas who have reached the plane of space-infinity arise and cease moment by moment? Th: It does” **** M: >Show me a sutta where the Buddha said that > things > exist momentarily. Not commentaries, suttas. .... S: OK, I need to know what I’m looking for, so humour me a little. So far we have kha.na (momentary or in a moment) or Momentary present (kha.nikapaccuppanna). The dictionary gives: ‘a (short), moment, wink of time; in phrase khanen'eva "in no time" for kha.na’ We also have lots of references to moment (kha.na) and kha.nikasamaadhi (momentary concentration) in the Abhidhamma, Visuddhimagga and so on and cross referenes to ‘one conscious moment’ in the Niddesa (part of Khuddaka Nikaya, Suttapitaka). Further, especially for you, Michael, let me quote from AN, Bk of 7s,150, Life’s Brevity (Bodhi transl in ‘Numerical Discourses of the Buddha’: “Just as a dew-drop on the tip of a blade of grass will quickly vanish at sunrise and will not last long; even so, brahmins, is human life like a dew-drop. It is short, limited and rief; it is full of suffering, full of tribulation. This one should wisely understand. One should do good and live a pure life; for none who is born can escape death..... Just as a mountain stream, coming from afar, swiftly flowing, carrying along much flotsam, will not stand still for a moment* , an instant, a second, but will rush on, swirl and flow forward; even so, brahmins, is human life like a mountain stream. It is short...for none who is born can escape death.” Many other examples are given. “But at that time, O monks, the human lifespan was 60,000 years, and at 500 years girls were marriageable. In those days people had but six afflictions: cold, heat, hunger, thirst, excement and urine. though people lived so long and had so few afflictions, that teacher Araka gave to his disciples such a teaching: “Short is the life of human beings... But nowadays, O monks, one could rightly say, “Short is the life of human beings...” *PTS transl note: “kha.no vaa layo vaa muhutto vaa. The Chinese traveller, Hiuen Tsiang, has the following note on these periods: The shortest period of time is called ksha.na.....” ..... Sutta Nipata10, U.t.thaana Sutta, ‘Arousing’ “Overcome this craving To which gods and men remain attached and seek pleasure. Do not let the opportune moment (kha.na) pass. those who let the unopportune moment (akha.na) pass Grieve when they are consigned to woe.” ..... S: Hence we’re continually reminded to understand and appreciate the shortness of this moment and the momentary nature of life. We are urged to not revive the past or build our hopes on the future, but with insight to see ‘each presently arisen state’ (MN131). I don’t expect these efforts and quotes to satisfy, but I appreciate the opportunity to consider further. With metta, Sarah ====== 29197 From: Eznir Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 2:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dismissing My Model - and All Models Dear Friends! Talking of Mathematical Models.... here is a another one on the Fundamental Structure of Things at: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/fundstr1.htm Metta eznir --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James - > > Thank you. No need to say more. :-) > > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 1/18/04 6:23:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, > buddhatrue@y... writes: > > > Hi Howard (and All), > > > > I want to express something to you and to everyone reading in, but I > > am not sure if I will do it justice. Please forgive me if I > > stumble. First, about your model of consciousness, I think it is > > brilliant!!...But probably only for you, if you can understand what I > > mean. You cannot transfer your thoughts and insights to anyone else > > with a model (as you have pointed out). That is, of course, why the > > Abhidhamma is inherently flawed and should not be taken so seriously > > by some folk around here ;-)). Was your model better or worse than > > the Abhidhamma? Same-Same. Models are just models: artificial > > constructs of the real thing. > > > > But the second point I want to make is: who cares? ;-)) It really > > does you justice to form such a model and to be willing to display > > it, unformed and all, in such a public forum. I really do wish that > > more people in this group were willing to take such risks and to have > > such open trust. This group is really advanced in the dhamma, as I > > have stated before, but that advancement has caused an unnatural need > > to be `perfect' and `correct' all the time with many members (it > > reminds me of my advanced classes…where competition was outrageously > > stiff). Again…conceit, conceit, conceit!!! I have said it before; I > > will say it again; and I will keep saying it until people listen. > > Was the Buddha perfect? `Perfect' doesn't apply. Was the > > Buddha `correct'? `Correct' doesn't apply. The Buddha was > > just `Awake'. > > > > Okay, now that I am off my soapbox! Hehehe… I hope that you will > > offer further thoughts and models and observations, and whatever… > > especially for the mathematically challenged like myself! ;-)). They > > do us all some good. Thanks for being you… > > > > Metta, James 29198 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 2:02am Subject: Human Rebirth (Re: Bangkok) Hello James, and all, This is a good question - everyone hopes for a fortunate rebirth, but the Teachings indicate that chances are not good, unless one becomes a sotapanna in this lifetime. Only then is one assured that the door to the (apaya) woeful realms is closed. In the Samyutta Nikaya 56 Saccasamyutta 47 (7) Yoke with a Hole (1) and 102 (1) Passing Away as Human (1) the difficulty and rarity of human or deva rebirth is spoken of by the Buddha. The Samyutta Nikaya also contains the Connected Discourses on Stream- Entry - 55 The Sotaapattisamyutta which points to the way to security from being reborn in bad destinations. Would you like to move the Samyutta Corner discussions over to this Samyutta for a while? It could be fruitful. :-) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > > Good attitude. You know, you bring up a subject I have been > wondering about. It is said that being reborn in the human realm is > the most fortuitous for learning the dhamma; however, from reading > all of the deva suttas I have been reading I see that those who > follow the dhamma in the human realm are more likely to be reborn a > deva than a human if not reaching enlightenment. The Buddha also > gave various suttas on how to be reborn a deva, but what about being > reborn a human? What are the conditions that must be present for > that? What is one wants to be reborn again in the human realm, what > are the types of actions that must be done? Be good but not too > good? ;-)) I know this might be a silly question but I was just > wondering. Maybe someone here will have the answer. > > Metta, James 29199 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 2:12am Subject: RE: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi KenO;-)) Hi Michael (& Icaro), --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Sarah, > Michael: > I don’t see the Buddha pointing out the ‘real and actual’. I see him > rejecting the notion that there is a ‘real and actual’ as well as its > opposite ‘not real and not actual.’ I see the Buddha pointing towards > dependent origination all the time. And dependent origination is not > ‘real > and actual’ nor ‘not real and not actual.’ .... S3: I think my posts to Victor and James have addressed these points, along with Jon’s, Ken O’s and all the others on paramattha dhammas;-) .... > S2: Could you give me some Tipitaka references which suggest that > concepts > and entities are conditioned, share the 3 characteristics and can be > object of insight. > S2: Exactly, concepts are non existent except as imaginary constructs. > > > Michael: > Concepts = Paññatti, for example a human being. > Entities = Khandhas. > Can you give me a sutta which states that paññatti, or a human being, is > non > existent. .... S3: Hmmm....I assume this means that no sutta comes to mind to support your statements that concepts are conditioned and share the 3 characteristics which can be object of insight;-) By entities, I would be referring to people and things (eg computers, vases). These are not the khandhas. Perhaps you’d explain what you mean by entities. I gave ones from the Khandhavagga which clearly indicate the Tathagatha and people are not ‘real and actual’. I think the one I’m discussing with Victor, ‘Flowers’, clearly shows that only the khandhas are real and actual (unless nibbana is being experienced!!). Michael, as I mentioned in another post, apart from a few very brief responses to others which I may or may not get round to making, I need to be signing off as in my case I haven't begun to think about packing or a number of chores that I need to get onto before our departure on Friday. I've greatly enjoyed and appreciated our discussions. I look forward to reading any replies you give and any further posts you write to others too. Metta, Sarah p.s Icaro, have you seen Michael’s wonderful Portuguese website? I don’t have it handy. Michael, perhaps you’d repost it. The German website you use looks great - Michael, it has the Kathavatthu in German if that’s any use and the Visuddhimagga with hyper-links to suttas. http://www.palikanon.com/ ===== 29200 From: icarofranca Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 3:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi KenO;-)) Dear Sarah: > > Michael: > > Concepts = Paññatti, for example a human being. > > Entities = Khandhas. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Right! There is a strong concordance between these Buddist remarks and other western philosophical stands. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > By entities, I would be referring to people and things (eg computers, > vases). These are not the khandhas. Perhaps you'd explain what you mean by > entities. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Right 2! Entities (Khandas) can be definied by everything with has a Nama/Rupa aggregate basis: an object external of sense-doors, an object of mind or the own human mind! There are many many points on Suttas about these matter! ------------------------------------------------------------------- > p.s Icaro, have you seen Michael's wonderful Portuguese website? I don't > have it handy. Michael, perhaps you'd repost it. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Not yet! It could be wonderful read good material in Portuguese!!! (And stop struggling out with german translations!!!) Mettaya, Ícaro > The German website you use looks great - Michael, it has the Kathavatthu > in German if that's any use and the Visuddhimagga with hyper-links to > suttas. > http://www.palikanon.com/ > > ===== > > > 29201 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok - kamma Hi Christine Some pple who die in a castrophe is due to their kamma being ripen and I think I remember I read it somewhere that there is unnatural death (means dying suddenly without the vipaka being ripen)- some pple die in a castrophe due to unnatural death. Kamma follow a natural law just like gravity etc follows their own law. The pblm is that kamma natural law must be an immerse and complex bc how does it work to ripe the deeds of vipaka of the infinite beings. I also dont know how, I just have faith in the Buddha about this bc this is truly the domain of the Buddha not even his disciples know the complexity of kamma. I sorry I cannot help you bc the complexity of how kamma works must be based on faith to believe. kind regards Ken O 29202 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 5:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Human Rebirth (Re: Bangkok) Hi James I also dont know how to become human again. I think the least should be the five precepts of the householders. I dont think I want to be born in the Deva realms bc I remember I read somewhere that these beings are enjoying the ripening of good kamma results and there is very little chance of practising kusala vipaka unless one preach the dhamma. Give me all the gold in the infinite universes to be reborn as a deva, I would rather choose be born in the human life (good kamma) even though suffer from thirst, hunger and phyiscal pain but it gives me plenty of opportunity to learn the dhamma and cultivate more kusala. But nothng can gurantee the rebirth in the human realms even if I practise the ten precepts bc the kamma is anatta. best wishes Ken O 29203 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 5:45am Subject: Re: Heart base Dear Htoo, Sorry for the delay in replying. All pasada rupas are kammasamutthana, produced by kamma. Not by citta or utu or ahara. However there are always other conditions that affect the main condition in various ways. robertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Dear Robert K, > > Thank you very much for your effort and I am happy with heart base. > But here a question arises. > > Do Pasada Rupa solely caused by Kamma or are also caused by others? > > With much respect, > > Htoo Naing > ------------------------------------------------------------------- - > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Dear Htoo, > > > But the eyes, ears and so forth - these organs where the > > pasada > > arises still exist, are still visible, because they are not > > conditioned solely by kamma. And certainly they can act as a > > support for new pasada rupa -conditioned by anothers kamma. > > That > > is why transplants can work. If this is still not clear please > > ask more as these subtle points where conventional ideas and > > the > > sublime Dhamma intersect can show us much about the clinging > > that there is to concept and story. > > > > >robert 29204 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 6:48am Subject: Human Rebirth (Re: Bangkok) Hi Christine, Christine: The Samyutta Nikaya also contains the Connected Discourses on Stream- Entry - 55 The Sotaapattisamyutta which points to the way to security from being reborn in bad destinations. Would you like to move the Samyutta Corner discussions over to this Samyutta for a while? It could be fruitful. :-) James: Sure, that sounds like a good idea. Then, after we have explored that throughly, I would suggest we jump to the books in the Samyutta Nikaya that classify, define, and explore the Khandas. It seems that many in this group are interested in this area but we all usually have only a vague idea of what we are referring to. What do you think? Jumping around in the Samyutta, as teaching opportunities arise, is probably the best way to handle it. Good suggestion! Why don't you start (since it was your idea ;-). Metta, James 29205 From: Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 2:21am Subject: Existence, Khandhas, And Ripley's Believe It or Not Hi all, most especially Michael, Sarah, and Jon - The "emptiness-middle-way" expressed in the Kaccayangotta Sutta is a really tough tight-rope act for all of us. It is *easy* to fall off to the right, the side of self-existence and substantialism, and it is *easy* to fall off to the left, the side of utter nonexistence and nihilism - it is *very* easy. Using terms such as 'a reality' and 'essence' and 'sabhava' for a fleeting event that cannot exist on its own, independently, for even a moment, and to think of such as a separate "thing," and not as a mere fleeting, distinguishable aspect of an interdependent, dynamic network, is to teeter to the right, in my opinion. On the other hand, to completely deny the very existence of such an event, for the reason of its existing briefly but not forever (Michael, you wrote "...how is it possible that a thing exists and then loses that something and suddenly does not exist anymore ...," and I reply here that there *is* no such "something" to be gained and lost, no essence/core, but merely completely dependent arising, change, and cessation of a condition/event.) is to fall off the nihilist left side. Imagining coming into existence as the gaining of a substantial essence, a "something" which is then destroyed, you then run in disgust from such annihilationism and fall into the arms of utter nihilism (no existence at all). At least this is how it seems to me. If we reify existence we stumble and fall off to the right, if we deny it entirely we perish on the left. 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) 29206 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 10:21am Subject: life faculty and apples Hi Larry, I heard on tape more about life faculty, which may help the picture of the whole. Its aspect of taking care (like a wetnurse) was stressed. It is an indriya, leader, having the function of taking care of the other rupas produced by kamma. So also in the eyedecad: eyesense could not function without it. So also with regard to femininity and masculinity, and the other groups of rupas produced by kamma. By the way, there are no apples available in a hell plane, and we can hardly expect them in a ghost plane. Nina. 29207 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 10:21am Subject: latent tendencies Ch 1, no 7 latent tendencies Ch 1, no 7 3. There are three levels of defilements. In the Commentaries to the Vinaya, the Suttanta and the Abhidhamma, and in the Subcommentaries, there are explanations of the elimination of the three levels of defilements, namely, the anusaya kilesa (latent tendencies), the pariyutthåna kilesa (arising with the akusala citta) and the vítikkama kilesa (transgression, misconduct). We read in the Commentary to the Vinaya, the ³Samantapåsådikå, in the ³Inception of Discipline² (II, the Account of the First Great Convocation, 22 ) [15] : ³In the Vinayapitaka is taught the avoidance of transgression (vítikkama kilesa), as morality is diametrically opposed to the defilements of the degree of transgression; in the Suttapitaka the avoidance of prepossession (pariyutthåna kilesa, arising with the akusala citta), as concentration (samådhi) is diametrically opposed to prepossession; in the Abhidhammapitaka, the avoidance (pahåna: abandoning) of latent bias, as wisdom is diametrically opposed to latent bias. In the first (pitaka) the categorical avoidance (tadangappahåna) of defilements has been taught and in the others(respectively) the avoidance consisting of elimination and eradication (vikkhambhanasamucchedappahånåni). In the first the avoidance of the defilement of misconduct has been taught and in the others (respectively) that of the defilements of craving and misbelief...² We read in the ³Sumangalavilåsiní², the Commentary to the Dígha Nikåya, in the Commentary to the ³Net of Views² (Brahmajålasutta), under the section on Síla: ³In the Vinaya he taught the abandoning of the coarse defilements, because morality is opposed to coarse defilements. He taught the abandoning of medium defilements in the Suttanta, because concentration is opposed to medium defilements. He taught the abandoning of subtle defilements in the Abhidhamma because wisdom is opposed to subtle defilements. He taught in the first Pitaka the temporary elimination of defilements and in the other two Pitakas he taught (respectively) the elimination of defilements by suppression and by complete cutting off. The abandoning of the corruptions (sankilesa) which are akusala kamma he taught in the first Pitaka, the abandoning of the corruptions which are craving (tanhå) and wrong view (ditthi) he taught (respectively) in the other two Pitakas.² Footnote: 15. N.A. Jayawickrama translated: transgression is diametrically opposed to morality, but I prefer: morality is diametrically opposed to transgression. **** Nina. 29208 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 10:21am Subject: Re: A Missing Feature (Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Math) Hi Howard, does this question still stand? Anyway, your model was an opportunity for some reflection on cetasikas. Always a good subject. You did not present it in vain. I am thinking aloud now. op 18-01-2004 05:05 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > Now, this may or may not be consistent with Abhidhamma, but I believe > that nothing remains *exactly* the same even for a moment. At the very least, > for any cetasika and for any experienced object, that cetasika or object > changes in intensity during its interval of existence, first increasing, then > peaking, then decreasing. As an example, there might be, at some point in > time within a namarupic flow, no anger whatsoever, but then anger arises, > grows > gradually, peaks, then decreases, and finally ceases. (It could, of course, > then arise once again, in a subsequrent citta.) N: This makes me think of the simile in the Expositor: it is impossible to discern when taking water of the Ganges: this is water from the Aciravati and this from the other rivers that flow into it. But the Buddha did a difficult thing: discerning all the different cetasikas. The Dhamma student thinks he knows anger, can experience that cetasika, but there are considerable difficulties. When I say Dhamma student: shorthand for all those developing the Eightfold Path. Moreover, I do not bring in my own knowledge, but like to share what I learnt from A. Sujin. This between brackets. A. Sujin said, we cannot claim to clearly distinguish cetasika from citta. This does not mean that we cannot begin to be aware. This is most common and happens all the time: the student thinks that he can experience something directly, but it is only thinking of concepts. Cittas are extremely fast. It may seem that a cetasika can be observed growing in intensity, but meanwhile countless moments have passed. The student may think that he has now understood the difference between thinking and awareness, but after a while he realizes that this is still not the case. This is bound to happen again and again. Very common. A. Sujin said: panna has to go across all realities, it has to be realized. It shows how important the perfection of truthfulness is. There are many pittfalls for the student so long as the latent tendency of wrong view is not eradicated. He may believe that he has no wrong view, but it is essential to recognize it as such. Also to recognize clinging to result as A. Sujin keeps on saying. Thus we see how helpful the details of the Abhidhamma are. Take for example conceit: the impressive list in the "Book of Analysis" and the ninefold conceit. Conceit has been explained in the suttas, and the Abhidhamma gives us more details. Even when thinking, , there is conceit, even when not comparing. Or we think (even *think*) the other person has anger...etc. (fill out the list), it is there already. A latent tendency eradicated only at reaching arahatship. But we know so very little of these cetasikas arising in life, even we write books about them! When writing about Dhamma or no matter what we do: conceit time and again. A good topic for Bgk!! We can hand each other interesting examples. Should we close down the list? Do we continue writing? Conceit arises with cittas rooted in lobha only. But when writing there is also fatigue, some aversion because of the effort, wanting to do rather something else, like looking at Pali texts. As Sarah said, we are always a mixture of kusala and akusala, it is so common. I had a conversation with Mike about defilements: that there's no one behind sankhaarakhandha . N: this is a super reminder, much appreciated. N:My father was moved to tears because of the music and said, you have a >> grateful father. This is quite something for him to say. M: Yes, pleasant feelings arising from so complex a series of cittakha.naa...so pleasant, nonetheless.> Sankhaarakkhandha, formations, include akusala cetasikas and sobhana (beautiful) cetasikas, and these are accumulated. All our lobha, dosa, moha, conceit, but no one behind it. We cannot have kusala on command, or awareness on command. A. Sujin often says about understanding: intellectual understanding and reflection, some moments of awareness, these are all accumulated as sankhaarakkhandha and they will bear fruit: understanding develops until it is supramundane. And no person behind it all. As Mike said, pleasant feelings arising from so complex a series of cittakha.naa, from a moment of citta (kha.naa is moment). So many kinds of pleasant feelings, some kusala, many akusala. Helpful to see the intricacy. When hearing an unpleasant word, conceit can condition dosa: why is *he* doing that to *me*? I told A. Sujin once about problems with my father. Her answer: there is not your father, and the hearing of sound is just hearing, and what is heard is just sound. When we think in the way of paramattha dhammas, and we can sometimes be aware, we are less involved with persons. We travel safely. It does make a difference. But the student should not imagine that he can directly experience cetasikas, a long, long way off. This should not bother him. All are sankhaarakkhandha. The Tipitaka, Commentaries and good friends are so inspiring and encouraging! Nina. 29209 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 10:21am Subject: correction latent tendencies, Ch1, no 4 Dear Sarah and Kom, I do not know whether this comes too late. Since I am now able to compare texts with Pali, and after having some exchange with Jim and Rett on the Pali yahoo list, I want to correct as follows: correction latent tendencies, Ch1, no 4, the whole passage of :In the ³Pañcappakaranatthakathå², in the Commentary to the ³Yamaka², the Sixth Book of the Abhidhamma, we read in the section on the latent tendencies (anusaya-våra) and the section on ³possessed of latent tendencies² (sånusaya-våra): "In the section on Œbeing possessed of latent tendencies¹ the Buddha said : ¹Who is with the latent tendency of sensuous desire, he is possessed of it' It is just like someone who suffers extremely from the sickness of old age, and so on, and, so long as he is not cured from this sickness, is called a sick person even when illness does not arise. It is the same in the case of someone with defilements who is traversing the round of rebirths whose latent tendencies have not been eradicated by the noble eightfold Path. Even though the latent tendencies do not arise he is called a person who is possessed of the latent tendencies. Thus, concerning such latent tendencies he is possessed with, he finds them quite acceptable. The other words in this section are the same as those in the section on latent tendencies.² Thus we see that there are latent tendencies in each of the cittas that are arising and falling away in succession so long as they have not been eradicated by the noble eightfold Path. **** (footnote 10 is eliminated. That means, in the following sections, up to footnote 15, that these shift backwards!) Nina. 29210 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 10:56am Subject: Stream Entry - SN XI 55 2 (2) Grounded Hello James, Samyutta study group, all, Good idea James to move about as interest in a particular topic occurs. Though the suttas get longer now we are away from the Verses. metta, Christine Chapter XI 55. Sotaapattisamyutta Connected Discourses on Stream Entry 2 (2) Grounded "Bhikkhus, a noble disciple who possesses four things is a stream- enterer, no longer bound to the nether world, fixed in destiny, with enlightenment as his destination. [n. 322] "What four? Here, bhikkhus, a noble disciple possesses confirmed confidence in the Buddha thus: "The Blessed One is an arahant, perfectly enlightened, accomplished in true knowledge and conduct, fortunate, knower of the world, unsurpassed leader of persons to be tamed, teacher of devas and humans, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One.' "He possesses confirmed confidence in the Dhamma thus: 'The Dhamma is well expounded by the Blessed One, directly visible, immediate, inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be personally experienced by the wise.' "He possesses confirmed confidence in the Sangha thus: 'The Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples is practising the good way, practising the straight way, practising the true way, practising the proper way; that is, the four pairs of persons, the eight types of individiuals - this Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples is worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of reverential salutation, the unsurpassed field of merit for the world.' "He possesses the virtues dear to the noble ones, unbroken, untorn, unblemished, unmottled, freeing, praised by the wise ungrasped, leading to concentration. [n.320] "A noble disciple, bhikkhus, who possesses these four things is a stream-enterer, no longer bound to the nether world, fixed in destiny, with enlightenment as his destination." "This is what the Blessed One said. Having said this, the Fortunate One, the Teacher, further said this: "Those who possess faith and virtue, Confidence and vision of the Dhamma, In time arrive at the happiness Grounded upon the holy life." [n.323] n.320 The terms describing the noble one's virtue are explicated at Vism 221-22 (Ppn 7:101-6). Spk says that noble ones do no violate (na kopenti) the Five Precepts even when they pass on to a new existence; hence these virtues are dear to them. n.322 This is the stock definition of the stream-enterer. "Fixed in destiny (niyata) means that the stream-enterer is bound to reach final liberation in a maximum of seven more lives passed either in the human world or the celestial realms. Enlightenment (sambodhi) is the final knowledge of arahantship. n.323 Brahmacariyogadha.m sukkha.m. On ogadha see III, n. 243 Spk.: This is the happiness assoicated with the higher three paths. The confidence mentioned in the verse can be interpreted either as the confidence concomitant witht he path (maggappasaada) or as the reviewing confidence of one who has reached the path (aagatamaggassa paccavekkhanappasaada). --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" 29211 From: Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 6:16am Subject: What is There to Say? Hi, all - There is something essentially wrong with my model, but not just *that* model, and it is what Thomas Nagel calls "the view from nowhere." The model envisages events occurring on an infinite time-line, as if one could step back and look at all there was, all there is, and all there will be as if that alleged infinite linearity were all "present". But it is *not* all present, and there is no stepping back! In fact, there is no time but "now", no place but "here", and no event but "this". We can speak of impermanence, but what is it that doesn't remain? Isn't it just that "this" doesn't match the memory that is also right here, right now, but seems to refer to some presumed "past event"? Nothing whatsoever is graspable, and there can be no change in time, for there is no time but now. Time is a dream. And with time a dream, so are both permanence and impermanence dreams. So ... what can be truly said? Nothing - it is ineffable, a mystery! But it is a timeless reality - just "Look! Look!" With timeless 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) 29212 From: Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 7:20am Subject: An Addendum (Re: What is There to Say?) Hi again, all - I wrote the following: > > Hi, all - > > There is something essentially wrong with my model, but not just > *that* model, and it is what Thomas Nagel calls "the view from nowhere." The > model > envisages events occurring on an infinite time-line, as if one could step > back > and look at all there was, all there is, and all there will be as if that > alleged infinite linearity were all "present". But it is *not* all present, > and > there is no stepping back! > In fact, there is no time but "now", no place but "here", and no event > but "this". We can speak of impermanence, but what is it that doesn't > remain? > Isn't it just that "this" doesn't match the memory that is also right here, > right now, but seems to refer to some presumed "past event"? Nothing > whatsoever > is graspable, and there can be no change in time, for there is no time but > now. Time is a dream. And with time a dream, so are both permanence and > impermanence dreams. So ... what can be truly said? Nothing - it is > ineffable, a > mystery! But it is a timeless reality - just "Look! Look!" > > With timeless metta, > Howard ========================= None of the above is meant to suggest that the Buddha was wrong. It is just that what the Buddha said was not "it". It was a pointing to "it", the best pointing possible. The Dhamma is the best of rafts - well crafted, without leaks, that can carry one for the entire trip if he/she but gets on board and doesn't get off. And the stating of the tilakkhana and the scheme of dependent origination probably come about as close as speech can to describing the indescribable. There is no condition that remains, there is no condition that satisfies, there is nothing with self/core; and there is no aspect of experience that stands on its own, self-existent. What better pointing could there 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) 29213 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 1:08pm Subject: Ken H on-line Hi all, Apologies for my sudden disappearance. After a (long) week without dsg, I am back in the land of the living – and with a new computer. I look forward to catching up on almost 200 unread messages. See you then. Kind regards, Ken H 29214 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 1:18pm Subject: Re: Ken H on-line Welcome back, KenH :-). - Well, that disproves the Bunyip Theory! metta, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi all, > > Apologies for my sudden disappearance. After a (long) week without > dsg, I am back in the land of the living – and with a new computer. > > I look forward to catching up on almost 200 unread messages. See > you then. > > Kind regards, > Ken H 29215 From: connie Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 2:22pm Subject: Re: heartbase, bhavangas, et al Hi Ken, Htoo, Larry, Icaro, Nina, All ~ Here, I would like to unfurl my tattered flag around the whole bhavanga thing so you all can see it's more of a spider's web with it's gaping holes. I'm not sure where to put the jhana patches Sir Icaro was kind enough to send... welcome home and congratulations on the promotion!... and thank you for the dance. Patisandhi arises with or without heartbase, depending on the realm, but is the kammic link between the existences/lifetimes. It is the kamma or something to do with the last five javanas' object that determines this new foundation. The materially reborn (formless realm) are established on the vital nonad. Others, materially and mentally reborn, on the maranasanna-nimitta (which could be the heartbase). [More con-fusion on the types of maranasanna, but they are - kamma object (past, manodvara); kamma nimitta (past or present, sense-/rupa- or mano-dvara); gati nimitta (mano-dvara)]. Depending on the kamma producing it, patisandhi is not nec'ly performed by the same type of citta (19 possible) as the preceding cuti, but all (resultant) bhavangas of each lifetime will be the same type as that patisandhi. The patisandhi is followed by 16 bhavangas, the mano-dvara-avajjana and 7 javanas and there is already liking of the new existence from this first vithi from lobha mula citta. Thus, the whole existence is based on clinging even if there is a huge tendency for lobha and the two can't arise at the same time. In the less drastic times (the momentary death-birth cycles within each lifetime), the atita-bhavanga is where/when an object (rupic or otherwise) enters/disturbs the surface of the stream of (sub)consciousness/bhavanga-sota. Depending on how hard the object lands, there can be more than one occurrence of atita (2 or 3?). The bhavanga-calana catches the object and the ripples spread out on the surface. The bhavangupaccheda arrests the further entry into the bhavanga sota, but there is a whirlpool/activity where there is an obstruction. I don't know - maybe bhavangupacceda is the mind-door [Vibhavini Tika] and is also called avajjana (opening/turning toward) bhavanga [S'avajjanam bhavangantu manodvaranti vuccati - Abhidhmmavatara]; maybe it precedes the avajjana, which would then be the pancadvaravajjana/adverting consciousness, which is classified as 'functional' and, I think, the beginning of a vithi. Anyway, up to three moments of avajjana occur and intention and awareness arise from this 'mind as the basis'/mananja. The dvi-panca-vinnanas (resultant) arise with the universal cetasikas only and are conditioned by both physical and mental factors. Whatever the door might be, manayatana/mind-sphere is both manodvaravajjana and bhavangupacceda. 'Mind' is both vinnana/conciousness and citta/state of consciousness (with accompanying cetasikas) as well as the bhavanga-sota (though we usually seem to mean only the 'conscious-conscious' mind). The special/named bhavangas seem to be some kind of guard or decontamination chamber since the bhavangas as a whole are not supposed to receive any new external object having to do with the present life and are dvara-vimutta/door-freed. [The cuti and patisandhi do not arise in any sense-doors]. But at this point there is only dassana-matta/mere awareness of the object, no knowledge has been produced, and the object is hurried through the door to the receiving/welcoming/sampaticchana citta and then introduced to the investigator/santirana before being sent to the votthapana/determining/discriminating mind and then the javanas and finally, if there is time, one or two tadalambana/tadarammana/registering/retaining cittas. This whole mind vithi is named according to the javanas: kammajavana, jhanajavana or maggaphalajavana. This sense door process has all dealt with present objects only and after this, we return to the bhavangas. I think this is an abrupt thing, with no specially named functions between. The physical/sense-door thought process ending point depends on the initial impact/atita moment, which may be atiparitta/very slight (mogha vara), paritta/slight (votthapana vara) or mahanta/great (javana vara) or atimahanta/very great (tadalambana vara). If it had been a mind door process ending with the javana, the object was avibhuta/obscure; if after the tadarammana(s), vibhuta/clear. peace, connie 29216 From: connie Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 2:53pm Subject: Re: Angulimala revisited Hi Ken O, Christine (Azita) ~ Maybe Christine has more details, but I don't know to bribe her. I've heard the Angulimala Meets Buddha part is very touching as well, but don't have any further details to add. I laughed, too, Christine. But the longest scary story still just might be The Momentary Existence Saga. Anyway, here's something fairly recent from Mike Mailway's Seattle Times column that reminded me of one of the king stories from Angulimala: "In Australia's Queensland, natives along the Pennefeather and Tully Rivers keep alive an old tradition: Each husband is understood to have the same sexual privileges with his wife's sisters, whether they're married or not, that he has with his wife. It's not unique to that place, might add. History indicates as many as 40 North American Indian tribes once practiced variations of that cultural custom." I dunno about Mike's experiences, but I'd say variations are still practiced among certain subcultural groups in the US... the variation being more in who has rights to the girlfriend/wife. Another of Mike's tidbits: "Technically, you don't see anybody's ears. They're inside. What you see are the 'pinnas' or 'auricles.'" peace, connie 29217 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 3:16pm Subject: Re: Stream Entry - SN XI 55 2 (2) Grounded Hi Christine, Christine: Good idea James to move about as interest in a particular topic occurs. James: Actually it was your idea; I was just following your lead. ;-) Christine: Though the suttas get longer now we are away from the Verses. James: Yes, that can present some logistical problems, but we will just have to move forward. Those who expect to learn the end to life's suffering in twenty words or less are definitely in the wrong group! ;-)) I want to insert some comments into this sutta about areas that I think are important and worthy of more focus. (For all: This does not mean that I am teaching, clarifying, or offering more commentary; I am just throwing out my observations. Throw them out, throw them back, or throw them home as you see fit. ;-) Chapter XI 55. Sotaapattisamyutta Connected Discourses on Stream Entry 2 (2) Grounded "Bhikkhus, a noble disciple who possesses four things is a stream- enterer, no longer bound to the nether world, fixed in destiny, with enlightenment as his destination. [n. 322] "What four? Here, bhikkhus, a noble disciple possesses confirmed confidence in the Buddha thus: "The Blessed One is an arahant, perfectly enlightened, accomplished in true knowledge and conduct, fortunate, knower of the world, unsurpassed leader of persons to be tamed, teacher of devas and humans, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One.' James: I think that this one is pretty hard for a lot of us. The Buddha, as a person and an Arahant, standing in front of us, is long gone. (Where he went is up to debate. ;-). But it is very hard for most of us to build confidence in someone that we have never met. I liken it to seeing a fossil of a fish in a stone. Some people will look at that fossil and see nothing but a fossil; some people will look at that fossil and imagine "Wow, I bet that was a beautiful, wonderful, vibrant fish!" So, taking that in mind, I guess that most in this group are ahead of the game a bit. How much better off we are than those who in the Buddha's time met the Blessed One face-to- face and thought, "Yeah, so what." So, in other words, this standard needs to be considered in context. "He possesses confirmed confidence in the Dhamma thus: 'The Dhamma is well expounded by the Blessed One, directly visible, immediate, inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be personally experienced by the wise.' James: This one is easier for us but we struggle with it on a daily basis. I think that a lot of us go on instinct in this regard: We don't see a lot of evidence of the dhamma in our daily lives (surrounded by self-involved people), we just `feel' it. Our struggle is to fight the conditioning of our environment. "He possesses confirmed confidence in the Sangha thus: 'The Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples is practising the good way, practising the straight way, practising the true way, practising the proper way; that is, the four pairs of persons, the eight types of individiuals - this Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples is worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of reverential salutation, the unsurpassed field of merit for the world.' James: Well, honestly, I don't think we have a lot of confidence in this either or we would all be monks by now. Just imagine, in the Buddha's time, the Buddha and his Sangha of monks inspired thousands to leave the householder life to discover what he taught. Families, for the most part, were overjoyed at such decisions and such honor it brought them. Where are we now? Monkhood is something that only those `other people' do in those `other countries' where such a quaint, `little custom' is still observed. I'm sorry, I feel that we have lost most of the concept of a true Sangha; but no reason to get upset about it. Nothing is permanent. "He possesses the virtues dear to the noble ones, unbroken, untorn, unblemished, unmottled, freeing, praised by the wise ungrasped, leading to concentration. [n.320] James: Honestly, I think that most people have these virtues but don't know, don't admit, don't recognize, and don't own up to them. This one is as possible for us all as simply as opening a door. "A noble disciple, bhikkhus, who possesses these four things is a stream-enterer, no longer bound to the nether world, fixed in destiny, with enlightenment as his destination." James: Well, at the end of this analysis, I don't think that too many of us have any reason to feel confident in this regard. More work, dedication, and faith are in need and in order. "This is what the Blessed One said. Having said this, the Fortunate One, the Teacher, further said this: "Those who possess faith and virtue, Confidence and vision of the Dhamma, In time arrive at the happiness Grounded upon the holy life." [n.323] James: Now, I don't know about you, but I feel that the Buddha was speaking to each of us here, in our present time. He knew that in the future he would be gone and the Sangha would be shabby or absent; what to do? Have confidence in the Dhamma and, in time, we will arrive at happiness. (Hmmm…how much time? I have a hair appointment at 3:00. ;-))) n.320 The terms describing the noble one's virtue are explicated at Vism 221-22 (Ppn 7:101-6). Spk says that noble ones do no violate (na kopenti) the Five Precepts even when they pass on to a new existence; hence these virtues are dear to them. James: This is typical tripe from Buddhaghosa. Virtues are virtues and they are not limited to nor defined by the five precepts. Ignore this drivel (apologies for my bluntness and you don't have to agree). n.322 This is the stock definition of the stream-enterer. "Fixed in destiny (niyata) means that the stream-enterer is bound to reach final liberation in a maximum of seven more lives passed either in the human world or the celestial realms. Enlightenment (sambodhi) is the final knowledge of arahantship. James: Considering the millions, billions, incalculable lives we have all gone through (am I the only one who feels tired?...no joke), this sounds promising. n.323 Brahmacariyogadha.m sukkha.m. On ogadha see III, n. 243 Spk.: This is the happiness assoicated with the higher three paths. The confidence mentioned in the verse can be interpreted either as the confidence concomitant witht he path (maggappasaada) or as the reviewing confidence of one who has reached the path (aagatamaggassa paccavekkhanappasaada). James: Okay, happiness during and after! Sounds good to me! ;-) Metta, James 29218 From: Andrew Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 3:18pm Subject: Prompting Beautiful Consciousness Hi everyone Can anyone point me in the right direction for finding out more about the prompting of Beautiful Consciousness? Can BC be prompted by the Wrong Speech or Wrong Action of another? TIA Metta Andrew 29219 From: icarofranca Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:24pm Subject: Re: heartbase, bhavangas, et al Dear Connie " I'm not sure where to put the jhana patches Sir Icaro was kind > enough to send... welcome home and congratulations on the promotion! " -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ohhhh.... Sir Ícaro of Montray feels so much honoured by your charms, Muse of Summer! (One day I will put my Abhidhamma files in good order...Niyama urges!) ------------------------------------------------------------------- ... > and thank you for the dance. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Pas du tout, mademoiselle! Nous...Français...sommes...tout... gentile! ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Patisandhi arises with or without heartbase, depending on the realm, but > is the kammic link between the existences/lifetimes. It is the kamma or > something to do with the last five javanas' object that determines this > new foundation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes! I always take these part of Buddhistic Doctrine as a matter of Jhana: but,as I have stated in one of my Dhamma Diary Chapters, this journey from past bhavanga to a new registered one ( see Tadaramana) has sound and ground foundations on Reality. The passage Patisandhi-Cuti-rebirth is still a bit controversical for western minds... ------------------------------------------------------------------- The materially reborn (formless realm) are established > on the vital nonad. Others, materially and mentally reborn, on the > maranasanna-nimitta (which could be the heartbase). [More con-fusion on > the types of maranasanna, but they are - kamma object (past, manodvara); > kamma nimitta (past or present, sense-/rupa- or mano-dvara); gati > nimitta (mano-dvara)]. Depending on the kamma producing it, patisandhi > is not nec'ly performed by the same type of citta (19 possible) as the > preceding cuti, but all (resultant) bhavangas of each lifetime will be > the same type as that patisandhi. > > The patisandhi is followed by 16 bhavangas, the mano-dvara-avajjana -------------------------------------------------------------------- This sense-door consciousness is either Pancadvaravajjana or Manodvaravajjana. --------------------------------------------------------------------- and > 7 javanas and there is already liking of the new existence from this > first vithi from lobha mula citta. Thus, the whole existence is based > on clinging even if there is a huge tendency for lobha and the two can't > arise at the same time. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The beginning of mind consciousness as we know it is the Investing Consciousness - Santirana. After these determinations you can get a set of mind impulsions 'till the first registering consciousness. When the mind receives stimulation through one of the senses, the thought processes runs at this way: mind rising up mental impressions, with only one bhavanga at first. After all these impulsions you reach a new bhavanga, a new image or personal life (?). Due to Lobha, Dosa and Moha you get this new image as the old one. Falsely, as a matter of fact: the past bhavanga (of the past life) is gone and a new one had arisen. Many could say that the past heart-basis vanishes too, but there are other reasonings about it. ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > In the less drastic times (the momentary death-birth cycles within each > lifetime), the atita-bhavanga is where/when an object (rupic or > otherwise) enters/disturbs the surface of the stream of > (sub)consciousness/bhavanga-sota. Depending on how hard the object > lands, there can be more than one occurrence of atita (2 or 3?). The > bhavanga-calana catches the object and the ripples spread out on the > surface. The bhavangupaccheda arrests the further entry into the > bhavanga sota, but there is a whirlpool/activity where there is an > obstruction. I don't know - maybe bhavangupacceda is the mind-door > [Vibhavini Tika] and is also called avajjana (opening/turning toward) > bhavanga [S'avajjanam bhavangantu manodvaranti vuccati - > Abhidhmmavatara]; maybe it precedes the avajjana, which would then be > the pancadvaravajjana/adverting consciousness, which is classified as > 'functional' and, I think, the beginning of a vithi. Anyway, up to > three moments of avajjana occur and intention and awareness arise from > this 'mind as the basis'/mananja. The dvi-panca-vinnanas (resultant) > arise with the universal cetasikas only and are conditioned by both > physical and mental factors. Whatever the door might be, > manayatana/mind-sphere is both manodvaravajjana and bhavangupacceda. > 'Mind' is both vinnana/conciousness and citta/state of consciousness > (with accompanying cetasikas) as well as the bhavanga-sota (though we > usually seem to mean only the 'conscious-conscious' mind). > > The special/named bhavangas seem to be some kind of guard or > decontamination chamber since the bhavangas as a whole are not supposed > to receive any new external object having to do with the present life > and are dvara-vimutta/door-freed. [The cuti and patisandhi do not arise > in any sense-doors]. But at this point there is only dassana-matta/mere > awareness of the object, no knowledge has been produced, and the object > is hurried through the door to the receiving/welcoming/sampaticchana > citta and then introduced to the investigator/santirana before being > sent to the votthapana/determining/discriminating mind and then the > javanas and finally, if there is time, one or two > tadalambana/tadarammana/registering/retaining cittas. This whole mind > vithi is named according to the javanas: kammajavana, jhanajavana or > maggaphalajavana. This sense door process has all dealt with present > objects only and after this, we return to the bhavangas. I think this is > an abrupt thing, with no specially named functions between. The > physical/sense-door thought process ending point depends on the initial > impact/atita moment, which may be atiparitta/very slight (mogha vara), > paritta/slight (votthapana vara) or mahanta/great (javana vara) or > atimahanta/very great (tadalambana vara). If it had been a mind door > process ending with the javana, the object was avibhuta/obscure; if > after the tadarammana(s), vibhuta/clear. --------------------------------------------------------------------- This thread of reasoning must to be followed up with attention. where kamma produces impulsion, Kusala or akusala consciousness can arise ( see javana ): perhaps such process could be really an abrupt one, due this original Kammic way to come forth. Tadaramana suggests a step-by-step chain of impulses of consciousness, but doesn't disdain jumps between phases: Manodvaravajjana to Sampaticchana or santirana, for example. Mettaya, Ícaro > > peace, > connie 29220 From: Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 5:27pm Subject: rupa questions Hi Nina, I am becoming more and more bewildered by rupas and abhidhamma in general. So here are a few questions. 1. How many kinds of rupa can only be cognized through the mind door? 2. Who cognizes all these mind-door rupas? 3. Do you cognize tangible data through the body door; for example something that is both hard and cold? If yes, how does consciousness separate what is inseparable and cognize one after the other (hard then cold)? Is a separate coldness an ultimate reality? 4. Is taste an ultimate reality or only part of the inseparable pure octad, or are there two tastes, one a 5-door object and the other, part of a rupa only cognized through the mind-door (the pure-8)? 5. What is the difference between 5-door consciousness and the understanding (panna) of a 5-door object? Understanding is characterized as *penetrating* the distinctive nature (sabhava) of a reality. What is the difference between hearing sound and understanding sound by means of panna, for example? [I'm not interested in the 3 general characteristics here, only the specific characteristic (sabhava).] Larry 29221 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:57pm Subject: Re: Heart base Hi Robert K. and Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear Htoo, > Sorry for the delay in replying. > All pasada rupas are kammasamutthana, produced by kamma. Not by > citta or utu or ahara. However there are always other conditions > that affect the main condition in various ways. > robertK > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" > wrote: > > Dear Robert K, > > > > Thank you very much for your effort and I am happy with heart > base. > > But here a question arises. > > > > Do Pasada Rupa solely caused by Kamma or are also caused by others? > > > > With much respect, > > > > Htoo Naing > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ - > - > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" > wrote: > > > Dear Htoo, > > > > > But the eyes, ears and so forth - these organs where the > > > pasada > > > arises still exist, are still visible, because they are not > > > conditioned solely by kamma. And certainly they can act as a > > > support for new pasada rupa -conditioned by anothers kamma. > > > That > > > is why transplants can work. If this is still not clear please > > > ask more as these subtle points where conventional ideas and > > > the > > > sublime Dhamma intersect can show us much about the clinging > > > that there is to concept and story. > > > > > > >robert I am finding this discussion of Heartbase rather dull and lifeless. I am interested in some various areas of Heartbase, and perhaps these are not Abhidhamma related: 1.In what way is Heartbase related to metta and compassion? 2.Can the supporting factors of Heartbase be transferred from one person to another? (As in `Metta Meditation'?) 3.How is Heartbase a supporting factor for wisdom? 4.Can Heartbase be strengthened by various types of music? (Since it isn't citta dependent). 5.What are some ways to strengthen Heartbase so as to more naturally practice renunciation? I hope these aren't too many questions and let me know if I am barking up the wrong tree here. I would like some practical applications of the rupa of Heartbase. Metta, James 29222 From: gazita2002 Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 0:56am Subject: Re: Prompting Beautiful Consciousness Hello Andrew, Yes, I believe Sobhana Cittas could arise in the following situations that you describe. Given that anything can be a condition for the arising of kusala citta, I don't see why the sound of someone's voice or their perceived action cannot be a condition. Not sure what you mean here by 'the prompting of BC' Are you talking about one of the 8 types of maha-kusala-cittas e.g. 'accompanied by pleasant feeling, with wisdom, prompted.'? If so, there is a chapter in Nina's ADL called The Sobhana Cittas in our Life. Of course, you're not suggesting that you can prompt the arising of a Beautiful Consciousness, are you Andrew??? Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. ps. what is TIA - medically it means 'transient ischaemic attack'!! a.k.a fainting. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > Hi everyone > Can anyone point me in the right direction for finding out more about > the prompting of Beautiful Consciousness? Can BC be prompted by the > Wrong Speech or Wrong Action of another? TIA > Metta > Andrew 29223 From: bodhi2500 Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 2:40am Subject: Sotaapanno Hi All In the Puggala-Pannatti there is this > --- 47. What sort of person is a "stream-attainer", and what sort of person is one striving for realization of the fruition stage? A person who is working for putting away the three fetters is one working for the realization of the fruition stage of a "stream- attainer"; The person whose three fetters have been put away is said to be a "stream-attainer." --- However i read this it seems to say that the one "working for the realization of the fruition stage of a stream=attainer" is someone who has not yet "put away the three fetters" and as such has not yet become a stream-attainer? Any comments? Steve Pali>> Katamo ca puggalo sotaapanno sotaapattiphalasacchikiriyaaya pa.tipanno? Ti.n.na.m sa.myojanaana.m pahaanaaya pa.tipanno puggalo sotaapattiphalasacchikiriyaaya pa.tipanno. Yassa puggalassa tii.ni sa.myojanaani pahiinaani- aya.m vuccati puggalo "sotaapanno". Atthakatha> Sotaapattiphalasacchikiriyaaya pa.tipannaadiniddesaa uttaanatthaava. 29224 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 5:15am Subject: Re: Heart base --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Robert K. and Nina, >> I am finding this discussion of Heartbase rather dull and lifeless. > I am interested in some various areas of Heartbase, and perhaps these > are not Abhidhamma related: > > 1.In what way is Heartbase related to metta and compassion? > 2.Can the supporting factors of Heartbase be transferred from one > person to another? (As in `Metta Meditation'?) > 3.How is Heartbase a supporting factor for wisdom? > 4.Can Heartbase be strengthened by various types of music? (Since it > isn't citta dependent). > 5.What are some ways to strengthen Heartbase so as to more naturally > practice renunciation? > > I hope these aren't too many questions and let me know if I am > barking up the wrong tree here. I would like some practical > applications of the rupa of Heartbase. -------------- Dear James Glad to see your recent interest in the details of Abhidhamma. All the other sense bases- the eyebase, earbase , tongue base, bodybase, nose base are said to have a dominating(indriya) effect on the consciousness that arises at each base. So if the eyebase is in poor condition - then the eyeconsciousness (cakkhuvinnana) that arises there will likewise be weak (manda). This doesn't apply to the heart base- it is not indriya- and perhaps this is of interest. Perhaps we have the idea that when we are sickly that sati can't arise like when we are in full health - To me knowing how heartbase is not an indriya I take it that the state of the body cannot (necessarily) hinder sati. With regard to metta it is again irrelevant about the state of the rupa. It is simply a place where most mental processes occur. I think good music gives pleasure - pleasant feeling . And even pleasant feeling associated with lobha can be healthy. The one associated with alobha is even better. There is no way to transfer any part of the heartbase to another because it is produced by ones own kamma. But when we have goodwill to another this at least is giving the gift of freedom from fear. it is worthwhile. Robk 29225 From: Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 2:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Prompting Beautiful Consciousness Hi, Azita - In a message dated 1/20/04 3:58:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, gazita2002@y... writes: > Given that anything can be a condition for the arising of > kusala citta, I don't see why the sound of someone's voice or their > perceived action cannot be a condition. > ======================== Could you please clarify what you mean by "anything can be a condition for the arising of kusala citta." It's not so that any conditions can arise randomly fromany conditions; so i must be missing your intended meaning here. 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) 29226 From: Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 4:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sotaapanno Hi, Steve - In a message dated 1/20/04 5:42:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, seisen_@h... writes: > > Hi All > In the Puggala-Pannatti there is this > > --- > 47. What sort of person is a "stream-attainer", and what sort of > person is one striving for realization of the fruition stage? > > A person who is working for putting away the three fetters is one > working for the realization of the fruition stage of a "stream- > attainer"; The person whose three fetters have been put away is said > to be a "stream-attainer." > --- > > However i read this it seems to say that the one "working for the > realization of the fruition stage of a stream=attainer" is someone > who has not yet "put away the three fetters" and as such has not yet > become a stream-attainer? > > Any comments? > > > Steve > =========================== I understand what you are saying, and it certainly does sound so. One question, I suppose, is how to interpret the phrase "working for." But I see no basis for understanding that "working for" as something normally taking no time at all. It sounds like a conventional endeavor - in fact, the endeavor that a serious, but still fully fettered practitioner engages in as a follower of the Buddha. However, it doesn't seem reasonable to identify such an ordinary person as a "stream enterer." The "solution" that suggests itself to me is that when there is the experience of stream-entering path consciousness (SEPC), that taste of nibbana is only preparatory for the uprooting of the three fetters, and a subsequent draught at the well, the fruition of the seeds planted at the moment of path consciusness, namely stream-entering fruition consciousness (SEFC), is what uproots the fetters. With that understanding, an "initial stream-enterer" has entered the stream but has not yet undergone the consequences of that, those requiring another taste of nibbana. If that "solution" is correct, then another question that arises is whether following upon the fruition of stream entry, one is still just a stream enterer (needing another path consciousness to become a once returner) or whether the stream-entry fruition consciousness also constitutes the once-returner path consciousness. That is, are only five distinct "nibbanic experiences" required, so that we have the following: Worldling working for [(1) Stream-entry path consciousness (SEPC)] --> SE working for [(2) SEFC = (3) ORPC] (fetters uprooted) --> OR working for [(4) RFC = (5) NRPC] (fetters uprooted) --> NR working for [(6) NRFC = (7) APC] (fetters uprooted) --> Arahant working for [(8) AFC] (fetters uprooted, final & complete liberation attained) An alternative, more traditional scheme would be the following: _____________________________________ Worldling working for (1) SEPC ----> SE working for (2) SEFC (fetters uprooted) ----> SE working for (3) ORPC ----> OR working for (4) ORFC (fetters uprooted) ----> OR working for (5) NRPC ----> NR working for (6) NRFC (fetters uprooted) ----> NR working for (7) APC ----> Arahant working for (8) AFC (fetters uprooted, final and complete liberation attained). --------------------------------------------------------------- If either of the above two schemes are correct, one might then wonder whether the state of the arahant after APC but before AFC could be identified with "nibbana with remainder", and the state of the arahant after AFC with "nibbana without remainder"! (That would be a different interpretation than the standard one, of course.) 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) 29227 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 10:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] rupa questions Hi Larry, Thanks for your well directed questions. Also good for Sarah's crowded list. Meanwhile, I have a go at it. You are right, we should frequently return to all rupas. op 20-01-2004 02:27 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...:> > I am becoming more and more bewildered by rupas and abhidhamma in > general. So here are a few questions. > > 1. How many kinds of rupa can only be cognized through the mind door? N: Let us start with the gross rupas: twelve kinds of rúpa are gross: visible object, sound, odour, flavour and the three great elements which are tangible object (excluding cohesion), as well as the five sense-organs. They are gross because of impinging; visible object impinges on the eyesense, sound impinges on the earsense, and each of the other sense objects impinges on the appropriate sense-base. Of these gross rupas, the sense organs are only experienced through the mind-door. The other sixteen kinds of rúpa are subtle. What is subtle is called ³far² because it is difficult to penetrate, whereas what is gross is called ³near², because it is easy to penetrate (Vis. XIV, 73). Thus, sixteen rupas + 5 senseorgans are only experienced through the mind-door. L: 2. Who cognizes all these mind-door rupas? N: Who has fully developed insight. As you see, difficult to penetrate. We should not say, impossible. However, what is relatively easier is already difficult. L: 3. Do you cognize tangible data through the body door; for example > something that is both hard and cold? If yes, how does consciousness > separate what is inseparable and cognize one after the other (hard then > cold)? Is a separate coldness an ultimate reality? N: Hardness may appear, but cold, though it is present in the octad, cannot appear at the same time. This can and should be checked: only one reality can be experienced at a time. This does not mean that there is sati, sati cannot come on command. But understanding that only one object is experienced at a time is an important foundation for sati. This is pariyatti, understanding of the level of thinking and reflecting. We begin to know what an ultimate reality is. We have learnt that the hardness arises in a group of 8 rupas, but only one can be experienced at a time, thus, not the accompanying 7. They all fall away together immediately. It is still useful to know about the group of 8, because we can understand more the different conditions. The element of earth or solidity appears as hardness or softness. More hard or more soft, different degrees. The accompanying rupas condition it to be like that. But, there is no need to think about all that. We cannot understand hardness by focussing on it, then we speculate. But when we are not aiming for it, just hardness can appear during the day. Thus, citta does not separate at all, it merely experiences one object, one characteristic. At another moment there may be conditions for another citta to experience cold, then no hardness is experienced. They all fall away immediately. Cittas fall away, the octads fall away. All rupas are ultimate realities, they are not concepts. A long term project before we really understand this. Through satipatthana, no other way. L: 4. Is taste an ultimate reality or only part of the inseparable pure > octad, N: All rupas of an inseparable pure octad are ultimate realities, but only one at a time appears and can be experienced by citta. L: or are there two tastes, one a 5-door object and the other, part > of a rupa only cognized through the mind-door (the pure-8)? N: The rupa flavour is experienced by cittas in a sense-door process and after that that rupa is experienced through the mind-door. The mind-door process follows in the stream. This happens all the time, but cittas are so fast that we do not notice this. Only at the first stage of tender insight this becomes clear. So it cannot be said that there are two tastes. As said, taste is accompanied by the other 7 inseparable rupas, but no need to think about them, they are not experienced. They condition flavours to be so different. There is not just one flavour or a neutral flavour. Apple flavour is different from doughnut flavour. sour is not sweet. It is the same in the case of colour, there is not one neutral colour. And they all appear. L: 5. What is the difference between 5-door consciousness and the > understanding (panna) of a 5-door object? Understanding is characterized > as *penetrating* the distinctive nature (sabhava) of a reality. What is > the difference between hearing sound and understanding sound by means of > panna, for example? [I'm not interested in the 3 general characteristics > here, only the specific characteristic (sabhava).] N: A. Sujin answered this in Cambodia when someone asked this question: what does panna know arising in a sense-door process. Also the kusala javana cittas in a sense-door process can be accompanied or unaccompanied by panna. When the first stage of tender insight arises nama and rupa are experienced through the mind-door, and they are clearly distinguished by panna in a mind-door process. At such moments there are many processes with panna, and a rupa that is penetrated by panna has to arise in a sense-door process before it is experienced through the mind-door. All these processes alternate very quickly, they are not counted as A. Sujin said. Thus, it is understandable that there must be panna also accompanying the javana cittas in sense-door processes. Specific characteristics are certainly known by panna in a sense-door process. But these are not taken for self. It is clearly realized that nama and rupa are not self, at such moments. But insight falls away, the world appears as usual, and one has to go on developing insight untiringly. L: > I am becoming more and more bewildered by rupas and abhidhamma in > general. N: Returning to your first question. This can only be solved by satipatthana, even if it is only a beginning of it. This means, not only rupa should be studied but also nama. If we have no idea of nama, we cannot grasp rupa either: the reality that does not experience anything, as different from the reality that experiences something. In Bgk we listen again to A. Sujin reminding us that seeing only sees what appears through the eyes, different from defining what you see. Hardness is a rupa, but the experience of hardness is nama. Listening and reflection is the foundation of beginning to be aware, but without trying, focussing, wishing to know with lobha. Sound appears, it is heard. There are sound and hearing, but there can be awareness of one at a time. There can be another citta accompanied by panna, and then panna can understand sound as rupa or hearing as nama. Gradually there can be less doubt about coarse rupas and then our outlook can change, also with regard to all those subtle rupas we cannot experience. For instance heartbase. We may see that it is an important, indispensable condition for citta. Since we are born in this plane we are nama and rupa, and how could citta arise without a physical base? We can see the value of also understanding (I do not mean direct understanding) those rupas we cannot experience. All these rupas perform functions. Such understanding is a foundation for slowly wearing away doubt and wrong view. It is understandable that doubt arises when there are many rupas we cannot observe. Then we can consider all the other Dhamma subjects that only a Buddha can teach: about types of kusala, about defilements in detail such as lobha, conceit etc. We should see the connection with the Suttanta and the Vinaya, thus not isolate the Abhidhamma from the whole of the teachings. The Abhidhamma gives more details about what is basically taught in the Suttanta. Then there are the commentaries who give more explanations of what is in the Tipitaka, of Abhidhamma and vipassana. The Suttanta teaches also about the five khandhas, which always arise and fall away together. Thus, when there is the khandha of consciousness there is also rupakkhandha. Citta cannot arise without rupa. This makes again understandable the necessity of the heartbase and the other physical bases. Life-faculty: Sarah quoted a sutta. Space and nutrition, threads still running with Howard, I shall return to, later on. There is enough that we can verify for ourselves in our own life, at least intellectually. We can find out that these things are truly beneficial for us personally. Nina. 29228 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 10:16am Subject: Latent tendencies Ch1, no 8. Latent tendencies Ch1, no 8. We read in the ³Expositor² (I, Introductory Discourse, 22) about the threefold training and the three levels of defilements: ³In the Vinaya-Pitaka the riddance of transgression due to the corruptions is meant, because morality is opposed to transgressions (vítikkama kilesa); in the Suttanta-Pitaka the riddance of the tyranny of the corruptions (defilements one is possessed by and that arise) is meant, because concentration of thought is inimical to such tyranny (pariyutthåna kilesa ); in the Abhidhamma-Pitaka the riddance of latent bias (anusaya kilesa) is meant, because understanding is opposed to it. In the first Pitaka there is a temporary riddance of the corruptions (by means of various factors of morality); in the others their riddance is of the nature of discarding and extirping by the Path. In the first Pitaka the riddance is of the corruption of misconduct; in the others it is (respectively) of the corruption of craving and wrong views...² The ³Såratthadípaní², the Subcommentary to the ³Samantapåsådikå², on the ³Inception of Discipline² gives an additional explanation. We read: ³As to the expression, the abandoning of the defilements that are transgressions (vítikkama kilesa), this refers to the abandoning of transgressions through the body-door and through the door of speech, thus, to the abandoning of the corruptions (sankilesa) and defilements [16]. The defilements that persist as a powerful condition in the continuous stream of cittas cause the arising of defilements with akusala citta and, even though they are disturbing, they do not violate morality in the sense of causing transgressions. Therefore, the teachers said, ³morality is opposed to transgressions.² As regards the abandoning of medium defilements one is possessed with (pariyutthåna kilesa), medium defilements ruin and destroy what is wholesome since they have the power to give opportunity for akusala. This is explained as follows: the abandoning of medium defilements means the abandoning of the defilements that are disturbing because they arise in the succession of cittas. As to the expression, the abandoning of the latent tendencies, latent tendencies are the defilements that lie dormant in the continuous stream of cittas since they cannot be eradicated yet, and they are to be eradicated successively. These defilements can arise because of the appropriate conditions, and they are called latent tendencies [17]. There are seven defilements which are latent tendencies and these defilements can arise when the conditions are appropriate, such as sensuous desire. The abandoning of these seven defilements is called the eradication of the latent tendencies. The factor of the eightfold Path which is wisdom can completely eradicate them.Therefore the teachers said that wisdom is opposed to the latent tendencies. Footnotes 16. Abandoning the transgression of síla by the observance of síla. 17. Latent tendencies themselves do not arise, but they are the condition for the arising of defilements with akusala cittas. *** Nina. 29229 From: Michael Beisert Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 10:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sotaapanno Hello Howard and Steve, I heard the following explanation from Bhante G: Stream entry path: when any of the three fetters (personality view, doubt, adherence to rites and rituals) is uprooted. That is, one is uprooted and the other two may still be fully present or in a weakened state. Stream entry fruition: when all three fetters have been uprooted. The same logic applies to the other levels. Metta Michael >From: upasaka@a... >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [dsg] Sotaapanno >Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:49:44 EST > >Hi, Steve - > >In a message dated 1/20/04 5:42:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, >seisen_@h... writes: > > > > > Hi All > > In the Puggala-Pannatti there is this > > > --- > > 47. What sort of person is a "stream-attainer", and what sort of > > person is one striving for realization of the fruition stage? > > > > A person who is working for putting away the three fetters is one > > working for the realization of the fruition stage of a "stream- > > attainer"; The person whose three fetters have been put away is said > > to be a "stream-attainer." > > --- > > > > However i read this it seems to say that the one "working for the > > realization of the fruition stage of a stream=attainer" is someone > > who has not yet "put away the three fetters" and as such has not yet > > become a stream-attainer? > > > > Any comments? > > > > > > Steve > > >=========================== > I understand what you are saying, and it certainly does sound so. >One >question, I suppose, is how to interpret the phrase "working for." But I >see >no basis for understanding that "working for" as something normally taking >no >time at all. It sounds like a conventional endeavor - in fact, the endeavor >that a serious, but still fully fettered practitioner engages in as a >follower of >the Buddha. However, it doesn't seem reasonable to identify such an >ordinary >person as a "stream enterer." > The "solution" that suggests itself to me is that when there is the >experience of stream-entering path consciousness (SEPC), that taste of >nibbana >is only preparatory for the uprooting of the three fetters, and a >subsequent >draught at the well, the fruition of the seeds planted at the moment of >path >consciusness, namely stream-entering fruition consciousness (SEFC), is what >uproots the fetters. With that understanding, an "initial stream-enterer" >has >entered the stream but has not yet undergone the consequences of that, >those >requiring another taste of nibbana. > If that "solution" is correct, then another question that arises is >whether following upon the fruition of stream entry, one is still just a >stream >enterer (needing another path consciousness to become a once returner) or >whether the stream-entry fruition consciousness also constitutes the >once-returner >path consciousness. That is, are only five distinct "nibbanic experiences" >required, so that we have the following: > >Worldling working for >[(1) Stream-entry path consciousness (SEPC)] --> >SE working for >[(2) SEFC = (3) ORPC] (fetters uprooted) --> >OR working for >[(4) RFC = (5) NRPC] (fetters uprooted) --> >NR working for >[(6) NRFC = (7) APC] (fetters uprooted) --> >Arahant working for >[(8) AFC] (fetters uprooted, final & complete >liberation >attained) > > An alternative, more traditional scheme would be the following: >_____________________________________ >Worldling working for >(1) SEPC ----> >SE working for >(2) SEFC (fetters uprooted) ----> >SE working for >(3) ORPC ----> >OR working for >(4) ORFC (fetters uprooted) ----> >OR working for >(5) NRPC ----> >NR working for >(6) NRFC (fetters uprooted) ----> >NR working for >(7) APC ----> >Arahant working for >(8) AFC (fetters uprooted, final and complete liberation attained). >--------------------------------------------------------------- > > If either of the above two schemes are correct, one might then >wonder >whether the state of the arahant after APC but before AFC could be >identified >with "nibbana with remainder", and the state of the arahant after AFC with >"nibbana without remainder"! (That would be a different interpretation than >the >standard one, of course.) > >With metta, >Howard 29230 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 0:11pm Subject: Re: Heart base Hi Rob K, Thank you for taking the time and the effort to answer my questions, I appreciate it. Rob: Glad to see your recent interest in the details of Abhidhamma. James: I'm glad that you're glad. ;-) But, don't get too excited and throw a celebration party just yet! ;-) I am simply trying to better understand the beliefs of my good friends here and being open minded about such. Rob: All the other sense bases- the eyebase, earbase , tongue base, bodybase, nose base are said to have a dominating(indriya) effect on the consciousness that arises at each base. So if the eyebase is in poor condition - then the eyeconsciousness (cakkhuvinnana) that arises there will likewise be weak (manda). James: Okay, no offense, but this sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo to me. Call it conditioning by my educational background or whatever but I think that you are taking the idea of the sense bases far too literally. A consciousness that arises in my eye? Are you serious? I could just imagine if I went to an ophthalmologist and he told me, "I am afraid that your eyebase is in poor condition and therefore the eyeconsciousness is weak. This eyeconsciousness is only partially entering your mind door." I would think that maybe his `mind door' was locked and someone had thrown away the key! ;-)) Don't you think these are rather outdated, pre-scientific theories of sense cognition? These ideas do not match up with any of the known facts of the modern, scientific world. But, most importantly, what does any of this have to do with dukkha and the elimination of dukkha? These are quaint ideas but I think it is important to keep going back to this question constantly. Rob: This doesn't apply to the heart base- it is not indriya- and perhaps this is of interest. Perhaps we have the idea that when we are sickly that sati can't arise like when we are in full health - To me knowing how heartbase is not an indriya I take it that the state of the body cannot (necessarily) hinder sati. James: Well, being sick doesn't just affect your heart, it affects all of your senses and your brain. I think that being sick can hinder sati of outside sensory input. However, there can be sati of the effects of the sickness while one is sick. In other words, if you have a runny nose it will be difficult to have sati of smells but it won't be difficult to have sati of the runny nose itself (unless of course you are on some sort of cold medicine that is disrupting your sensory impressions and then the sati can be of that effect, possibly.) Rob: With regard to metta it is again irrelevant about the state of the rupa. It is simply a place where most mental processes occur. James: I don't understand you because you have an unidentified pronoun. Which `it' is simply a place where most mental processes occur? In metta or in rupa? I didn't think that mental processes occur in either one so could you clarify? Rob: I think good music gives pleasure - pleasant feeling . And even pleasant feeling associated with lobha can be healthy. The one associated with alobha is even better. James: You have an unidentified pronoun again. Which `one' associated with alobha is even better? Music, pleasant feeling, or lobha? I can't follow you. Rob: There is no way to transfer any part of the heartbase to another because it is produced by ones own kamma. James: Well, I'm sure there are some heart surgeons who would disagree with this. ;-). I don't think you understanding my question. I am not talking about the physical structure of the heart, I am talking about the `energy' that is present at the heartbase. Can that `energy' be transferred from one person to another (as in `Metta Meditation')? Rob: But when we have goodwill to another this at least is giving the gift of freedom from fear. It is worthwhile. James: I like this phrase! I am not entirely sure what you mean but for some reason it resonates with me. I will leave it at that. Metta, James 29231 From: Eddie Lou Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 0:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Angulimala Hi, Teoh, Can please list the 5 unpardonable ? Thanks, Eddie Lou. --- teoh chee keam wrote: > Kalyanamitta, > > Angulimala managed to get attainment in that very ...[snipped].... > Angulimala is a perfect example for those in doubt > after repenting from their unwholesome deeds in the > past, no matter how great is the kamma(except the 5 > unpardonable). > > Vijita Teoh. 29232 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:00pm Subject: Re: Heart base Hello James (and RobK) and all, Have a look at p. 1397 of the Samyutta Nikaya Vol. II, the notes to 35 Salaayatanasamyutta. Note 3 has some info on eye and eye base. See what you think .. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" 29233 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:26pm Subject: Re: Heart base Hi Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello James (and RobK) and all, > > Have a look at p. 1397 of the Samyutta Nikaya Vol. II, the notes to > 35 Salaayatanasamyutta. Note 3 has some info on eye and eye base. > See what you think .. Thanks for the reference. What I think is what I thought previously (but I am willing to stand corrected): the Abhidhamma has created a classification of the sense bases that is pseudo-scientific and is not supported by the suttas. Eye consciousness does not arise in the physical structure of the eye. In this day and age, it is simply ridiculous to believe such a thing. Take dreaming for example, during dreaming visual consciousness arises and the eyes are closed. Sensory consciousness only arises in the brain, not in the rupa structures of the sense organs. For example, there have been experiments where electrical stimulation of certain areas of the brain will cause people to see, hear, smell, feel, and taste things that aren't actually present in their physical environment. The same thing happens during dreaming. What did you 'see' in this reference? ;-) > > metta and peace, > Christine Metta, James 29234 From: Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 9:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sotaapanno Hi, Michael (and Steve) - In a message dated 1/20/04 3:24:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, mbeisert@h... writes: > Hello Howard and Steve, > > I heard the following explanation from Bhante G: > Stream entry path: when any of the three fetters (personality view, doubt, > adherence to rites and rituals) is uprooted. That is, one is uprooted and > the other two may still be fully present or in a weakened state. > Stream entry fruition: when all three fetters have been uprooted. > > The same logic applies to the other levels. > > Metta > Michael > ========================== That's interesting. It makes some sense. Of course, what the actual facts are we don't know. I wonder what the "official story" is. 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) 29235 From: Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 4:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] rupa questions Hi Nina, Thanks for your answers. Here are a few more questions. 1. Mind-door rupas are only experienced by those who have fully developed insight, but all those rupas could be objects of attachment for those with fully developed insight, but not for anyone else, correct? 2. If a pure octad (4 primaries, taste, color, smell, nutritive essence) is only cognized through the mind-door, what is tasted through the taste-door? 3. Why develop insight into subtle realities if we could understand that concepts are non-arising, not impermanent, not dukkha, not self? 4. Only one reality is experienced at a time, but "in reality" many realities arise at the same time. So, isn't the experience of one reality at a time unrealistic? 5. In the 3 modes of knowing (perception, consciousness, understanding (panna)), consciousness knows the 3 general characteristics (impermanence, dukkha, not self) while panna knows the distinguishing characteristic (sabhava) is impermanent, dukkha, not self. Does this mean the knowing of consciousness has a concept for an object? 6. Would you say that tangible data is the only reality in all of nama and rupa that ordinary people are even remotely capable of experiencing realistically? 7. Can you say without doubt no noble one realized nibbana with a concept as object? Larry 29236 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 9:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sotaapanno Hi Steve, op 20-01-2004 11:40 schreef bodhi2500 op seisen_@h...: > In the Puggala-Pannatti there is this > > --- > 47. What sort of person is a "stream-attainer", and what sort of > person is one striving for realization of the fruition stage? > > A person who is working for putting away the three fetters is one > working for the realization of the fruition stage of a "stream- > attainer"; The person whose three fetters have been put away is said > to be a "stream-attainer." N: you remember we had this question before. The Pali has: sotaapattiphalasacchikiriyaaya pa.tipanno. We have to think of cittas, not of persons, this is in this context of four pairs of enlightened ones. One moment of lokuttara citta: the path is realized, next moment of lokuttara citta the fruition :sotaapattiphalasacchikiriyaaya pa.tipanno: reached the realization of the fruition of the sotapanna. Fruition follows immediately upon path-consciousness, but they are still different moments of citta. Don't you think so? In the context of persons, in conventional sense, there are four noble persons. Different context. >S: However i read this it seems to say that the one "working for the > realization of the fruition stage of a stream=attainer" is someone > who has not yet "put away the three fetters" and as such has not yet > become a stream-attainer? N: The translation working for is not clear. the Pali: pa.tipanno: pa.tipajjati: to go along a path. Jon has explained this before. Nina. 29237 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 9:27pm Subject: Re: Heart base --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > > Rob: All the other sense bases- the eyebase, earbase , tongue base, > bodybase, nose base are said to have a dominating(indriya) effect on > the consciousness that arises at each base. So if the eyebase is in > poor condition - then the eyeconsciousness (cakkhuvinnana) that > arises there will likewise be weak (manda). > > James: Okay, no offense, but this sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo > to me. Call it conditioning by my educational background or whatever > but I think that you are taking the idea of the sense bases far too > literally. A consciousness that arises in my eye? Are you serious? > I could just imagine if I went to an ophthalmologist and he told > me, "I am afraid that your eyebase is in poor condition and therefore > the eyeconsciousness is weak. This eyeconsciousness is only > partially entering your mind door." I would think that maybe > his `mind door' was locked and someone had thrown away the key! ;- )) > Don't you think these are rather outdated, pre-scientific theories of > sense cognition? These ideas do not match up with any of the known > facts of the modern, scientific world. But, most importantly, what > does any of this have to do with dukkha and the elimination of > dukkha? These are quaint ideas but I think it is important to keep > going back to this question constantly. > _____ Dear James, As you indicate part of the reason we react to different ideas is our background. My background leads me to perceive science as ignorant when it comes to ideas about mind. Maybe the eyeconsciousness is difficult to understand so take bodyconsciouness instead. This type of consciousness can arise wherever there is the subtle pasada rupa that is its support. For example can you feel a sensation where your foot is resting on the floor? If so that consciousness is arising there, not in the head. -------- > > > Rob: With regard to metta it is again irrelevant about the state of > the > rupa. It is simply a place where most mental processes occur. > > James: I don't understand you because you have an unidentified > pronoun. Which `it' is simply a place where most mental processes > occur? In metta or in rupa? I didn't think that mental processes > occur in either one so could you clarify? _______ "It" refers to rupa in the passage above. > > Rob: I think good music gives pleasure - pleasant feeling . And even > pleasant feeling associated with lobha can be healthy. The one > associated with alobha is even better. > > James: You have an unidentified pronoun again. Which `one' > associated with alobha is even better? Music, pleasant feeling, or > lobha? I can't follow you. _____ I meant the pleasant feeling associated with alobha is better than the pleasant feeling associated with lobha. -------- > > Rob: There is no way to transfer any part of the heartbase to another > because it is produced by ones own kamma. > > James: Well, I'm sure there are some heart surgeons who would > disagree with this. ;-). I don't think you understanding my > question. I am not talking about the physical structure of the > heart, I am talking about the `energy' that is present at the > heartbase. Can that `energy' be transferred from one person to > another (as in `Metta Meditation')? _______ If I feel friendly to someone (have metta) it is almost none of their business. If they dont like me or even if they dont like me feeling friendly to them it cant stop me having metta. Can they feel my metta? Sometimes they may sense it and this might change their atttituded in a favourable way. But I dont think there is any actual transfer of my metta (or heart base). RobK 29238 From: Andrew Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 9:41pm Subject: Re: Prompting Beautiful Consciousness --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > Hello Andrew, > > Yes, I believe Sobhana Cittas could arise in the following > situations that you describe. > Given that anything can be a condition for the arising of > kusala citta, I don't see why the sound of someone's voice or their > perceived action cannot be a condition. > > Not sure what you mean here by 'the prompting of BC' Are you > talking about one of the 8 types of maha-kusala-cittas e.g. > 'accompanied by pleasant feeling, with wisdom, prompted.'? If > so, there is a chapter in Nina's ADL called The Sobhana Cittas in our > Life. > > Of course, you're not suggesting that you can prompt the > arising of a Beautiful Consciousness, are you Andrew??? > Hi Azita I have misplaced my ADL but it will turn up soon, no doubt. I wanted some more information than is in the CMA which says on p 36: "... prompting may be imposed by others, or it may originate from within oneself; the means employed may be bodily, verbal or purely mental. The instigation is bodily when someone induces us by bodily means to give rise to particular types of consciousness which may issue in corresponding actions. It is verbal when the means employed is another's command or power of persuasion. And it is mental when, either by reflection or the determination of the will, we make a deliberate endeavour, despite inner resistance, to generate certain types of consciousness. Prompting can be associated with either unwholesome or wholesome states of consciousness ..." Your question - can I prompt BC? Well, BC can be prompted by "deliberate endeavour" it seems. This is where we get into the conventional/ultimate discourse muddles. How would you phrase it? > > ps. what is TIA - medically it means 'transient ischaemic attack'!! > a.k.a fainting. You medical people think you have a monopoly on abbreviations!! (Ha, ha, ha). TIA = thanks in advance (as I use it). I hear you're getting some rain at long last? Enjoy it. Metta Andrew 29239 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 9:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Heart base Hi Christine Do you know how I can bribe you ;-) to type out the Note 3. TIA. kind regards Ken O --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hello James (and RobK) and all, > > Have a look at p. 1397 of the Samyutta Nikaya Vol. II, the notes to > > 35 Salaayatanasamyutta. Note 3 has some info on eye and eye base. > See what you think .. > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 29240 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:00pm Subject: Re: Heart base Hi Rob K, Rob: As you indicate part of the reason we react to different ideas is our background. My background leads me to perceive science as ignorant when it comes to ideas about mind. James: Hmmm…what sort of background did you have? Were you raised in a Somalian hut? ;-)) (just kidding). Science isn't perfect but I would say that ideas about the physical operation of the mind and the body are far more advanced today than during the Buddha's time. Rob: Maybe the eyeconsciousness is difficult to understand so take bodyconsciouness instead. This type of consciousness can arise wherever there is the subtle pasada rupa that is its support. For example can you feel a sensation where your foot is resting on the floor? If so that consciousness is arising there, not in the head. James: I'm sorry Rob, but no consciousness arises in the foot. This is an absurd idea. Kinesthetic awareness/intelligence only gives the impression that consciousness arises in the foot. It only seems this way because there is subtle clinging to the body as a whole as being `mine' and occupying space and time. If you practiced insight meditation you would soon see that all consciousnesses arise in the mind. When clinging to the body has ceased as being mine and occupying space, there is no more duality between the mind and the body. This is proven through insight meditation and medical science. For example, for several years after people have a limb removed, like a foot, they will feel sensations coming from that missing limb (like itching, pain, heat, etc.). The consciousness arises in the mind not in the actual limb. The sense organs are just `openings' for the outside stimulus. Rob: If I feel friendly to someone (have metta) it is almost none of their business. If they dont like me or even if they dont like me feeling friendly to them it cant stop me having metta. Can they feel my metta? Sometimes they may sense it and this might change their atttituded in a favourable way. But I dont think there is any actual transfer of my metta (or heart base). James: Okay, this is your opinion. I was wondering if the Abhidhamma spoke to this issue but apparently not. Metta, James 29241 From: Sarah Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sotaapanno Hi Howard, (Michael & Steve). --- upasaka@a... wrote: M: > > I heard the following explanation from Bhante G: > > Stream entry path: when any of the three fetters (personality view, > doubt, > > adherence to rites and rituals) is uprooted. That is, one is uprooted > and > > the other two may still be fully present or in a weakened state. > > Stream entry fruition: when all three fetters have been uprooted. > > > > The same logic applies to the other levels. > > > > Metta > > Michael > > > ========================== H: > That's interesting. It makes some sense. Of course, what the > actual > facts are we don't know. I wonder what the "official story" is. ..... 'Official story': All 3 fetters uprooted at same time by stream entry path consciousness. Vism XV11, 245 "And here (false) view clinging, etc [S: right and ritual clinging, self view, see 243] are abandoned first because they are eliminated by the path of stream-entry. Sense-desire clinging is abandoned later because it is abandoned by the path of Arahantship. This is the order of their abandoning. Steve & Howard, also see XX1, 75, 1)'he becomes a faith devotee at the moment of the stream-entry path' [S: doubts about the path eradicated, unshakable confidence in Triple Gem]; and in the other seven instances (that is, in the three higher paths and the four fruitions) he becomes 2) one liberated by faith. [S: starting with stream entry fruition consciousness]. Vism XX11, 15 "Immediately next to that knowledge (stream-entry path consciousness), however, there arise either two or three fruition consciousnesses, which are its result. for it is owing to ths very fact that supramundane profitable [consciousness] results immediately that it is said, 'And which he called the concentration with immediate result' (Sn226), and 'slugishly he reaches what has immediate result for the destruction of the cankers' (A ii, 149), and so on..... .........18 "And at this point this stream-enterer is called the second noble person. However negligent he may be, he is bound to make an end of suffering when he has travelled and traversed the round of rebirths among deities and human beings for the seventh time." As Nina reminded us, we are discussing cittas and accompanying mental factors which take nibbana as object. No person, no stream-enterer in reality. Metta, Sarah p.s Further posts on stream-entry which *may* be useful for others: Sotapanna (Stream-winner) 17758, 24298, 25412, 26406, 26438, 27778 ================================= 29242 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 0:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Heart base Hi James, I understand your concerns and confusion. Just butting in and out quickly here. --- buddhatrue wrote: > James: I was wondering if the Abhidhamma > spoke to this issue but apparently not. .... Just briefly, in sutta translations we often see phrases such as: ‘nourish the heart’, (Nakulapita Sutta, SN22:1,Thanissaro transl) ‘that’s how you develop the heart’, (Bhaddekeratta Sutta, MN131, Thanissaro) ‘devoted to that quietude of heart’, (Samanna Phala sutta, Rhys-Davids) ‘’freedom from barrenness and bondage of heart’ (Ketokhila Sutta, Rhys-Davids) ‘My heart leaped up at neither pleasure nor pain, grew serene.’(Tapussa Sutta, ?) ‘would his heart stand fast’ (Lohikka Sutta, ?) ‘the Order with believing heart can reap’ (Mahaparinibbana sutta. ?) ***** I just got these few examples quickly from google ‘heart, sutta, form’ - I haven’t checked all the translators or detail, but you can. These are all very ‘free’ translations of the Pali which have nothing whatsoever to do with pasada rupa (heart-base) being discussed. They are references in fact to citta and accompanying beautiful mental factors. To take just the first two as an example: 1.‘nourish the heart’, (Nakulapita Sutta) B.Bodhi gives ‘worthy of esteem’ (describing the Blessed One and the bhikkhus in the 2nd para). Note 2: “Manobhaavaniiyaa, used in apposition to bhikkhuu, has often been misinterpreted by translators to mean ‘developed mind’. However, the expression is a gerundive meaning literally ‘who should be brought to mind’, ie, who are worthy of esteem. Spk: ‘Those great elders such as Sariputta and Moggallana are called ‘worthy of esteem’ (‘to be brought to mind’) because the mind (citta) grows in wholesome qualities whenever they are seen.” 2.‘that’s how you develop the heart’, (Bhaddekeratta Sutta) B. Bodhi gives ‘Invincibly, unshakeably’ (describing the development of insight into present states) Note1213 “Asa’mhiira’m asankuppa’m. MA [S: MN comy] explains that this is said for the purpose of showing inight and repeated insight; for insight is ‘invincible, unshakeable’ because it is not vanquished or shaken by lust and other defilements.” ***** I hasten to add that I’m not commenting here on the rights and wrongs of translations, but merely trying to point out that our use of ‘heart’ in common language is very different from the meaning given not only in the Abhidhamma, but in the suttas as well. Metta, Sarah p.s As far as the Tipitaka is concerned, there is no seeing consciousness when we are dreaming with eyes closed. Visible object, eye-sense and eye-contact are essential for seeing. ================== 29243 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 0:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] rupa questions Hi Larry & NIna, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Nina, > > Thanks for your answers. Here are a few more questions. ... Larry, You're asking excellent Qs, imho, these days, Larry. Keep them up! Nina, my packing took less than an hour, rolling crushable beach gear into my back-pack. Accumulations for light and minimalist and no red slippers;-). The reading and papers is another matter. I spent a few hours organising Qs for Bkk (yours and mine mostly and a few others from the list, like James' recent good one -- certainly not silly -- about rebirth as devas or humans). So Azita, I have a special exercise book ready;-) Herman, I’m not a ‘guru’ person-- definitely not my accumulations. However, if our friends give us help and guidance and point out aspects of the Dhamma which we might fail or be slow to appreciate otherwise, I think it’s good to express our gratitude or share any help with others here if we can and if they wish. What d'ya reckon? Of course, many others have heard the same explanations in Bangkok or elsewhere and not returned for more, preferring other guidance or wishing to just self-explore. This is fine too. If our flight crashes, don't worry, we have contingency plans for DSG in place;-) In lieu of flowers, how about organising a translation of the Yamaka or a good article on kusala/akusala;-)?? Not good to joke on this subject. Hmmm...must be the packing. Metta, Sarah p.s Nina - Chuck is already in Bkk waiting;-) Shakti can’t make it - her husband is having surgery. If anyone wishes to contact me after tomorrow off-list, pls do so c/o Jon’s account or mods, as I won’t be checking my email accounts, but relying on print-outs of posts. Chris & All, we’re now confirmed staying at the P. ============================ 29244 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 1:01am Subject: Re: Heart base Hi Sarah, Sarah: I understand your concerns and confusion. Just butting in and out quickly here. James: Oh my goodness Sarah, I don't have `concerns and confusion' about this matter! LOL! I was simply asking a question and I have now gotten the answer I was seeking. The Abhidhamma gives only a superficial analysis of heart-base. No big deal and I don't plan on bringing it up again. (No reason to jump in and play my `therapist' ;- )) over the matter.) Sarah: These are all very `free' translations of the Pali which have nothing whatsoever to do with pasada rupa (heart-base) being discussed. They are references in fact to citta and accompanying beautiful mental factors. James: Well, at times the Buddha spoke about mind and at other times he spoke about heart. Granted, some of the Pali translations may be loose in this regard but I can usually spot a mistranslation by the context. I don't think that every reference to the heart is simply being metaphorical, I think that there is something more there, but I could be wrong about that. I am being open minded about the subject; I would suggest that you do the same. ;-)) Sarah: As far as the Tipitaka is concerned, there is no seeing consciousness when we are dreaming with eyes closed. Visible object, eye-sense and eye-contact are essential for seeing. James: First, I don't consider you an expert on the Tipitaka to make such an absolute statement. If you were a nun, passed your Pali exams, and had read and studied the entire Tipitaka with others who have done the same, then I would consider you an expert (heck, you even disagree with Bhikkhu Bodhi about meditation practice, a true expert of the Tipitaka if there ever was one.) Second, if it isn't seeing consciousness being activated while dreaming then what is it? I can practice lucid dreaming where I can experience visual consciousness, auditory consciousness, etc. and still have the consciousness of cognition and mental formations…and know that I am dreaming. Please, stop reading all of this stuff in all these commentaries, piecemeal, and look at your own experience to make determinations. What is written in books isn't the whole picture when it comes to reality. Metta, James 29245 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 1:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Angulimala revisited Hi Connie & all, --- connie wrote: > Hi Ken O, Christine (Azita) ~ > > Maybe Christine has more details, but I don't know to bribe her. I've > heard the Angulimala Meets Buddha part is very touching as well, but > don't have any further details to add. .... I think most of what there is is given in MN86. The commentaries don't add much more. Where was your scary Mongolian Jataka tale from? (Ken O, I don't think this was from the Pali canon). ... > I laughed, too, Christine. But the longest scary story still just might > be The Momentary Existence Saga. .... Connie, could you elaborate on your comments here. I think it could be useful. TIA (Azita, Jon explained to me that non-medically this means thx in advance, i.e if I thank now, I don't have to again when you write back to me;-)) Thx also for sharing the steps with Icaro;-) .... >Anyway, here's something fairly recent > from Mike Mailway's Seattle Times column .... Is this one of *our* Seattle Mike's casual jobs? If not, it could be - he writes well;-) Metta, Sarah ====== 29246 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 1:37am Subject: [dsg] Re: Heart base/KenO Hello Ken O, No bribe needed :-) I'll type it out and post it later this evening - I just have to feed the dog and shift the car from under the tree that all the fruit bats have decided to roost in. :-) cheers, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Christine > > Do you know how I can bribe you ;-) to type out the Note 3. TIA. > > > kind regards > Ken O 29247 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 1:56am Subject: Lots of old Cans of Worms Hi James & Christine, I noticed that the ‘Time and Space’ article posted was from this website: http://www.lankalibrary.com/ James, did you see the article there on ‘Did Buddha die of Mesenteric Infarction’? Not that I want to open up this old can of worms, but you may like to take a look (preferable while I’m away;-)). I only took a quick look. Also, Christine & All, a good summary of early Buddhism in Sri Lanka in ‘Establishment of Buddhism in Sri Lanka’.It looks very clear - another quick look only, but I saw it mentions well-known monasteries established by Devanampiya Tissa. The first of these, Mahavihara, is I think where Maliyadeva studied. (He was the one who you wrote about that went daily to the woman’s house for alms and surprised her by giving the sermon at the end.)Acc. to dict of Pali PN, I think the tale is only in AN cmy as you mentioned. Obviously he lived at this later time in Sri Lanka. http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/ma/malaya_mahadeva.htm James, on your qu of ‘which is the real Abhidhamma’, I’d encourage you and anyone else to explore for yourself. Later as we read through more of the Visuddhimagga and SN, you’ll get plenty more exposure to the ‘real Abhidhamma’,don’t worry;-) Out of the Abhidhamma texts and their commentaries, I think the ones which are easiest to read are: 1. Atthasalini (PTS, Expositor, comy to Dhammasangani) 2. Sammohavinodani (PTS, Dispeller of Delusion, comy to Vibanga) 3. Kathavatthu (PTS, Points of Controversy, Abhid text) 4. Puggalapannatti (PTS, Human Types, Abhid text) Also, highly recommended: 1.Abhidammattha Sangaha (Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Bodhi transl, BPS/other) 2. Guide to Conditional Relations (PTS, U Narada). On Karunadasa’s extremely detailed and thorough paper, my comments are like Howard’s. On ‘Time’ he closely follows the textual sources. On ‘space’, I don’t think some of his conclusions are right, especially his main conclusion about space as pannatti. It is not merely a ‘conceptual construct’. I’d like to follow his textual sources and logic, but don’t have time now. Metta, Sarah p.s Chris, thx for your last K.Pasenadi post on his grandma's death - well-presented and very human as you've said before;-) The section also had SN3:18 which I thought you might raise on the entire holy life being 'good friendship, good companionship and good comradeship.' Also, I liked SN3:6 about the few people who do not become intoxicated and negligent when they obtain 'superior possessions': 'Enamoured with their pleasures and wealth, Greedy, dazed by sensual pleasures, They do not realize they have gone too far Like deer they enter the trap laid out. Afterwards the bitter fruit is theirs, For bad indeed is the result.' =============================== ==== 29248 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 2:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi KenO;-)) Hi Eznir, Pls keep up your helpful contributions. --- Eznir wrote: > Dear Friends! > > The Lord Buddha in Majjhima Nikaya 22 > > 'And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done > with the raft? .... You may like to look at this post with comy notes: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/24878 Metta, Sarah ====== 29249 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 2:25am Subject: Re: Lots of old Cans of Worms Hi Sarah, Sarah: James, did you see the article there on `Did Buddha die of Mesenteric Infarction'? Not that I want to open up this old can of worms, but you may like to take a look (preferable while I'm away;- )). I only took a quick look. James: Oops, too late. I looked at it now and you are probably still here. (My students are just taking finals so I have a lot of time on my hands today.) I think it is an excellent article and well- considered. Taking all of the facts into consideration, his conclusions of Mesenteric Infarction are probably more accurate than mine about food poisoning. He makes a big assumption that the bloody diarrhea began immediately after eating the meal, and necessitated him being carried on a stretcher to his final resting place, but I think it all makes perfect sense. I just don't believe that ridiculous commentary which says that his last meal was infused with nutrients by devas. You may not want to read the whole article in depth; it will probably make your hair stand on end! ;-)) But for those interested, here is the direct link: www.lankalibrary.com/Bud/buddha_death.htm Metta, James 29250 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 2:52am Subject: [dsg] Re: Heart base/Ken O Hello Ken O, p. 1397 of the Samyutta Nikaya Vol. II (B.Bodhi), 35 Salaayatanasamyutta - Note 3 as requested. metta and peace, Christine [Spk distinguishes the different types of "eyes" referred to in the canon. These are first divided into two general classes: the eye of knowledge (~naanachakkhu) and the physical eye (mamsacakkhu). The former is fivefold: (i) the Buddha eye (buddhacakkhu), the knowledge of the inclinations and underlying tendencies of beings, and the knowledge of the degree of maturity of their spiritual faculties; (ii) the Dhamma eye (dhammacakkhu), the knowledge of the three lower paths and fruits; (iii) the universal eye (samantacakkhu), the Buddha's knowledge of omniscience; (iv) the divine eye (dibbacakkhu), the knowledge arisen by suffusion of light (which sees the passing away and rebirth of beings); and (v) the wisdom eye (pa~n~naacakkhu), the discernment of the Four Noble Truths. The physical eye is twofold: (i) the composite eye (sasambhaaracakkhu), the physical eyeball; and (ii) the sensitive eye (pasaadacakkhu), i.e., the sensitive substance in the visual apparatus that responds to forms (perhaps the retina and optic nerve). Here the Blessed One speaks of the sensitive eye as the 'eye base'. The ear, etc., should be similarly understood. Mind (mano) is the mind of the three planes, which is the domain of exploration with insight (tebhuumakasammasanacaaracitta). For the commentarial treatment of the sense bases, see Vism 444-46 (Ppn 14:36-53). Hamilton challenges the commentarial classification of the first five sense bases under the ruuupakkhandha, arguing from the fact that the standard definition of the form aggregate in the suttas does not include them. In her view, the sense faculties are powers of perception partaking of both material and mental characteristics and thus unclassifiable exclusively under ruupa (Identity and Experience, pp. 14-22). By the same logic, however, it might be argued that the five external sense bases should not be assigned to the ruupakkhandha, for again the suttas do not place them there. The plain fact is that the correlations between the khandhas, aayatanas, and dhaatus are not made explicit in the Nikaayas at all, but only in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, which classifies both the first five internal and external sense bases under ruupa. The five faculties and four sense objects (excluding the tactile object) are categorized as "derivative form" (upaadaa rupa), i.e. form derived from the four primary elements; the tactile object is classified under three of the primary elements: earth (hardness or softness), heat (hotness or coolness), and air (pressure and motion). The suttas themselves do not enumerate the types of derivative form, and the Abhidhamma texts seem to be filling in this lacuna.] --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Christine > > Do you know how I can bribe you ;-) to type out the Note 3. TIA. > > > kind regards > Ken O 29251 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 5:56am Subject: Re: Heart base --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Rob K, > > Science isn't perfect but I > would say that ideas about the physical operation of the mind and the > body are far more advanced today than during the Buddha's time. > > Rob: Maybe the eyeconsciousness is difficult to understand so take > bodyconsciouness instead. This type of consciousness can arise > wherever there is the subtle pasada rupa that is its support. For > example can you feel a sensation where your foot is resting on the > floor? If so that consciousness is arising there, not in the head. > > James: I'm sorry Rob, but no consciousness arises in the foot. This > is an absurd idea. Kinesthetic awareness/intelligence only gives the > impression that consciousness arises in the foot. It only seems this > way because there is subtle clinging to the body as a whole as > being `mine' and occupying space and time. If you practiced insight > meditation you would soon see that all consciousnesses arise in the > mind. When clinging to the body has ceased as being mine and > occupying space, there is no more duality between the mind and the > body. This is proven through insight meditation and medical > science. For example, for several years after people have a limb > removed, like a foot, they will feel sensations coming from that > missing limb (like itching, pain, heat, etc.). The consciousness > arises in the mind not in the actual limb. The sense organs are > just `openings' for the outside stimulus. >========== Dear James, According to the texts that first satge of vipassana is seeing that mind (nama) and rupa are entirely different: nama-rupaparichedda- nana. I wouldn't say consciousness (vinnana, citta) arises in mind because I thought citta and cetasika were mind, nama. But if medical science and insight meditation have proved what you say then who am I to argue. RobK 29252 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 6:57am Subject: Re: Heart base Hi Rob, Rob: According to the texts that first satge of vipassana is seeing that mind (nama) and rupa are entirely different: nama-rupaparichedda- nana. James: That is the first stage of vipassana and it is really not that difficult to achieve (one just has to begin practicing). Also, I would not say that this insight `is knowing nama and rupa to be entirely different' (they aren't entirely different and they are linked), it is simply an analytical knowledge that they are basically different. It is a very superficial knowledge really that the body doesn't cognize, it is the mind that cognizes. That the mind is drawn toward the body but the body isn't drawn toward the mind. Later insight will see that the body and the mind arise in pairs and that they cease in pairs…that is when the differences between them become less and less important. Then this insight is deepened and deepened through various levels. Then after that the complete ceasing nature, or Nibbana, becomes apparent about both. Rob: I wouldn't say consciousness (vinnana, citta) arises in mind because I thought citta and cetasika were mind, nama. James: The consciousness that is bound by objects, the clinging consciousness, arises in the mind. The consciousness that that isn't bound by objects, unbound consciousness or nibbana, isn't limited to the mind…and it isn't limited to rupa either. It is `luminous' in all directions. Rob: But if medical science and insight meditation have proved what you say then who am I to argue. James: You are someone who has valuable input and you may be right. Metta, James 29253 From: Michael Beisert Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 7:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sotaapanno Hello Sarah, Sarah: 'Official story': All 3 fetters uprooted at same time by stream entry path consciousness. Vism XX11, 15 "Immediately next to that knowledge (stream-entry path consciousness), however, there arise either two or three fruition consciousnesses, which are its result. Michael: Looks like another instance of the Vsm being a suspicious source. Whom to trust more? The living example of the Sangha or the ancient writings of someone barely known? "Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn45-002.html Metta Michael 29254 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 10:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] rupa questions 2 Hi Larry, thanks for your 7 questions. op 21-01-2004 01:54 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > 1. Mind-door rupas are only experienced by those who have fully > developed insight, but all those rupas could be objects of attachment > for those with fully developed insight, but not for anyone else, > correct? N: I have been thinking along these lines too. Because when we are thinking just now, it seems that the object is not rupa, but an idea about them. I wait for Thailand. L: 2. If a pure octad (4 primaries, taste, color, smell, nutritive essence) > is only cognized through the mind-door, what is tasted through the > taste-door? N: Only flavour can impinge on the smelling sense, it is sensitive to only flavour. As we read, it picks up an object among odours, not any other type of object! And then immmediately after the nose-door process, flavour is experienced through the mind-door. It is all so fast, we do not realize this. We have learnt that there is an octad, but the other seven do not contact the smellingsense, even though they arise together with flavour. Nor are they experienced through the mind-door. We should not have pictorial ideas about this matter. It is a mystery that exactly the flavour out of the eight rupas contacts the smellingsense at the right moment so that smelling-consciousness, vipakacitta produced by kamma, can experience that flavour that has not fallen away yet. And also that smelling-consciousness has found a base in time, a base not yet fallen away, so that it has a physical support. Kamma conditions this, and this is the domain of the Buddhas. We cannot fathom it all. Smelling-consciousness arises at this very tiny rupa that is the smelling sense just for a moment, and then for the following cittas the heartbase is the base. When smelling-consciousness arises that is the khandha of consciousness. And where is the rupakkhandha at that moment? It is the relevant sense-base. L: 3. Why develop insight into subtle realities if we could understand that > concepts are non-arising, not impermanent, not dukkha, not self? N: It is not a matter of deciding to develop insight into subtle realities. Whatever object presents itself can be object of insight. We cannot say beforehand it cannot be a subtle rupa. Who knows? And then we can gradually through direct experience understand that a nama or rupa is not a concept. This is clearer than only knowing this in theory. As a beginner I find that it is often difficult to realize when a dhamma is the object and when there is only thinking of dhammas, when a concept is the object. A difficulty for all dhamma students! L: 4. Only one reality is experienced at a time, but "in reality" many > realities arise at the same time. So, isn't the experience of one > reality at a time unrealistic? N: Arising and being experienced are two different things. Take again the example of odour, arising with the other seven rupas in an octad. We have to verify this in daily life. When there is no intention to experience smell, no trying or wishing, but by conditions smell presents itself, it may seem that we name it or think of its origin at once. But there is also a moment of just smell presenting itself in between, without us trying to do something about it or define it. That is the way to begin to understand the characteristic of smell, different from a concept or idea about it. We cannot command sati to arise, but when there are conditions for it, it can develop in its own gradual pace, as Jon stresses so often. Sati can become used to different characteristics as nama or as rupa. At first we learn: only one object at a time is experienced. Later on, when sati arises sometimes, an object is known as just a rupa or just a nama, without naming it rupa or nama. But the learning is so slow, we have to accept this. Difficult for all Dhamma students! Another example of the experience of only one object. Sound may be so loud that it hurts our ears. Different objects, different cittas, different doorways. The pain: experienced through bodysense which is also in the ear. Body-consciousness accompanied by painful feeling can arise in the ear, we can check this ourselves. Earsense is sensitive to tangible object. Hearing the sound: another moment, other object, another doorway. It goes so fast, we may mix it all. L: 5. In the 3 modes of knowing (perception, consciousness, understanding > (panna)), consciousness knows the 3 general characteristics > (impermanence, dukkha, not self) while panna knows the distinguishing > characteristic (sabhava) is impermanent, dukkha, not self. Does this > mean the knowing of consciousness has a concept for an object? N:Not a concept, citta can reflect and begin to develop the Path. Think of the money changer simile. But understanding knows more than citta, it penetrates the true characteristics of dhammas. I go back to the Tiika at the beginning of the Vis Ch XIV: Thus panna has precise understanding of the distinguishing characteristics (visesa lakkhana) and as it develops it will also penetrate the general characteristics. L: 6. Would you say that tangible data is the only reality in all of nama > and rupa that ordinary people are even remotely capable of experiencing > realistically? N: We should not beforehand limit the field of understanding. Whatever appears in daily life is the field of understanding. Like seeing, visible object, hearing, sound. Not only tangible object. We can verify this for ourselves. L: 7. Can you say without doubt no noble one realized nibbana with a > concept as object? N: Yes! A concept does not have the three characteristics, and these are the object in the process during which enlightenment is attained. That is, a dhamma is seen either as impermanent, as dukkha or as anatta. Nina. 29255 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 10:01am Subject: Latent Tendencies, Ch 1, no 9. Latent Tendencies, Ch 1, no 9. As to the expression, overcoming by opposites, tadanga-pahåna, this is the overcoming of an unwholesome quality by an opposite wholesome quality among the bases of meritorious deeds, such as generosity, just as a lighted lamp dispels darkness. This is called overcoming by the opposite. However, here, overcoming by the opposite refers to the the overcoming of the wrong of transgressions by good morality. There are the expressions: overcoming by repression, vikkhambhana-pahåna, and overcoming by destruction, samuccheda-pahåna. Overcoming by repression refers to the subduing of the hindrances and so on by suppression, by preventing their arising by means of concentration of the degree of access concentration and attainment concentration (jhåna), just as a pot thrown into moss-clad water pushes the moss aside. Overcoming by destruction (samuccheda-pahåna) refers to the abandoning of the groups of defilements which originate in the succession of cittas of someone who develops the Path and which are completely eradicated by the four supramundane Paths so that they cannot arise anymore. Wrong conduct through the body (duccarita) and so on is called ³duccarita². It is also called duccarita because it is conduct that the defilements have ruined. If such conduct has arisen in the succession of cittas, this is called ³with corruptions² (sankilesa). The reason is that one is hindered by defilements and thoroughly disturbed. With regard to the abandoning of the corruptions which occur through bodily misconduct or verbal misconduct it is explained that the corruption of craving (tanhå) is taught in the Suttanta, because concentration is opposed to sensuous desire (kåmachandha). It is explained that the corruption of wrong view (ditthi) is taught in the Abhidhamma, because of the disclosure and explanation of the dhammas which each have their own characteristic (sabhåva dhammas) and are devoid of self and so on.² We see from these text quotations that there are three levels of defilements: Defilements that are transgressions (vítikkama kilesa), coarse defilements of the degree of unwholesome courses of action. Defilements one is possessed by and that arise (pariyutthåna kilesa) are medium defilements that disturb the citta. Latent tendencies (anusaya kilesa) are subtle defilements that lie dormant in the citta and that can be completely eradicated by the four Paths (at the four stages of enlightenment). To conclude: there are latent tendencies which have their own distinct nature and characteristic. ***** (Ch 1 concluded.) 29256 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 10:01am Subject: FW: [Pali] Buddhaghosa Dear friends, some of you may be interested, and I also refer to the sutta we just read, on Stream entry. Frwd: Dear Rett, op 20-01-2004 10:12 schreef rett op rett@t...: > >Nina: you can fare safely with Buddhaghosa! Rett: It is important to be careful even with Buddhaghosa. There are places > where his interpretation is clearly wrong. That is not to diminish > the great value of his commentaries. N: I am glad you see the great value. I have some thoughts about this: some people have lost contact with the Abhidhamma, and when Buddhaghosa explains or implies the Abhidhamma, this may be misunderstood. When I say Abhidhamma I do not mean a textbook to be memorized, but the Abhidhamma alive, to be verified and as a guide for awareness in daily life. And also: Abhidhamma is closely connected with the Suttanta, and Vinaya. I have not read many co in Pali, some in English and Thai. I read in Pali and translated the whole Co to the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, and here I could not possibly find anything wrong or contradictory to the Suttanta, on the contrary, most helpful. But there are Abhidhamma passages which may be misunderstood by some people. Actually, without Yong Peng asking me I would not have translated this line by line from the beginning, but it proved quite an experience to me. Take alone the beginning with many similes (the Buddha as a swan, tiger, moon, etc). People may not appreciate this. But all the time we should return to the time of the ancient teachers: what was their intention, what is the essence they explained? Here is explained what we find in many suttas: expression of confidence and devotion that is the fruit of a deep understanding of the teachings. Such as we read in Chapter XI 55. Sotaapattisamyutta Connected Discourses on Stream Entry (Transl by Bhikkhu Bodhi): 2 (2) Grounded "Bhikkhus, a noble disciple who possesses four things is a stream- enterer, no longer bound to the nether world, fixed in destiny, with enlightenment as his destination. [n. 322] "What four? Here, bhikkhus, a noble disciple possesses confirmed confidence in the Buddha thus: "The Blessed One is an arahant, perfectly enlightened, accomplished in true knowledge and conduct, fortunate, knower of the world, unsurpassed leader of persons to be tamed, teacher of devas and humans, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One.' I think when people do not immediately understand a Co phrase, they may think that the Co is wrong, but why is the fault with the Co? When they look again they see that there was no problem, as you just noticed for yourself in this short phrase you quoted. We can discover that the Co explanation is very clear and to the point. When we then go back to the Sutta, which we should do all the time, we see that the message of the Sutta stands out much more clearly. Here is not the place for a long debate that could go on endlessly. See Dhamma Study Group in the archives under Buddhaghosa! Let us enjoy Kaccayaana and other texts, we have our hands full. Nina. 29257 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Heart base Hi James > James: That is the first stage of vipassana and it is really not > that difficult to achieve (one just has to begin practicing). > Also, I would not say that this insight `is knowing nama and rupa to be entirely different' (they aren't entirely different and they are linked), it is simply an analytical knowledge that they are > basically different. k: They are totally different but inseparable for beings who born in the sensual planes. Please look that the sutta about clinging and aggregates to know the distinction. J: It is a very superficial knowledge really that the body doesn't cognize, it is the mind that cognizes. That the mind is drawn toward the body but the body isn't drawn toward the mind. k: That is true if and only if we are talking about the rupas of the body. If we are talking about body consciouness. The mind consciouness will arise after the body consciouness out of tendency or out of habit. Whether there is consciouness in the sense organ is definitely an interesting scientific qn. When we talk about consciousness we are not talking about the brain (bc brain is a mass of rupas ;-). When we touch a nerve in any part of our body, is it the brain that reads the nerve transmission or the nerve receive the transmission, knows it first before it transmit to the mind ;-). J: Take dreaming for example, during dreaming visual consciousness arises and the eyes are closed. Sensory consciousness only arises in the brain, not in the rupa structures of the sense organs. For example, there have been experiments where electrical stimulation of certain areas of the brain will cause people to see, hear, smell, feel, and taste things that aren't actually present in their physical environment. The same thing happens during dreaming. J: This is proven through insight meditation and medical science. For example, for several years after people have a limb removed, like a foot, they will feel sensations coming from that missing limb (like itching, pain, heat, etc.). The consciousness arises in the mind not in the actual limb. The sense organs are just `openings' for the outside stimulus. K: Your second paragrah on feeling sensation coming from a missing limb has answered your dream analogy. These sensations that arise due to lost limbs sensation is bc out of tendecy or out of habitual we are feeling it. It is the same as dream. They are our hidden desires -(Freud is one of the psychologist who brought forward this idea - not very sure of the spelling), our tendencies. That is why Arahants do not dream bc they have eradicated all defilements or tendecies. best wishes Ken O 29258 From: Vijita Teoh Chee Keam Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Angulimala ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eddie Lou" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 4:38 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Angulimala > Hi, Teoh, > Can please list the 5 unpardonable ? > Thanks, > Eddie Lou. These 5 weighty or Garuka kamma which produces its effect in this very life or the next were 1) matricide, 2) patricide 3) murder of an arahant 4) wounding of a Buddha and 5) creating a schism in the Sangha. He will not attain Arahatship in this life. > --- teoh chee keam wrote: > > Kalyanamitta, > > > > Angulimala managed to get attainment in that very > ...[snipped].... > > Angulimala is a perfect example for those in doubt > > after repenting from their unwholesome deeds in the > > past, no matter how great is the kamma(except the 5 > > unpardonable). > > > > Vijita Teoh. 29259 From: Eddie Lou Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 10:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Angulimala Hi,Teoh, Thanks. Metta, Eddie --- Vijita Teoh Chee Keam wrote: > These 5 weighty or Garuka kamma which produces its > effect in this very life > or the next were 1) matricide, 2) patricide 3) > murder of an arahant 4) > wounding of a Buddha and 5) creating a schism in > the Sangha. He will not > attain Arahatship in this life. 29260 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 11:14am Subject: [dsg] Re: Heart base Hi Ken O, Thank you for your reply. I will get to it later, in more detail, when I feel the time is more opportune. Metta, James 29261 From: Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 7:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Heart base Hi, Ken - In a message dated 1/21/04 2:46:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > J: This is proven through insight meditation and medical > science. For example, for several years after people have a limb > removed, like a foot, they will feel sensations coming from that > missing limb (like itching, pain, heat, etc.). The consciousness > arises in the mind not in the actual limb. The sense organs are > just `openings' for the outside stimulus. > > K: Your second paragrah on feeling sensation coming from a missing > limb has answered your dream analogy. These sensations that arise > due to lost limbs sensation is bc out of tendecy or out of habitual > we are feeling it. It is the same as dream. They are our hidden > desires -(Freud is one of the psychologist who brought forward this > idea - not very sure of the spelling), our tendencies. That is why > Arahants do not dream bc they have eradicated all defilements or > tendecies. > > > ============================= Everything that is being discussed here is a matter of conventional truth. Don't you think that, along such lines, the phantom limb phenomenon is more a matter of *nerves* and the spinal cord, and the brain, than anything analogous to dreaming?? 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) 29262 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 1:35pm Subject: Meditation and Nibbana Dear Group, Just a little side-track in the Samyutta - I was reading around the topic of Nibbana, and came across a sutta where a woodland devataa spoke to Aananda. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 9 Vanasamyutta 5 Aananda "On one occasion the Venerable Aananda was dwelling among the Kosalans in a certain woodland thicket. Now on that occasion the Venerable Aananda was excessively involved instructing lay people. [n.541] Then the devataa that inhabited that woodland thicket, having compassion for the Venerable Aananda, desiring his good, desiring to stir up a sense of urgency in him, approached him and addressed him in verse: "Having entered the thicket at the foot of a tree, Having placed Nibbaana in your heart, Meditate, Gotama, and don't be negligent! What will this hullabaloo do for you?" [n.542] Then the Venerable Aananda, stirred up by that deity, acquired a sense of urgency." [n.541] Spk: This sutta takes place shortly after the Buddha's parinibbaana. The Venerable Mahaakassapa had enjoined Aananda to attain arahantship before the first Buddhist council convened, scheduled to begin during the rains retreat. Aananda had gone to the Kosala country and entered a forest abode to meditate, but when the people found out he was there they continually came to him lamenting over the demise of the Master. Thus Aananda constantly had to instruct them in the law of impermanence. The devataa, aware that the council could succeed only if Aananda attended as an arahant, came to incite him to resume his meditation. [n.542] (part) Spk explains that one deposits Nibbaana in one's heart by way of function (kiccato), and by way of object (aarammanato): by way of function when one arouses energy with the thought, "I will attain Nibbaana"; by way of object when one sits absorbed in a meditative attainment having Nibbaana as its object (i.e. in phalasamaapatti, the attainment of fruition). In paada d, bilibilikaa is explained by Spk-pt as purposeless actiivity (atthavirahitaa pavattaa kiriyaa). The devataa refers thus to Aananda's talk with the lay people because it does not conduce to his attainment of the goal of the holy life. 29263 From: Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 4:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] rupa questions 2 Hi Nina, Thanks again for your answers. Just one more question. This body appears to be impermanent but this body is a concept. Is this body impermanent or not? If all my attachments are to concepts shouldn't I be concerned with the nature of concepts, rather than the nature of realities I don't really experience? Larry 29264 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 5:58pm Subject: Re: Some Thoughts on Naturality Hi Howard, ----------------------------- H: > Today's saying is "No snowflake ever falls in the wrong place." In thinking about what this means, it seemed to me that it means that a snowflake doesn't think or will, but just "does". That then got me to thinking about human beings. -------------------------------- Now you've got me started.:-) Has a human being any more claim to selfhood than a snowflake has? However, I think we are attacking the problem from the wrong end. Rather than studying snowflakes and human beings, we should be learning about paramattha dhammas. Then, we will be untroubled by those interminable questions; "Do I have free will? Can I make `thinking' happen? Does thinking happen without me? Are there really snowflakes? And so on, ad nauseam." Philosophers cannot come to terms with self-referencing problems. For example: "This statement is false. True or false?" There is no logical answer. However, by standing back from the problem, we can see the answer -- the statement is true. Similarly, "There is no self. True or false." Again, there is no logical answer. (If true, then who is talking? If false, then why is there any question?) But by studying namas and rupas we easily see the answer – there is no self who thinks and wills. ------------------------------ H: > Now, we both think and we will. ------------------------------- D'oh! :-) But seriously, why bother with this line of reasoning -- there is no end to it. ------------------------------- H: > Also, there seem to be two kinds of willing: Willing that "just happens" and which we might call "natural," and willing which involves an imposition of "self" and of thought. (Perhaps this is three kinds - there can be thinking without an interposing of "self.") ---------------------------------- Are these three kinds listed in the Abhidhamma? If not, we could be heading in a wrong direction. To repeat my point, we should ascertain the Dhamma perspective. Right understanding [of what goes on in our minds] will follow. -------------------------------- H: > Then I got to thinking about the implication that the "natural" willing is good, but the other is bad. Well, I'm not entirely certain about that. I think that very much depends on the characteristics of the person willing and acting. An advanced ariyan, and certainly an arahant, will, when willing and acting "naturally," act usefully, beneficially, out of a wholesome state of mind. But what of a worldling who is filled with selfish, self-serving desires and inclinations? When s/he acts "naturally," automatically, and without interposing "self" or thought, s/he quite typically acts in service to desires and emotions, and may well cause great harm! -------------------------------- Yes, according to the Abhidhamma, there can be ignorance with or without wrong view and with or without concept as object. ----------------------------- H: > I recall a sutta, probably more than one, in which the Buddha advised *stopping* and *considering* before acting! It is not just that he said to act with sharp awareness, sharp mindfulness and clear comprehension, but to actually cease for a moment and to think carefully about what one is about to say or do. Now that is not "natural," but for most of us, it *is* good - very good. ------------------------------ I'm only guessing here: I wonder if this involves `prompted' and `unprompted' (as is being discussed on Andrew's thread). If there is a pause, in which we prompt ourselves to act wholesomely, then, theoretically, the following citta is prompted. If there is no pause, then the citta is unprompted (and it is stronger, more wholesome/unwholesome). I think Andrew was asking if the pause, itself, had to be kusala. If it does, then there will be no benefit in pausing with unwholesome consciousness – for example, there will be no advantage in pausing with the wrong view of a self who is pausing. ------------------------------ H: > What do you folks think? ------------------------------ That's what I think. And I think we should have more calendar quotes. :-) Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, all - > > My future daughter-in-law gave me one of those "Zen calendars" for my > desk - you know, the kind that has another "saying" for each day of the month. 29265 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 6:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Heart base Hi Howard H: Everything that is being discussed here is a matter of > conventional truth. Don't you think that, along such lines, the phantom limb phenomenon is more a matter of *nerves* and the spinal cord, and the brain, than anything analogous to dreaming?? K: To me they are similar cases that are induces by tendecies. Even though they are conventional, IMHO there is a need to know the cause so to have a clearer understanding of the effect of tendency. Tendency is a very impt principle that should not be overlooked. Sometimes we are only mindful of the akusala cittas or cetasikas, however we tend to forget the underlying tendency behind each cetasikas especially the underlying tendency of ignorance is the strongest among all. best wishes Ken O 29266 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 7:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Prompting Beautiful Consciousness Hi Andrew In my personal opinion since BC are anatta they cannot be deliberately be prompted. When we deliberately made a decision or action, it not about a will, we must understanding it is basically the conditions that are counter-reacting each other. Depending on our accumulation and tendecies, kusala or akusala may conditioned to arise. best wishes Ken O 29267 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 9:20pm Subject: Kung Hei Fat Choi, Year of the Monkey! Dear Friends, Kung Hei Fat Choi! Happy New (Chinese) Year of the Monkey. I recently referred to the sutta about the the mind being like a monkey, here’s B.Bodhi’s transl of the same lines(SN12:61 Uninstructed): ..... “Just as a monkey roaming through a forest grabs hold of one branch, lets that go and grabs another, then lets that go and grabs still another, so too that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night.” .... The sutta continues: ..... “Therein, bhikkhu, the instructed noble disciple attends closely and carefully to dependent origination itself thus: ‘When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases. That is, with ignorance as condition, volitional formations [come to be]; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness....Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations; with the cessation of volitional formations, cessation of consciousness....Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.” ..... Let me sign off with another favourite Monkey Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn47-007.html ..... “Those monkeys who are not foolish or careless by nature, when they see the tar trap, will keep their distance. But any monkey who is foolish & careless by nature comes up to the tar trap and grabs it with its paw, which then gets stuck there. Thinking, 'I'll free my paw,' he grabs it with his other paw. That too gets stuck. Thinking, 'I'll free both of my paws,' he grabs it with his foot. That too gets stuck. Thinking, 'I'll free both of my paws and my foot,' he grabs it with his other foot. That too gets stuck. Thinking, 'I'll free both of my paws and my feet as well,' he grabs it with his mouth. That too gets stuck. So the monkey, snared in five ways, lies there whimpering, having fallen on misfortune, fallen on ruin, a prey to whatever the hunter wants to do with him. Then the hunter, without releasing the monkey, skewers him right there, picks him up, and goes off as he likes. "This is what happens to anyone who wanders into what is not his proper range and is the territory of others. "For this reason, you should not wander into what is not your proper range and is the territory of others.” .... We learn that what is not the proper range are: ..... “The five strands of sensuality. Which five? Forms cognizable by the eye -- agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. Sounds cognizable by the ear... Aromas cognizable by the nose... Flavors cognizable by the tongue... Tactile sensations cognizable by the body -- agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. These, for a monk, are not his proper range and are the territory of others.” ..... At the end of the sutta we learn what the proper range or resort is. Now I’m following B.Bodhi’s translation: ..... “And what is a bhikkhu’s resort, his own ancestral domain? It is the four establishments of mindfulness. What four? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu dwells contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure in regard to the world. He dwells contemplating feelings in feelings....mind in mind.....phenomena in phenomena, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure in regard to the world. This is a bhikkhus’s resort, his own ancestral domain.” ..... May we all learn the proper range of satipatthana and not get stuck like the ‘foolish and careless’ monkey ;-) I’ll be back on line in 10 days or so and meanwhile look forward to reading all your posts. Metta, Sarah ===== 29268 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 9:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Space element a concept? Azita --- gazita2002 wrote: > Dear Jon, ... > > J: I think you have just neatly summarised one of the essential > > points made by the Buddha, that what we think we experience is > not > > real (is concept) while what is real (the dhammas) are not > > experienced as they truly are. > > > > A. I think we forget this time > and time again, well at least I do, can really only speak for > myself. I think that is why we are all still in Samsara. You're right, we do forget it all the time. And I think we can safely say 'we' because, as you say, it defines anyone who is bound to samsara (as we all are). Jon PS Sorry not to be seeing you in Bangkok this time. 29269 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 10:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What the Buddha taught Icaro Good to be hearing from you again! --- icarofranca wrote: > Dear Jon- .. > Respctfully butting in at a so relevant matter! Always welcome (and anyone else, for that matter). > An attentive Abhidhamma reader will note just at the beginning > (at > the Dhammasangani, for example) a profound concordance with the all > Buddistic Suttas. If you got the Suttas as a Bona Fide registry of > all > the years Buddha spent preaching and teaching, the Abhidhamma is > the > real key for understanding all the structured pattern of thoughts > used > by Siddhartha Gautama in his dispensation and live (the tale of > the > Abhidhamma "in nuce" being preaching by Him to his Mother`s court > just > after his illumination is a good example of these interplay between > hidden meanings - if any! - and litteral signification). > The Old Cardinal Mazarin of France used to say that he had`t > any > plan or project on his writings but the grammar. The same with The > Suttas: The Abdhidhamma, The Suttas, The Vinaya and the own > Buddha's > live are embedded in one ground of Wisdom and Experience. Concepts > as > General, Specific, Exoteric, Esoteric, Private, Public, Hidden and > Expounded and so on are below the abysm even of Pali language and > its > grammar...only Sammuit-Sacca. Beyond these, the Ultimate Reality, > The Nibbana. Well said (if I understand you correctly). > > If the suttas and commentaries as they stand are not relevant to > > ordinary lay-folk like you and me how will your hypothetical > > bhikkhu-in-the-know be able to help (and how does one find such a > > person in the first place)? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The common basis of Wisdom - Panna - Experience and even grammar > makes all these efforts if not a real Dhamma preaching ( we are not > Bhikkhus at a Sangha anyway) at least a good foundation for > better > understanding of our lives. If you like to take up these issues to > the > Kamma level, so one could say that it is a good Kamma at the last > end: > a good simpleton viewpoint is a good viewpoint for any means, nes't > pas ? I'm not quite with you here, but I'm sure it's all good stuff! > Ditto, Jon! > Is it necessary to quote the Mahaparinibbana Sutta to clarify > this question ? Thanks for the reminder of that source. Spot on! I'll keep it in mind (or course, you're welcome to come in with a quote any itme) Nice talking to you again. Jon 29270 From: Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 5:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] rupa questions 2 Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/21/04 10:57:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Nina, > > Thanks again for your answers. Just one more question. This body appears > to be impermanent but this body is a concept. Is this body impermanent > or not? If all my attachments are to concepts shouldn't I be concerned > with the nature of concepts, rather than the nature of realities I don't > really experience? > > Larry > ======================== If I may put in my 2 cents: If one practices meditation diligently and regularly, one can come to experience, after not too long, a flow of experience closer to the level of actualities. And starting with that, and eventually progressing to the point of seeing the flux of phenomena at the finest level, there will arise disenchantment and insight into the impermanence, impersonality, and insubstantiality of phenomena that carries over to the more macroscopic mind-constructed "objects" in our world of concept. But only seeing the conventional impermanence of conventional objects is little more than suggestive. By itself, I believe, it isn't transformative. 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) 29271 From: Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 6:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Thoughts on Naturality Hi, Ken - In a message dated 1/21/04 11:35:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > ----------------------------- > H: >Today's saying is "No snowflake ever falls in the wrong place." > In thinking about what this means, it seemed to me that it means > that a snowflake doesn't think or will, but just "does". That then > got me to thinking about human beings. > -------------------------------- > > Now you've got me started.:-) Has a human being any more claim to > selfhood than a snowflake has? > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: This is, of course, conventional speech. Let's stick with that and not go for a confusing mix of conventional and literal. A snowflake has no sense of self, but a human being has. Neither has any self/core. ---------------------------------------------------- > > However, I think we are attacking the problem from the wrong end. > Rather than studying snowflakes and human beings, we should be > learning about paramattha dhammas. Then, we will be untroubled by > those interminable questions; "Do I have free will? Can I > make `thinking' happen? Does thinking happen without me? Are there > really snowflakes? And so on, ad nauseam." > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not troubled by the matter of free will. I think it is an incoherent concept. Nor do I think the other questions are well formed. ------------------------------------------------- > > Philosophers cannot come to terms with self-referencing problems. > For example: "This statement is false. True or false?" There is no > logical answer. However, by standing back from the problem, we can > see the answer -- the statement is true. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Not at all. It is meaningless and lacks a truth value. -------------------------------------------------- Similarly, "There is no > > self. True or false." Again, there is no logical answer. (If true, > then who is talking? > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Nonsense. The statement is true. And with regard to the question "Who is talking," the proper conventional answer is "I am", but the proper literal answer is "Nobody!". ---------------------------------------------- If false, then why is there any question?) But > by studying namas and > rupas we easily see the answer – there is no > self who thinks and wills. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: It is correct that there is no self that thinks and wills. And the point is ... what? There still is thinking and willing! And usually there is doing so with the *sense* of self very much present. We can read about namas and rupas in Abhidhammic treatises "from now until Metteya come," but unless we see directly what is what, that sense of self will continue to dominate our lives ad infinitum! ---------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------ > H: >Now, we both think and we will. > ------------------------------- > > D'oh! :-) But seriously, why bother with this line of reasoning -- > there is no end to it. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Because I was interested in thinking about and discussing the matter of "naturality", and questioning it to some extent. If you read my post and my comments about how the Buddha recommended stopping and considering before speaking or acting, you will see what I was after. That is my main point, though you don't address that much in this reply. --------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------- > H: >Also, there seem to be two kinds of willing: Willing that "just > happens" and which we might call "natural," and willing which > involves an imposition of "self" and of thought. (Perhaps this is > three kinds - there can be thinking without an interposing > of "self.") > ---------------------------------- > > Are these three kinds listed in the Abhidhamma? If not, we could be > heading in a wrong direction. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: The Abhidhamma is not my bible. And I will not abrogate freedom of thought to it. -------------------------------------------------- To repeat my point, we should > ascertain the Dhamma perspective. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Dhamma = Abhidhamma is a false equation. ----------------------------------------------- Right understanding [of what goes > > on in our minds] will follow. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: No it will not. Reading the menu doesn't fill one's stomach! ------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------- > H: >Then I got to thinking about the implication that the "natural" > willing is good, but the other is bad. Well, I'm not entirely > certain about that. I think that very much depends on the > characteristics of the person willing and acting. > An advanced ariyan, and certainly an arahant, will, when willing and > acting "naturally," act usefully, beneficially, out of a wholesome > state of mind. But what of a worldling who is filled with selfish, > self-serving desires and inclinations? When s/he acts "naturally," > automatically, and without interposing "self" or thought, s/he quite > typically acts in service to desires and emotions, and may well > cause great harm! > -------------------------------- > > Yes, according to the Abhidhamma, there can be ignorance with or > without wrong view and with or without concept as object. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: There cannot be ignorance without origin in concept. The sense of self, of core, of separate self-existing objects, and so on, are all concept derived. I agree, however, that ignorance may not always express itself at the level of view, but it consistently expresses itself by distorting perception. ------------------------------------------------ > > ----------------------------- > H: >I recall a sutta, probably more than one, in which the Buddha > advised *stopping* and *considering* before acting! It is not just > that he said to act with sharp awareness, sharp mindfulness and > clear comprehension, but to actually cease for a moment and to think > carefully about what one is about to say or do. Now that is > not "natural," but for most of us, it *is* good - very good. > ------------------------------ > > I'm only guessing here: I wonder if this involves `prompted' > and `unprompted' (as is being discussed on Andrew's thread). If > there is a pause, in which we prompt ourselves to act wholesomely, > then, theoretically, the following citta is prompted. If there is > no pause, then the citta is unprompted (and it is stronger, more > wholesome/unwholesome). > > I think Andrew was asking if the pause, itself, had to be kusala. > If it does, then there will be no benefit in pausing with > unwholesome consciousness – for example, there will be no advantage > in pausing with the wrong view of a self who is pausing. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: The Buddha recommended stopping and considering before acting. When there is time to give thorough and lengthy consideration, so much the better. But often there is no time for an internal review as to what extent one has right or wrong view - and if one's view is wrong, could one even know it!! - or for consultation with an Abhidhamma text. The main point is to not act automatically (like an automaton), for to do so is to simply act reactively and mindlessly, like a sleepwalker. The Buddha also urged the ongoing practice of moral behavior and meditation, cultivating the mind, so that at the moment when one *does* stop and consider before plunging into action, the results will be beneficial. -------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------ > H: >What do you folks think? > ------------------------------ > > That's what I think. And I think we should have more calendar > quotes. :-) > > 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) 29272 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 11:50pm Subject: The Ups and Downs of Meditation Dear Friends, One of the first stages of practicing vipassana meditation is an increase in lobha (greed) with the meditation itself as the object. The practitioner will feel that meditation is the best thing in the world! The person may start to preach to other people that they should all meditate or he/she will look on other people with pity that they don't meditate. They will see meditation as the panacea for all of the world's problems. This is, of course, a very juvenile stage of the meditation process but all of the practitioners will go through it. I went through it also. I don't belong to any of the Yahoo groups on meditation because most of the members are in this stage, where meditation is just `EVERYTHING'! ;-) One will eventually get out of this stage and see that they are no better off than anyone else because they meditate. Actually, they will see that in some ways they are worse off. As the saying goes, "Ignorance is Bliss". The practitioner will only discuss meditation when it comes up and he/she no longer tries to persuade others to practice. It becomes a personal practice and it isn't done to `prove' anything to anyone. It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that many of the members in this group who began the practice of meditation got to this first stage of increased lobha and stopped there. They saw this increased lobha as dangerous and blamed the practice itself. Then, rather than trying to persuade everyone to meditate like what usually happens, they began to persuade everyone to not meditate. This is also a juvenile stage in the meditation process. Thinking that everyone is going to be harmed by meditation is just as juvenile as thinking that everyone is going to be saved by meditation. They are both extreme views, but they are part of the process. But, and I want to make this very clear, reading about meditation is not the same as actually doing it. You can read about the insights that others have achieved in meditation, and even feel for a moment that you have achieved them yourself, but that feeling is a phantom and a falsehood. When I describe what I have experienced in meditation and someone tells me that I am wrong because it says such and such in such book, I really have to smile. A person can read a manual all about flying an airplane and even detailed descriptions of flying an airplane, and even be able to pass extensive tests and hold detailed discusssions about flying an airplane, but if you put that person in an actual airplane it would be bound to crash. For those of you flying to Bangkok, I sincerely hope your pilot has actually practiced flying the airplane rather than just reading about it! ;-)) Metta, James 29273 From: Date: Wed Jan 21, 2004 0:47pm Subject: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism I have had many people say that I might have become addicted to ecstasy. I have been saying, no, all along because ecstasy requires dispassion and equanimity for it to emerge and deepen, whereas addiction is based upon grasping and aversion. And, some have come out and stated that ecstatic contemplatives (jhana yogis) are addicted to ecstasy. What I find most interesting about the accusation that I am addicted to the ecstatic contemplative experience, is we live in a culture that is addicted to many substances, such as alcohol, nicotine and caffeine, not to mention all of the prescription medications people are taking, as well as the illegal narcotics millions of Americans buy every year. However I do not consume any of these things. I do not even take aspirin because all of the pains of sickness and old age have been erased by the ecstatic sensations that pervade this body. Others have said the Buddha rejected ecstatic states. However all one need do is read the Pali canon to see that ecstasy (jhana) was one of the most common topics the Buddha addressed. If you examine the glossary of the Digha Nikaya alone you will find these references to jhana: jhanas - Absorptions, DN 42, 1.3.21f., n.79, n.50, n.57, n.76f., 2.75ff., 4.33, n.168, 9.10ff., 16.6.8f., 17.2.3, n.583, n.611, 26.28, 29.24, 33.3.3(6), n.1118, n.1127, n.1143 Therefore in conclusion I believe you will agree with me that the ecstatic absorption states (jhanas/dhyanas) were of central importance to the historic Buddha's teaching method. Well, in the Buddha's own words, yes, ecstatic states are not only desirable, but ecstatic contemplatives (jhana yogis) are addicted to ecstasy, worse, pleasure seeking. But, he said since it is a pleasure "not of the senses" it is a pleasure worthy of seeking for one who seeks Buddhahood, Arahantship, full enlightenment, nibbana. Therefore the Buddha was addicted to ecstasy Digha Nikaya 29 Pasadika Sutta The Delightful Discourse a translation from the Pali by Maurice Walshe, Wisdom Publications, Boston 1987, 1995 24.2 There are, Cunda, these four kinds of life devoted to pleasure which are conducive to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to tranquillity, to realization, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. What are they? First a monk detached from sense-desires, detached from unwholesome mental states, enters and remains in the first jhana, which is with thinking and pondering, born of detachment, filled with delight and happiness. And, with the subsiding of thinking and pondering, by gaining inner tranquillity and oneness of mind, he enters and remains in the second jhana, which is without thinking and pondering, born of concentration, filled with delight and happiness. Again, with the fading of delight, remaining imperturbable, mindful and clearly aware, he experiences in himself that joy of which the Noble Ones say; "Happy is he who dwells with equanimity and mindfulness," he enters and remains in the third jhana. Again, having given up pleasure and pain, and with the disappearance of former gladness and sadness, he enters and remains in the fourth jhana, which is beyond pleasure and pain, and purified by equanimity and mindfulness. These are the four kinds of life devoted to pleasure which are entirely conducive to disenchantment, to cessation, to tranquillity, to realization, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. So, if wanderers from other sects should say that the followers of the Sakyan are addicted to these four forms of pleasure seeking, they should be told: "Yes," for they would be speaking correctly about you, they would not be slandering you with false or untrue statements. 25. Then such wanderers might ask: "Well then, those who are given to these four forms of pleasure-seeking - how many fruits, how many benefits can they expect?" And, you should reply: "They can expect four fruits, four benefits. What are they? The first is when a monk by destruction of three fetters has become a Stream-Winner, no more subject to rebirth in lower worlds, firmly established, destined for full enlightenment; the second is when a monk by the complete destruction of three fetters and the reduction of greed, hatred and delusion, has become a Once-Returner, and having returned once more to this world, will put an end to suffering; the third is when a monk, by the destruction of the corruptions in this very life has, by his own knowledge and realization, attained Arahantship, to the deliverance of heart and through wisdom. Such are the four fruits and the four benefits that one given to these four forms of pleasure-seeking can expect." May I benefit all beings with every thought, word, action and resource. Blessings to you, Jeff Brooks Ecstatic Buddhism A newsletter for ecstatic Buddhists website: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ecstatic_Buddhism/ Subscribe: Ecstatic_Buddhism-subscribe@yahoogroups.com 29274 From: icarofranca Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 1:24am Subject: [dsg] Re: What the Buddha taught Dear Jon: Jon: Icaro > > Good to be hearing from you again! ------------------------------------------------------------------- As the MahaBoddhisatta Gloria Gaynor could say off,"I will survive!" ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon: Always welcome (and anyone else, for that matter). ------------------------------------------------------------------- Connie had introduced me at other DS Group at yahoo's! Good girl!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Well said (if I understand you correctly). -------------------------------------------------------------------- With time and exercise I will shape ny English more and more! ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon: I'm not quite with you here, but I'm sure it's all good stuff! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Many people think that Kamma was teaching out by Buddha as a ultimate reality. Not at all! But it's a strong ground for any doctrine one can raise up. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon: Thanks for the reminder of that source. Spot on! I'll keep it in > mind (or course, you're welcome to come in with a quote any itme) > > Nice talking to you again. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Keep boosting, man! Mettaya, Ícaro 29275 From: icarofranca Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 1:39am Subject: Re: The Ups and Downs of Meditation Dear james: When I describe what I have experienced in > meditation and someone tells me that I am wrong because it says such > and such in such book, I really have to smile. A person can read a > manual all about flying an airplane and even detailed descriptions of > flying an airplane, and even be able to pass extensive tests and hold > detailed discusssions about flying an airplane, but if you put that > person in an actual airplane it would be bound to crash. For those > of you flying to Bangkok, I sincerely hope your pilot has actually > practiced flying the airplane rather than just reading about it!;-) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Since I managed to install Linux on my computer, now I am a linuxian (despite the fact I must learn again how to configure my p2p software...nevermind!) that only refuses to give more money to Bill Gates again! But - noblesse oblige - I must confess that the MSN Flight Simulator is a tempting resource for whom may be interested to fly... I have said "tempting" because no one is fool enough to climb up inside a plane cockpit and begin to take off only with MSN FS teachings. Keeping out a goodhearted perspective in this scene, the same happens with reading books and Meditation (Mindfullness is a better term anyway). I love reading The Abhidhamma, the Visuddhimagga (I try. ..I try...I try...), the S. Nikaya, etc, but the practice of Vipassana, for example, belongs only to own Vipassana. At the other side, if The Abhidhamma IS The Vipassana... Mettaya, Ícaro 29276 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 1:48am Subject: Re: The Ups and Downs of Meditation Hi Icaro, Icaro: But - noblesse oblige - I must confess that the MSN Flight Simulator is a tempting resource for whom may be interested to fly... I have said "tempting" because no one is fool enough to climb up inside a plane cockpit and begin to take off only with MSN FS teachings. James: Yes, I have that program also. It is very interesting but also somewhat slow. I guess I could never be a pilot! ;-)) (Not to mention that I always crash my plane! ;-) Icaro: At the other side, if The Abhidhamma IS The Vipassana... James: The Abhidhamma is no more vipassana than a written description of a tiger is a tiger. Metta, James ps. Good luck with your Linux! 29277 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 1:59am Subject: Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism Hi Jeff, Jeff: I have had many people say that I might have become addicted to ecstasy. I have been saying, no, all along because ecstasy requires dispassion and equanimity for it to emerge and deepen, whereas addiction is based upon grasping and aversion. James: I wouldn't say that you are addicted to ecstasy, that would be going too far, but I do think that you put too much emphasis on ecstasy. The practice of Jhana is to develop the powers of the mind, ecstasy just happens to be a `side-effect' of that practice. When you focus on how tingly and good jhana makes your whole body feel, and the images and psychic abilities it gives you, you have lost the point of the practice and you will remain stuck in the first stages. Ecstasy isn't wisdom and the point to doing Jhana is to eventually develop the mind to the level where wisdom arises. I wish that I could do jhana meditation but I don't have the dedication to the practice that you have. I could NOT meditate for an hour each morning, several hours each evening, and then even more hours on the weekend like you do! But, that is what Jhana requires. From the outside people are going to think that you have gone looney or something, let them think what they want. But, I would recommend that you stop focusing on the `ecstasy' part of Jhana and start focusing more on the `concentration' part. Metta, James 29278 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 5:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Aggregates and detachment (was, characteristics) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and Michael) - ... H: I see acquiring the knowing of anatta/su~n~nata as something that has an aspect of "layers" to it. An outer layer is the distinguishing of pa~n~natti from paramattha dhammas. To an ordinary worldling, paramattha dhammas such as anger are already recognized to some extent as being insubstantial and as not remaining, though this is not known at all well or deeply. However, the "person who gets angry from time to time," appears to be an enduring entity with changing features! This is the difference between paramattha dhamma and pa~n~natti, even for a worldling. Seeing through pa~n~natti is a "layer" of acquired wisdom. The further unraveling of our refiying of paramattha dhammas, seeing down to the bone their insubstantial, dependent, and ephemeral status - that is, freeing actualities from their current defiled conceptually-grasped status is a deeper "level." I think both are needed. J: Thanks for sharing these thoughts. I agree that there are different levels or stages of panna (sometimes called the vipassana-nana's). One of the primary attributes of the teaching is its gradual nature, whereby panna is developed progressively. As I see it, the distinction between dhammas and pannatti becomes known as and when dhammas are gradually seen as they truly are. In other words, pannatti are 'seen' only by the seeing of dhammas; there is nothing to be seen in pannatti themselves since they are mere creations of the mind. Pannatti do not form part of the 'soil' in which understanding can grow. But with the development of panna they are no longer taken for something that is real. Jon 29279 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 5:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Space element a concept? Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... Howard: I only seem to exparience hardness through the body door. Of course, when one "sees" a table or rock etc, one assumes that "touching it" will result in hardness, or, to put it conventionally, that tables and rocks are hard. Perhaps that is what you mean. I find space to be different. It does seem to be experienced through eye door, body door, and ear door, but I believe that it is really *only* experienced through mind door, and not as a reality, but as pa~n~natti. J: I agree that the conventional notion of space is just that -- a notion (pannatti). ... --------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, as you know, I have no use for alleged unobservable rupas. J: But what about those dhammas (namas and rupas) that are unobservable now only because of our lack of developed panna, but are potentially observable to us in time as panna is developed? Besides, none of the dhammas mentioned in the texts were unobservable to the Buddha. To rule out the possibility of their existence simply because they are unobservable *to us* would be something of a conceit as I see it. In any event, even though unobservable, their influence may be still give rise to an observable effect, which we of course will look to have explained. Is it not better to contemplate the possibility of the explanation given by the Buddha than to contrive our own? ... ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Sorry, but there is a difference between an unobservable, on the one hand, and something observed wrongly or not currently observed. I do not believe in unobservables, because they are beyond confirmation or refutation. J: I don't think anyone is suggesting we should *believe in* unobservables. However, we should not forget that the presently observable/not observable is largely a function of our present level of developed understanding (or, to put it another way, our ignorance and wrong view). As you are fond of saying, we have to start from where we are, and this necessarily implies a state of some ignorance as regards dhammas. To say that we will only contemplate the existence of those dhammas that 'make sense' to us is to make ourselves a prisoner of our own ignorance and wrong view. H: When something, such as a self, is unobservable, that is pragmatic basis for assuming its nonexistence. J: I see it somewhat differently ;-)). The texts are not saying, "Since no 'self' is observable to you now, therefore 'self' doesn't exist". Rather, they are saying that as and when dhammas come to be known by developed awareness and panna/insight those dhammas are seen as exhibiting characteristics that are incompatible with their being a 'self'. So the characteristic of 'not-self' is not to be seen by looking for a self and not finding one (anyone could 'do' that), but rather by the development of understanding of the true nature of dhammas. Questions of the (un)observability of rupas are something else again, however. Jon 29280 From: abhidhammika Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:12am Subject: Re: FW: [Pali] Buddhaghosa : To Nina Dear Nina and all How are you? Your reply to Rett was fair and commendable. Was he able to actually quote something from the Buddhaghosa's works? If there were specific quotes from commentaries being challenged by by Rett, please let me know. I will write a special analytical post to refute their misunderstandings. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiolgy.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: Dear friends, some of you may be interested, and I also refer to the sutta we just read, on Stream entry. Frwd: Dear Rett, op 20-01-2004 10:12 schreef rett op rett@t...: > >Nina: you can fare safely with Buddhaghosa! Rett: It is important to be careful even with Buddhaghosa. There are places > where his interpretation is clearly wrong. That is not to diminish > the great value of his commentaries. N: I am glad you see the great value. I have some thoughts about this: some people have lost contact with the Abhidhamma, and when Buddhaghosa explains or implies the Abhidhamma, this may be misunderstood. When I say Abhidhamma I do not mean a textbook to be memorized, but the Abhidhamma alive, to be verified and as a guide for awareness in daily life. And also: Abhidhamma is closely connected with the Suttanta, and Vinaya. Nina. 29281 From: Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 2:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Aggregates and detachment (was, characteristics) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 1/22/04 8:31:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Jon (and Michael) - > ... > H: I see acquiring the knowing of anatta/su~n~nata as something > that has an aspect of "layers" to it. An outer layer is the > distinguishing of pa~n~natti from paramattha dhammas. To an ordinary > worldling, paramattha dhammas such as anger are already recognized to > some extent as being insubstantial and as not remaining, though this > is not known at all well or deeply. However, the "person who gets > angry from time to time," appears to be an enduring entity with > changing features! This is the difference between paramattha dhamma > and pa~n~natti, even for a worldling. Seeing through pa~n~natti is a > "layer" of acquired wisdom. The further unraveling of our refiying of > paramattha dhammas, seeing down to the bone their insubstantial, > dependent, and ephemeral status - that is, freeing actualities from > their current defiled conceptually-grasped status is a deeper > "level." I think both are needed. > > J: Thanks for sharing these thoughts. I agree that there are > different levels or stages of panna (sometimes called the > vipassana-nana's). One of the primary attributes of the teaching is > its gradual nature, whereby panna is developed progressively. > > As I see it, the distinction between dhammas and pannatti becomes > known as and when dhammas are gradually seen as they truly are. In > other words, pannatti are 'seen' only by the seeing of dhammas; there > is nothing to be seen in pannatti themselves since they are mere > creations of the mind. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I largely agree with that. In fact it is a point I recently made in a post (to Larry, I think) about meditating. However, I don't think the process is entirely linear. As one starts to see the tilakkhana in dhammas, concepts begin to lose their hold. As one starts to see through concepts, it becomes easier to see the nature of dhammas. There is sort of a positive feeback loop between the two levels of developing wisdom. ------------------------------------------------- Pannatti do not form part of the 'soil' in> > which understanding can grow. But with the development of panna they > are no longer taken for something that is real. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: We are likely pretty much in agreement on this, Jon. ------------------------------------------------- > > 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) 29282 From: Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 2:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Space element a concept? Hi, Jon - In a message dated 1/22/04 8:46:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard: > I only seem to exparience hardness through the body door. Of > course, when one "sees" a table or rock etc, one assumes that > "touching it" will result in hardness, or, to put it conventionally, > that tables and rocks are hard. Perhaps that is what you mean. I find > space to be different. It does seem to be experienced through eye > door, body door, and ear door, but I believe that it is really *only* > experienced through mind door, and not as a reality, but as > pa~n~natti. > > J: I agree that the conventional notion of space is just that -- a > notion (pannatti). > > ... > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, as you know, I have no use for alleged unobservable > rupas. > > J: But what about those dhammas (namas and rupas) that are > unobservable now only because of our lack of developed panna, but are > potentially observable to us in time as panna is developed? > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Dhammas that are not observable now by us, but could be obsserved by us or another are *not* what I mean by 'unobservable'. -------------------------------------------------- > > Besides, none of the dhammas mentioned in the texts were unobservable > to the Buddha. To rule out the possibility of their existence simply > because they are unobservable *to us* would be something of a conceit > as I see it. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: You are missing what I mean. What we observe is *the content of an experience*, whether it be hardness or space or anything else. Only experiential content is observable, not any alleged "external things". ------------------------------------------------ > > In any event, even though unobservable, their influence may be still > give rise to an observable effect, which we of course will look to > have explained. Is it not better to contemplate the possibility of > the explanation given by the Buddha than to contrive our own? > > ... > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Sorry, but there is a difference between an unobservable, on > the one hand, and something observed wrongly or not currently > observed. I do not believe in unobservables, because they are beyond > confirmation or refutation. > > J: I don't think anyone is suggesting we should *believe in* > unobservables. However, we should not forget that the presently > observable/not observable is largely a function of our present level > of developed understanding (or, to put it another way, our ignorance > and wrong view). ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: But I am not talking about "presently observable." (At the conventional level, the interior of no star of Alpha Centauri is presently observable, but it likely exists and, under proper conditions, could be observed. But at no time is any "thing" independent of awareness an object of awareness, because the only object of awareness is an experiential content. If you and I "touch the same table," the hardness you experience is not the hardness I experience. Though they correspond, one is content of your experience and one is content of mine. Each of us experiences an experiential content when we feel hardness, not an external, independent entity. ------------------------------------------------ > > As you are fond of saying, we have to start from where we are, and > this necessarily implies a state of some ignorance as regards > dhammas. To say that we will only contemplate the existence of those > dhammas that 'make sense' to us is to make ourselves a prisoner of > our own ignorance and wrong view. > > H: When something, such as a self, is unobservable, that is > pragmatic basis for assuming its nonexistence. > > J: I see it somewhat differently ;-)). The texts are not saying, > "Since no 'self' is observable to you now, therefore 'self' doesn't > exist". > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: It is notobservable "period." When looked for, wherever it might be, it is unseen, and thus there is no basis for countenancing its existence. --------------------------------------------------- Rather, they are saying that as and when dhammas come to be> > known by developed awareness and panna/insight those dhammas are seen > as exhibiting characteristics that are incompatible with their being > a 'self'. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: And is it "presumed" that these dhammas are all that exist? Yes, because they are all that is ever seen. One cannot ultimately *prove* nonexistence of an alleged something. It is existence that requires evidence. -------------------------------------------------- > > So the characteristic of 'not-self' is not to be seen by looking for > a self and not finding one (anyone could 'do' that), but rather by > the development of understanding of the true nature of dhammas. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Only because it is only the dhammas that are ever actually observed. ----------------------------------------------------- > > Questions of the (un)observability of rupas are something else again, > however. > > 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) 29283 From: Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 4:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Space element a concept? Hi again. Jon - My main question, not answered yet by anyone so far as I'm aware, is, if space is a rupa, then what is the sense door through which it is cognized. As I have said, we seem to "see" space. But a visual rupa is the entire content of a moment of seeing, and not a part of it carved out by the mind. When we open our eyes and look, we *seem* to see separate three-dimensional shapes, variously colored, with spaces between them, and occupying space. But all the visual rupa actually is is an entire visual field, requiring further perceptual and conceptual processing to achieve an observing of shapes and spaces etc. So, "space" is not a visual rupa. Nor is it heard, tasted, touched, or smelled. It is, however, cognized, but that is on the basis of perceptual and conceptual construction. It seems to me that space is much like a tree or table or human body - it is pa~n~natti. In each case, the dhammas that underly these conventional things are constantly changing, arising & ceasing perhaps instantaneously, but certainly rapidly, whereas a tree, a table, a human body, and space as well, seem to last, at least beyond the moment. They are concept-only, well grounded but concept-only. 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) 29284 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 10:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] rupa questions 3 Hi Larry, Thanks for the question. I add another former one not yet answered but it seems suitable now. op 22-01-2004 01:35 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > This body appears > to be impermanent but this body is a concept. Is this body impermanent > or not? N: When we think of the body as a whole, we think of a concept, an idea we have about the body. In reality what we call body is constituted by many different rupas that arise and fall away all the time. We notice decay of the body, and we think about its impermanence, but that is thinking of an idea, a concept we have of the body as impermanent. We do not realize the falling away of each rupa separately, thus the momentary impermanence, the true charactertistic of impermanence. And therefore we also fail to see the true characteristic of dukkha: what falls away each moment is no refuge, it is not worth clinging to, dukkha. Before you can blink your eyes, all the rupas of the body have already gone, from head to toe, nothing remaining. L: If all my attachments are to concepts shouldn't I be concerned > with the nature of concepts, rather than the nature of realities I don't > really experience? N: We shall not know what concepts are if we do not know what realities are, and wrong view cannot be eradicated. All our misconceptions cannot be eradicated if we remain in the world of thinking, of illusions. A more drastic approach is necessary to break up that world. If we realize that there are six separate worlds appearing through the six doors, one at a time, our world of illusions crumbles apart. We should remember the sutta in K IV, 52, The world, it crumbles away. and so on. Sutta after sutta the Buddha explains about six classes of objects, six bases, six sense-cognitions. The question is how. Awareness now and then of what appears one at a time seems to be very insignificant, but still, it is the only way. Awareness and understanding can be accumulated. It is not enough to be aware of rupas of the body, also nama has to be known. Nama may not seem so obvious, it is more subtle. A. Sujin explained that if understanding of a few dhammas develops , this is a condition for panna to gradually understand more different types of dhammas. Kusala and akusala have to be known, thinking has to be known, understanding itself has to be known as only a nama, otherwise we shall cling to it, take it for my understanding. No need to go apart, if we concentrate on one object than all the other objects that are impinging will not be known. Moreover, when we try to concentrate there is bound to be clinging, not understanding. Knowing the six worlds does not interefere with daily life. Mostly we think of concepts, that is daily life, but in betrween there can be moments that one world appears at a time and then understanding can be developed. Larry's former questions (I do not know how much of this is still a question for you): L:Can we say my face as an abiding, living reality is kamma produced whether I am aware of it or not? N: As you know, face is a concept, but it consists of rupas produced by four factors. Not only by kamma. When there are facial expressions we can see that also citta conditions rupas. When we are sunburnt: heat element produces rupas. And good or bad food conditions one's complexion. These are just illustrations in conventional language. L: When I become aware of some aspect of my face (hardness, color etc.), is that aspect kamma resultant? N: It is more intricate. See above: four factors. L: When I die and my face becomes part of a corpse, is the abiding reality of that corpse temperature produced? N: Rupas of a corpse are temperature produced. I would not say an abiding reality. The corpse consists of rupas that arise and fall away. L: If someone smells that corpse, that smell is kamma resultant? N: No, smell, when it concerns a corpse, is only produced by the element of heat. And the citta that smells is vipaka. Another reality. L: Can we say all the materials of my computer are temperature produced; at the time those materials were fashioned into parts those parts were consciousness produced, but the abiding reality of those materials as parts is temperature produced? N: It consists of what we call dead matter, it can only be temperature produced. True that citta can fashion dead matter, citta can create, such as in the case of painting or writing. It is citta that causes the hand to move! But here we speak about another aspect, it is a condition, but it is not the same as actually producing rupa. L: If the abiding reality of my computer is temperature produced can we say whenever I touch my computer that touch creates a new group of materials that is consciousness produced? N: No. Moreover, I would not use the word abiding reality. L:The touch itself is kamma resultant. N: Could not be. L:If it rains on my computer, whatever effect that has is temperature produced. N: Not only if it rains. Talking about a whole of a computer may be confusing. We may confuse realities and concepts. There were many posts about this subject. To conclude, when you were speaking about your abiding face, I thought of someone who looked into the mirror and saw things as they are. We think that we are in the mirror, but when we touch it, we know that this is not true. Or when seeing, we know that just colour is seen. The same is true in real life: nobody there. We read in Theragatha II, 145, that Vitasoka when being dressed by the barber looked into the mirror and saw some grey hairs. While sitting there he attained enlightenment: <"Now let him shave me!" - so the barber came. From him I took the mirror and, therein Reflected, on myself I gazed and thought: "Futile for lasting is this body shown." (Thus thinking on the source that blinds our sight My spirit's) darkness melted into light, Stripped are the swathing vestments (of defilements) utterly. Now is there no more coming back to be.> Nina. 29285 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 10:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Buddha's disease Hi Sarah and James, op 21-01-2004 11:25 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > Sarah: James, did you see the article there on `Did Buddha die of > Mesenteric Infarction'? > James: Oops, too late. I looked at it now N: I just have a few observations. I read it in PTS Journal 20. On the first page: Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 10:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Angulimala Hi Eddie and Teoh, op 21-01-2004 19:03 schreef Vijita Teoh Chee Keam op cheekeam@t...: > > These 5 weighty or Garuka kamma which produces its effect in this very life > or the next were 1) matricide, 2) patricide 3) murder of an arahant 4) > wounding of a Buddha and 5) creating a schism in the Sangha. He will not > attain Arahatship in this life. N: These kammas produce immediately after death rebirth in an unhappy plane or hell plane. That is why they are also called kamm with immediate destiny: aanantarika kamma. Such a person could not become an arahat, because an arahat cannot be reborn. Nina. 29287 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 10:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Prompting Beautiful Consciousness Hi Andrew, As Ken O explains, it is entirely due to conditions, beyond control. The citta has already arisen and fallen away before we can do anything. Afterwards we can reflect on it, but the precise characteristic cannot be known by reflection. Sometimes I do not like to give something away, but Lodewijk who is very generous instigates me, and then my giving is prompted. Or I think of the Buddha's perfection of dana which can prompt me, then it is an inward prompting. We may wish the kusala cittas to be spontaneous, or accompanied by happy feeling, but this depends entirely on conditions. So we should not try or wish for it. They arise already. Nina. op 21-01-2004 06:41 schreef Andrew op athel60@t...: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" > wrote: >> so, there is a chapter in Nina's ADL called The Sobhana Cittas in > our >> Life. >> >> Of course, you're not suggesting that you can prompt the >> arising of a Beautiful Consciousness, are you Andrew??? > I have misplaced my ADL but it will turn up soon, no doubt. I wanted > some more information than is in the CMA which says on p 36... 29288 From: Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] rupa questions 3 Hi, Nina - In a message dated 1/22/04 1:28:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > > Hi Larry, > Thanks for the question. I add another former one not yet answered but it > seems suitable now. > op 22-01-2004 01:35 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > > > This body appears > >to be impermanent but this body is a concept. Is this body impermanent > >or not? > N: When we think of the body as a whole, we think of a concept, an idea we > have about the body. In reality what we call body is constituted by many > different rupas that arise and fall away all the time. We notice decay of > the body, and we think about its impermanence, but that is thinking of an > idea, a concept we have of the body as impermanent. We do not realize the > falling away of each rupa separately, thus the momentary impermanence, the > true charactertistic of impermanence. And therefore we also fail to see the > true characteristic of dukkha: what falls away each moment is no refuge, it > is not worth clinging to, dukkha. > Before you can blink your eyes, all the rupas of the body have already gone, > from head to toe, nothing remaining. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I like the foregoing *very* much, Nina. --------------------------------------------- > L: If all my attachments are to concepts shouldn't I be concerned > >with the nature of concepts, rather than the nature of realities I don't > >really experience? > N: We shall not know what concepts are if we do not know what realities are, > and wrong view cannot be eradicated. All our misconceptions cannot be > eradicated if we remain in the world of thinking, of illusions. A more > drastic approach is necessary to break up that world. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree completely, and I think you put it very well! -------------------------------------------------- > If we realize that there are six separate worlds appearing through the six > doors, one at a time, our world of illusions crumbles apart. We should > remember the sutta in K IV, 52, The world, it crumbles away. away? The eye...objects...eye-consciousness...> and so on. > Sutta after sutta the Buddha explains about six classes of objects, six > bases, six sense-cognitions. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, if we actually and directly see that, it contributes to the world of illusions beginning to crumble. ---------------------------------------------- > The question is how. Awareness now and then of what appears one at a time > seems to be very insignificant, but still, it is the only way. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Exactly! (I would add that by sila and samadhi, the mind may be cultivated so that such moments of clarity arise more often and more clearly.) ------------------------------------------- Awareness and> > understanding can be accumulated. It is not enough to be aware of rupas of > the body, also nama has to be known. Nama may not seem so obvious, it is > more subtle. A. Sujin explained that if understanding of a few dhammas > develops , this is a condition for panna to gradually understand more > different types of dhammas. Kusala and akusala have to be known, thinking > has to be known, understanding itself has to be known as only a nama, > otherwise we shall cling to it, take it for my understanding. > No need to go apart, if we concentrate on one object than all the other > objects that are impinging will not be known. Moreover, when we try to > concentrate there is bound to be clinging, not understanding. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, but concentrating on one object can also serve as a preparatory practice, cultivating the mind, making it a more malleable and efficient tool for investigation of dhammas. > > Nina. > > ========================= 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) 29289 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 0:10pm Subject: Re: The Buddha's disease Hi Nina, Nina: I just have a few observations. I read it in PTS Journal 20. On the first page: Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 3:28pm Subject: rupa questions 2-Nina/Larry Dear Nina and Larry, I'm enjoying reading these, and I have a query. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi Larry, > thanks for your 7 questions. > op 21-01-2004 01:54 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > - snip--- > > is only cognized through the mind-door, what is tasted through the > > taste-door? > N: Only flavour can impinge on the smelling sense, it is sensitive to only > flavour. As we read, it picks up an object among odours, not any other type > of object! And then immmediately after the nose-door process, flavour is > experienced through the mind-door. It is all so fast, we do not realize > this. We have learnt that there is an octad, but the other seven do not > contact the smellingsense, even though they arise together with flavour. Nor > are they experienced through the mind-door. > We should not have pictorial ideas about this matter. It is a mystery that ...snip... > Nina. I'm very confused about the above passage, I'm thinking it is just a mix-up of words. I understand flavour can only impinge on the taste sense, however i know that there is a strong connection bet. smell and flavour in the conventional sense, eg. a pleasant food smell will make one's mouth water [or something like that!]. Reading about the octads are interesting, knowing that several rupas arise together but only one can be experienced at a time is very helpful in showing me how impossible it is to 'choose' the object to experience. I think Larry's question are great. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 29291 From: Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 11:13am Subject: A Taste of Sense-Door Theorizing (Re: [dsg] rupa questions 2-Nina/Larry) Hi, Azita (and Nina, Larry, and all) - In a message dated 1/22/04 6:41:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, gazita2002@y... writes: > I'm very confused about the above passage, I'm thinking it is > just a mix-up of words. I understand flavour can only impinge on > the taste sense, however i know that there is a strong connection > bet. smell and flavour in the conventional sense, eg. a pleasant food > smell will make one's mouth water [or something like that!]. > > Reading about the octads are interesting, knowing that several > rupas arise together but only one can be experienced at a time is > very helpful in showing me how impossible it is to 'choose' the > object to experience. > I think Larry's question are great. > > Patience, courage and good cheer, > Azita. > > ========================== The question you raise here, Azita, is an interesting one, especially as regards the dhamma/pa~n~natti distinction. Taste per se - what might be called "true" taste, namely sweet, sour, or bitter (Is there a 4th?) - is tongue-door object. Odor is nose-door object. But the huge variety of tastes we all experience are evidently based on both true tastes and on odors. Are they pa~n~natti, constructed from true tastes and odors? Perhaps, though they appear to be "actualities." They would form a category of pa~n~natti that is rather odd, I'd say. An alternative possibility is that sweet, sour, and bitter should not be called "true" tastes, but, rather, "basic" tastes. It might well be that other tastes, such as the taste of onion, are not in fact pa~n~natti, but, instead, are also direct tongue-door objects, true rupas, which, as opposed to basic tastes, are conditioned by both taste and smell! This alternative theory, one of conditionality, but not conceptual construction, seems more plausible to me. What do you think - do I have good taste? ;-)) With tasteful 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) 29292 From: Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 4:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] rupa questions 3 Hi Nina and Howard, Thanks for your answers and comments. Have a pleasant journey Nina. Larry 29293 From: Andrew Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 5:24pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Prompting Beautiful Consciousness Dear Nina Thank you for your comments. It does help me greatly to consider daily life examples, such as those you provided. My difficulty is remembering to always read things with an understanding of conditionality. So when the authors/editors of the CMA talk of making a deliberate endeavour by determination of the will despite inner resistance, I must remind myself that "trying" can only "succeed" if all the requisite conditions are present - and those conditions are far too complex for me to know in advance (or indeed in retrospect). It is foolish and conceited to preconceive that a person can prompt beautiful consciousness in another - the prompter's action or words may at best form only one of the requisite conditions for BC to arise and may at worst prompt akusala consciousness without any control on the part of the prompter. Metta Andrew Nina wrote:As Ken O explains, it is entirely due to conditions, beyond control. The > citta has already arisen and fallen away before we can do anything. > Afterwards we can reflect on it, but the precise characteristic cannot be > known by reflection. Sometimes I do not like to give something away, but > Lodewijk who is very generous instigates me, and then my giving is prompted. > Or I think of the Buddha's perfection of dana which can prompt me, then it > is an inward prompting. We may wish the kusala cittas to be spontaneous, or > accompanied by happy feeling, but this depends entirely on conditions. So we > should not try or wish for it. They arise already. > 29294 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 9:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: FW: [Pali] Buddhaghosa : To Nina Dear Suan, How are you? op 22-01-2004 15:12 schreef abhidhammika op suanluzaw@b...:> > Your reply to Rett was fair and commendable. > > Was he able to actually quote something from the Buddhaghosa's works? > > If there were specific quotes from commentaries being challenged by > by Rett, please let me know. > I will write a special analytical post to refute their > misunderstandings. N: This is very kind. I do not have sufficient knowledge of Pali to say much. No concrete example yet, but he said in general about the scriptures:< In Burma the Nettipakarana is considered part of the Tipitaka. Not so in Sri Lanka. So again, at some point, someone has altered or added. In a situation such as this it is not surprising that there are people who devote their working lives to learning and studying these texts, trying to sort out which are the best variants, correct scribal mistakes, and shed light on passages which are currently not understood.> N: I found one thing in that clinical article about the Buddha's death by Bikkhu Metananda M.D. He said that the Theravada tradition states that the Buddha passed away full moon in Visakha, whereas in the Parinibbana sutta he passed away just after the rains retreat (between Nov and January). I find dates not so important, but it could be a point of contention. I am closing my Email on Monday, going off to Thailand on Tuesday. If you write to Rett after that, please would you also forward this to my personal address? I am very interested at what you will write about the commentaries. I can also ask Sarah"s help to keep mail. Thank you very much for your help, Nina. 29295 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 9:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Thoughts on Abhidhamma Hi Howard, op 22-01-2004 08:14 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > Howard: > Dhamma = Abhidhamma is a false equation. N: Interesting. The more I reflect the more I think it is not false. But, it depends on how you look at it. Abhidhamma: not just one Pitaka. Not just the book. Abhidhamma: ultimate realities.This is the Buddha's message in all his teachings: directly knowing ultimate realities. In all suttas. It is practice. This is what Icaro meant: Abhidhamma is Vipassana. Again, it depends on how you look at it. And different people have different outlooks. Nina. 29296 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 9:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Space element a concept? Hi Howard, op 22-01-2004 18:15 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > if space is a rupa, then what is the sense door through which it is cognized. N: It is a subtle rupa, only to be cognized through the mind-door. As I understood from A. Sujin, as insight develops in stages, also this rupa can be discerned. But I do not know much about it. I will say something about space in the sutta, but not now. Nina. 29297 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 11:34pm Subject: Re: The Ups and Downs of Meditation Hi Icaro and All, There was a comment in your post that I should have addressed but I overlooked it (a recent post by Nina made me go back to your post). You wrote: "Meditation (Mindfullness is a better term anyway)" I specifically use the term `meditation' because I want to differentiate my meaning of practice from some of the other meanings used by other members in this group. To me, Meditation=Right Effort, Right Concentration, and Right Mindfulness. If any of these are missing it isn't true meditation. Mindfulness without Right Effort and Right Concentration is simply being a bit more observant than other people, it isn't anything deeply significant or transformative. Many members in this group like to throw around the Pali term `satipatthana' (Foundations of Mindfulness) as if it can relate to just about anything. That satipatthana can be practiced everyday, in everyway, no matter what is occurring at the present moment. Gosh, if it was only that simple!! ;-)) True satipatthana can only be practiced when body, feelings, mind, and mental events are viewed in and of themselves, with no reference to a `self' behind the events, as they arise. Since there is always a subtle clinging to a `self', then true satipatthana could only be practiced when Right Effort and Right Concentration are present to break through this clinging (Vipassana). Right Mindfulness can be practiced in daily life but without meditation practice as a supporting condition, I don't believe it to be too successful. I hope this explains why I choose the generic term `meditation' more often in this group than being very specific each time. Metta, James 29298 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 23, 2004 2:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] rupa questions 2-correction. Dear Azita, Howard, Larry, Sorry, a correction: I wrote: Only flavour can impinge on the smelling sense. Must be: Only odour!! A typo, and this typo continues five times in all! Thus, flavour has to be changed into odour five times. Please, would you add these corrections. op 23-01-2004 00:28 schreef gazita2002 op gazita2002@y...: > I'm very confused about the above passage, I'm thinking it is > just a mix-up of words. I understand flavour can only impinge on > the taste sense, however i know that there is a strong connection > bet. smell and flavour in the conventional sense, eg. a pleasant food > smell will make one's mouth water [or something like that!]. N: No wonder I created confusion. Speaking about the Thai food: very savory and fragrant. We cling at once. Who is thinking of coolly, impartially separating the different doorways? But when we have discussed and considered about realities appearing through different doorways, there can be conditions, in between the enjoyment, for a brief moment of awareness of one characteristic. That is, if we do not try or plan anything, this is not in our power. In this way a beginning understanding can become familiar with characteristics. We can also understand that there must be impartiality (equanimity, tatramajjhattata) at that moment. Panna does not go along with like or dislike, it is accompanied by impartiality. Also thinking about food, liking it, and awareness of realities can be objects of understanding. The last mentioned object can help us not to cling to awareness. It is not ours. It seems we smell and taste at the same time, but in reality there are many processes of cittas experiencing objects through a sense-door and through the mind-door. Odour also appears when we are not eating, such as smell of gasoline. A: Reading about the octads are interesting, knowing that several > rupas arise together but only one can be experienced at a time is > very helpful in showing me how impossible it is to 'choose' the > object to experience. N: It shows the intricacy of conditions, and reminds us that it is impossible for us to know them all. A: I think Larry's question are great. N: I agree, I appreciate the brevity of his style, it invites and inspires to consider more. Concise and to the point. Howard writes: I would not say basic tastes, they are just taste which can be experienced without naming it. If panna can see it as just a rupa appearing through the tongue, it leads to detachment. Thinking and defining are other moments, different from tasting. All tastes are true rupas. They arise because of their own conditions. Odour is another rupa, arising because of its own conditions, it has nothing to do with flavour. But when we think of food, by way of conventional terms, we tie them together. We should remember the sutta and the Book of Analysis, where it is said that each sense-cognition has its own domain, and that they do not know each other: Ch 16, 763 (p. 418):< Do not experience each other's object means: Ear consciousness does not experience the object of eye consciousness; eye consciousness does not experience the object of ear consciousness...> and so on with regard to all sense-cognitions. Now to Larry: thanks. I am back Febr. 13. Nina. 29299 From: Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 11:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Thoughts on Abhidhamma Hi, Nina - In a message dated 1/23/04 12:19:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > Hi Howard, > op 22-01-2004 08:14 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > >Howard: > >Dhamma = Abhidhamma is a false equation. > N: Interesting. The more I reflect the more I think it is not false. But, it > depends on how you look at it. Abhidhamma: not just one Pitaka. Not just the > book. > Abhidhamma: ultimate realities.This is the Buddha's message in all his > teachings: directly knowing ultimate realities. In all suttas. It is > practice. This is what Icaro meant: Abhidhamma is Vipassana. > Again, it depends on how you look at it. And different people have different > outlooks. > Nina. > =========================== Just to clarify, what I meant was that the Dhamma goes beyond what is conveyed in the books of the Abhidhamma. (It goes beyond even the entire Tipitaka and all communicated teachings. Every teaching is partial, in content and in perspective, and is only a "pointing to".) 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) 29300 From: Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 11:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Space element a concept? Hi, Nina - In a message dated 1/23/04 12:22:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > Hi Howard, > op 22-01-2004 18:15 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > >if space is a rupa, then what is the sense door through which it is > cognized. > N: It is a subtle rupa, only to be cognized through the mind-door. As I > understood from A. Sujin, as insight develops in stages, also this rupa can > be discerned. But I do not know much about it. I will say something about > space in the sutta, but not now. > Nina. > ========================= Okay. I won't say they there is no such thing. Of course, there *could* be. I would suspect that an alleged rupa knowable only through the mind door, and thus neither sight nor sound nor taste nor tactile sensation, would really not be a rupa, but I don't know that to be so, and I reserve judgement on it. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 29301 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:14am Subject: [dsg] Re: heartbase/rebirth Dear Ken O, Yes. The connection is Kamma. The usual simile here is transferring of the flame from near extinguishing candle to a new candle. The flame of old one and the flame of the new candle are different but they are still related. Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Icaro and (Htoo) > > To me, heartbase must die when the cuti citta cease to exist, a new > heartbase will be arise with rebirth-linking citta conditioned by > kamma (only in the case where there is nama and rupa). > > Htoo - That sense is now unconsciously being sensed by Connie. The > connection is there. > > Could you clarify bc I am abit confused by what you are saying, the > connection should be kamma and not others. > > > > best wishes > Ken O 29302 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:18am Subject: Re: beginners Dear Sarah and Nina, I will be pleased if you could send off-line mail to me regarding beginner. I am also interested to pile up some notes for beginner. I may put a cake of brick to that large building for beginners. Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah, > Another point. Alan wrote to me saying that he is interested in a tape for > beginners. He will put this on his computer. But, this is the question: who > is a beginner and who is not? About what do we talk to those who have never > studied the Dhamma before? We can ask Kh Sujin, this can be very > interesting. > It is easy to get a selection for Alan and no problem to send them from here > to England. > Nina. 29303 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:27am Subject: [dsg] Re: heartbase/rebirth Dear Larry, Connie and all, Dosa cannot be transferred to next life through Bhavanga. There is no Bhavanga Citta with Dosa. If your Javana was Dosa, next life Bhavanga would not be Somanassa and would not be Tihetuka. So possible Bhavanga Cittas are 1. Upekkha Sahagatam Nana Vippayutta Asankharika Vipaka Citta 2. ,, ,, ,, Sasankharika ,, 3. ,, ,, Ahetuka Kusala Vipaka Santirana Citta 4. ,, ,, ,, Akusala ,, ,, So hatred of apple may lead to one of these four Patisandhi Citta. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Connie and Htoo, If my last conscious moment manifests as a hatred for apples, > that javana series will have kammic consequences but will the hatred for > apples that manifests countless times as bhavanga in my next life have > any kammic consequences, become a latent tendency, or in any way > characterize my behaviour? > > Larry 29304 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:52am Subject: Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism Dear all, No Buddha addicts to anything. All Buddhists know this fact. So there is no further talk on this topic. Dhammantaraya is the worst in ememies. May all beings be free from contamination with impure thoughts. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 29305 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:59am Subject: Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism Dear James, How nice you redirected to be on the right path! Jhana is just for Sammasamadhi as one of Eight Parts of The Path. Jhana should not be assume as ecstacy. Jhana is Jhana and ecstacy is ecstacy. If one of illegal drugs is used,one might be in a state of ecstacy but not in Jhana. Jhana finally should not be interpreted as ecstacy. May you be able to reach Jhana. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 29306 From: Eddie Lou Date: Fri Jan 23, 2004 10:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Buddha's disease Hi, All, I think it (the article-`Did Buddha die of Mesenteric Infarction?') may be a subliminal distortion of the real events with added subliminal comments with intent to confuse. I was taken aback also. On arahant's attributes, my guess is how can Buddha grumble and had failing fully enlightened mind ? I hope the writer knows what he is writing. No dosa, I agree with all of you too. I hope this is not made possible just because Buddha never projected himself as above human being in rupa (physical) attributes, you know what I mean. But one thing is we should not have personality worship mentality and have bias for Buddha, you know what I mean. Buddha himself will not like or encourage that worship either. I still think the article is incorrect. Honestly, we all do not know the most recent Buddha in person, but to me, one and only single thing that impresses me is his discourse and concept (Dhamma) of true realities especially in Abidhamma. With such complex details and structures, with so far - no known anomalies or discrepancies over thousands of years of scrutiny. So different from other religious books (I do not agree to the notion of Buddhism as a religion, though). No ordinary person can have such abilities and insights. Even then, I only have read the tidbits or exerpts here and there of his teachings. Another thing (that is maybe really true) in that article is - 'so he told Cunda to bury it.' I think that shows Buddha's out of the norm but is correct response. That also makes me respect him even more. I still believe 'Truth will prevail', maybe even worse than that had already been described about Buddha. So do not worry. We have a saying - 'Those who knows, dig the treasure out, those who are ignorant of its existence, simply walk over and miss it!'. On top of ignorance, stubbornness (continued ignorance ???) is pretty bad. I try not to have dosa here but I am not an arahant yet. Maybe a little agitated. Metta, Eddie --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Nina, > > Nina: I just have a few observations. I read it in > PTS Journal 20. On > the first page: old man, who > grumbled about his failing health and growing age". > An arahat cannot > grumble, he has no dosa. > > James: Honestly, that statement took me aback also. > And the actual > statement was even worse, "who grumbled about his > failing health and > growing senility". Senility can simply mean old age > but it also have ..[Snipped] > respect for the > Buddha, it doesn't decrease it. > > Metta, James 29307 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 23, 2004 11:26am Subject: another correction rupas2 Hi Larry and friends, In rupas 2, just before L 3 modes of knowing: Earsense is *not* sensitive to tangible object. Add: not. Nina. 29308 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Jan 23, 2004 11:43am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Buddha's disease Hi Eddie and All, Eddie: I think it (the article-`Did Buddha die of Mesenteric Infarction?') may be a subliminal distortion of the real events with added subliminal comments with intent to confuse. James: Well, I wouldn't go that far! This article was written by a doctor who left his medical practice to become a Buddhist monk; I think that demonstrates his respect and faith in the Buddha quite sufficiently. I think he just went a little too far to present the juxtaposition of two different views of the Buddha in the Parinibbana sutta. One view of the Buddha was very lofty and the other was more ordinary. This monk/doctor went a little too far to show just how `ordinary' the second view was. Not a big deal and no reason to get overly excited about it. Doctors are not known for being real sensitive with their use of language (…horrible bedside manner! ;-)) Metta, James 29309 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:30pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi James, You were saying (about two weeks ago): ---------------------- J: > Yes, now that I more fully understand the Abhidhamma I will agree with you that it is an excellent method of understanding more clearly the two truths: the conventional truth and the ultimate truth. Unfortunately, the mistake you are making, and I don't think was intended by the framers of the Abhidhamma, is your thinking that conventional truth is false and that only the ultimate truth is true. This is not correct, THEY ARE BOTH TRUE!! Wrap your mind around that a bit and get back to me. ;-) ----------------------- I do have trouble wrapping my mind around the point you are making. I believe that the Buddha taught ultimate truth -- full stop! This gets me into a bit of trouble, not just with you, but with many, less-zealous, Abhidhamma scholars. Take, for example, the Vinaya rules of training: When it is said that monks should clean their teeth, is that to be understood in terms of ultimate reality? I think so. Monks, teeth, toothpicks; these are mere conventional designations (concepts). They are ideas triggered by ultimate realities (dhammas) and, logically, they can be consistent or inconsistent -- depending on those dhammas. The concept of a monk cleaning his teeth is logically consistent (there are no flying purple elephants involved); but it doesn't lead to right understanding. Furthermore, I would argue, it doesn't even lead to teeth cleaning. (!!) We can conceptualise about a living being who will remember to clean his teeth, trim his dsg posts, speak kindly and wisely; but arisen dhammas are always the only reality. Dhammas arise according to conditions (other dhammas), not according to concepts. Wouldn't you agree, from your own experience, that the monk who is the most adamant – "I will always obey Lord Buddha! I will never break the rules of training!" -- is possibly the most likely to fail? Whereas the monk, who understands conditionality, understands accumulated tendencies (in other words, understands ultimate reality) and concedes his own fallibility, will probably do better. So, I don't think I am being over zealous to the extent you imply here: ------------------------------- J: > Do you realize that you are putting words in the Buddha's mouth? You are saying, "I know that this is what the Buddha said but this is not what he really meant. What he really meant is… -------------------------------- The texts you quote to me always confirm my understanding of satipatthana. Sometimes, I can't believe you would select those particular quotes because they so obviously prove my case and disprove yours. :-) But I do understand that conversation with me can be frustrating: ------------------------------ > Ken: The quote doesn't mention trying; it describes the arising, and the functioning, of right effort. There is a big difference. > > James: Again, you refuse to see the reality of the two truths. > Let's take Howard's Tree for example, I could point to Howard's tree and tell you, "That's Howard's Tree" you would say, "No, that is a conglomeration of rupas processed by cittas." I would say, "Yeah, and it is Howard's Tree also." You would say, "No it is not and if you had more wisdom you would know it is not." And then I would have to string you up on Howard's Tree to show you how real it is! LOL! (Just kidding…really ;-)). --------------------------- I'm glad you were just kidding: For a moment there, my life flashed before my eyes. :-) ------------------------- >Metta, James > > Ps. Oh, I forgot that quote by the Buddha about concentration I promised, here you go (not that it will do much good anyway, you think that he usually didn't REALLY mean what he said): "(3) "And what is the development of concentration that... leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness. (4) "And what is the development of concentration that... leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five clinging- aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents." ------------------------------ Beautiful! My point exactly! :-) Kind regards, Ken H 29310 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Jan 23, 2004 7:24pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Ken, James, and all, The Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths. Did the Buddha characterize the Four Noble Truths as ultimate or conventional? May all be happy and well. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi James, > > You were saying (about two weeks ago): > > ---------------------- > J: > Yes, now that I more fully understand the Abhidhamma I > will agree with you that it is an excellent method of > understanding more clearly the two truths: the conventional > truth and the ultimate truth. Unfortunately, the mistake you > are making, and I don't think was intended by the framers of > the Abhidhamma, is your thinking that conventional truth is false > and that only the ultimate truth is true. This is not correct, > THEY ARE BOTH TRUE!! Wrap your mind around that a bit and get > back to me. ;-) > ----------------------- > > I do have trouble wrapping my mind around the point you are > making. I believe that the Buddha taught ultimate truth -- full > stop! This gets me into a bit of trouble, not just with you, > but with many, less-zealous, Abhidhamma scholars. [snip] 29311 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jan 23, 2004 8:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism Jeff and All Just a couple of points on the interesting sutta text you have quoted. When the Budddha talks about 'lives devoted to pleasure that are conducive to disenchantment, to dispassion, ... to Nibbana' he is of course referring to kusala states only. There is 'devotion to pleasure' and 'addiction' only in a particular sense of the terms, and for the purpose of responding to the questions of 'wanderers from other sects'. The four fruits to be expected occur by means of the destruction of the fetters, not by virtue of the attainment of the jhanas. Destruction of the fetters is a function of the developement of understanding/insight. For this reason the jhanas are conducive to disenchantment and Nibbana only for those who are 'the followers of the Sakyan', i.e., students of the Dhamma. Without this, there would be no 'connection' between the jhanas and enlightenment. The role of the jhanas in the teachings is not easy to see. But certainly there are suttas describing the enlightenment of followers with no apparent skill in mundane jhana. Jon > Digha Nikaya 29 > Pasadika Sutta > The Delightful Discourse > a translation from the Pali by > Maurice Walshe, Wisdom Publications, Boston 1987, 1995 > > 24.2 There are, Cunda, these four kinds of life devoted to > pleasure which > are conducive to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to > tranquillity, > to realization, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. What are they? > First a monk > detached from sense-desires, detached from unwholesome mental > states, enters > and remains in the first jhana, which is with thinking and > pondering, born of > detachment, filled with delight and happiness. And, with the > subsiding of > thinking and pondering, by gaining inner tranquillity and oneness > of mind, he > enters and remains in the second jhana, which is without thinking > and pondering, > born of concentration, filled with delight and happiness. Again, > with the > fading of delight, remaining imperturbable, mindful and clearly > aware, he > experiences in himself that joy of which the Noble Ones say; "Happy > is he who dwells > with equanimity and mindfulness," he enters and remains in the > third jhana. > Again, having given up pleasure and pain, and with the > disappearance of former > gladness and sadness, he enters and remains in the fourth jhana, > which is beyond > pleasure and pain, and purified by equanimity and mindfulness. > > These are the four kinds of life devoted to pleasure which are > entirely > conducive to disenchantment, to cessation, to tranquillity, to > realization, to > enlightenment, to Nibbana. So, if wanderers from other sects > should say that the > followers of the Sakyan are addicted to these four forms of > pleasure seeking, > they should be told: "Yes," for they would be speaking correctly > about you, > they would not be slandering you with false or untrue statements. > > 25. Then such wanderers might ask: "Well then, those who are given > to these > four forms of pleasure-seeking - how many fruits, how many benefits > can they > expect?" And, you should reply: "They can expect four fruits, four > benefits. > What are they? The first is when a monk by destruction of three > fetters has > become a Stream-Winner, no more subject to rebirth in lower worlds, > firmly > established, destined for full enlightenment; the second is when a > monk by the > complete destruction of three fetters and the reduction of greed, > hatred and > delusion, has become a Once-Returner, and having returned once more > to this world, > will put an end to suffering; the third is when a monk, by the > destruction of > the corruptions in this very life has, by his own knowledge and > realization, > attained Arahantship, to the deliverance of heart and through > wisdom. Such are > the four fruits and the four benefits that one given to these four > forms of > pleasure-seeking can expect." 29312 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jan 23, 2004 8:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendencies Ch 1, no 7 Nina I'm enjoying this series very much. It is so relevant to daily life. It also brings out very well one of those aspects in which the dhamma is 'contrary' to conventional thinking: it is not the gross defilements that are difficult to eliminate but the very finest, most subtle ones! Thanks again. Jon --- nina van gorkom wrote: > latent tendencies Ch 1, no 7 > > 3. There are three levels of defilements. > In the Commentaries to the Vinaya, the Suttanta and the Abhidhamma, > and in > the Subcommentaries, there are explanations of the elimination of > the three > levels of defilements, namely, the anusaya kilesa (latent > tendencies), the > pariyutthåna kilesa (arising with the akusala citta) and the > vítikkama > kilesa (transgression, misconduct). 29313 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 23, 2004 10:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Thoughts on Abhidhamma Hi Howard, op 23-01-2004 13:16 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > Just to clarify, what I meant was that the Dhamma goes beyond what is > conveyed in the books of the Abhidhamma. (It goes beyond even the entire > Tipitaka and all communicated teachings. Every teaching is partial, in content > and > in perspective, and is only a "pointing to".) N: Yes, what we learn from the teachings we have to apply. This is difficult, because we may misunderstand what we hear and read about. We are bound to, because we have the latent tendencies of wrong view and ignorance, deeply accumulated. Therefore we need to discuss, ask questions, verify what we hear ourselves, reflect, associate with friends in the Dhamma, what else? We still struggle along, may go the wrong way and this depends on accumulations in former lives. Nina. 29314 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 23, 2004 10:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Buddha's disease Dear Eddie, op 23-01-2004 19:37 schreef Eddie Lou op eddielou_us@y...: > I think it (the article-`Did Buddha die of > Mesenteric Infarction?') may be a subliminal > distortion of the real events with added subliminal > comments with intent to confuse. I was taken aback > also. N: I tried to be patient and not have dosa, but I had trouble, just like you. But dosa does not bring anything and is not constructive. E: On arahant's attributes, my guess is how can Buddha > grumble and had failing fully enlightened mind ? I > hope the writer knows what he is writing. N: Yes, I think the Bhikkhu may not have understood what he was writing about. E: But one thing is we should not have personality > worship mentality and have bias for Buddha (snip) N: It depends. When you appreciate the Dhamma and begin to understand it, you may feel gratefulness. Even though the Buddha passed away, you can have kusala citta with gratefulness and respect. This can also be expressed through body and speech. It depends on the culture you feel at home with or your personal inclinations how you express it, there are no rules. The best respect is satipatthana, being mindful and develop understanding of the present moment, that is his teaching. Then you can also discover that when paying respect there are also bound to be cittas with clinging in between. E: Honestly, we all do not know the most recent Buddha in > person, but to me, one and only single thing that > impresses me is his discourse and concept (Dhamma) of > true realities especially in Abidhamma. With such > complex details and structures, with so far - no known > anomalies or discrepancies over thousands of years of > scrutiny. So different from other religious books (I > do not agree to the notion of Buddhism as a religion, > though). No ordinary person can have such abilities > and insights. N: I am really happy you have such respect for the Abhidhamma. And it is meant for application in our life. E: Another thing (that is maybe really true) in that > article is - 'so he told Cunda to bury it.' I think > that shows Buddha's out of the norm but is correct > response. That also makes me respect him even more. N: Bhikkhu Metananda M.D. did not understand the reason. There was another reason. It is said, in several texts, that alsmfood offered to the Buddha but not eaten by him, cannot be partaken of by others. See Verses of Uplift, 82, Pataligama. It is not digestable by others. Devas put special nutrition in it. I do not find this difficult to understand. The Buddha speaks time and again about devas and men. And think of all the suttas about devas. As to the spirit of the article, I generally miss a feeling of respect for the Buddha here. It seems that the Buddha is dealt with as just a clinical case. I appreciate your observations. Nina. 29315 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 23, 2004 10:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: beginners Dear Htoo, We try to do something on line, because who is a beginner and who is not:-) I think it will depend on our discussions, I make notes and try to record. Nina. op 23-01-2004 15:18 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > Dear Sarah and Nina, > > I will be pleased if you could send off-line mail to me regarding > beginner. I am also interested to pile up some notes for beginner. I > may put a cake of brick to that large building for beginners. 29316 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 23, 2004 10:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: heartbase/rebirth Dear Htoo, op 23-01-2004 15:27 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > Dosa cannot be transferred to next life through Bhavanga. There is no > Bhavanga Citta with Dosa. N: Dosa is accumulated as a latent tendency from life to life, and thus it lies dormant in each citta, not only bhavangacitta, but all cittas, even kusala cittas. From moment to moment. Dosa during the last javanas of a life that produces result is another matter. H: If your Javana was Dosa, next life Bhavanga would not be Somanassa > and would not be Tihetuka. N: In that case akusala kamma produces ahetuka akusala vipaka santiranacitta and all bhavangacittas are of that type. H: So possible Bhavanga Cittas are > > 1. Upekkha Sahagatam Nana Vippayutta Asankharika Vipaka Citta > 2. ,, ,, ,, Sasankharika ,, > 3. ,, ,, Ahetuka Kusala Vipaka Santirana Citta > 4. ,, ,, ,, Akusala ,, ,, > > So hatred of apple may lead to one of these four Patisandhi Citta. N:It can lead only to no 4. There was some discussion on heartbase. The heartbase of this life could not condition the heartbase in a next life, because it is rupa, it cannot be accumulated. Next life may be in a plane where there is no rupa. Nina. 29317 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Jan 23, 2004 11:34pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Ken, James, and all, > > The Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths. Did the Buddha > characterize the Four Noble Truths as ultimate or conventional? James: Gosh, I love the simple questions! ;-)). He characterized them as both because they are both. > > May all be happy and well. James: My sentiments also! ;-) > > Peace, > Victor Metta, James 29318 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 0:32am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Ken, Ken: I do have trouble wrapping my mind around the point you are making. I believe that the Buddha taught ultimate truth -- full stop! This gets me into a bit of trouble, not just with you, but with many, less-zealous, Abhidhamma scholars. James: Oh Gosh, just when I thought it was safe to get back into the water! ;-)) First, you are not in trouble with me, I think I understand where you are coming from. Did the Buddha just teach Ultimate Truth—Full Stop!?? Of course not. He taught conventional and ultimate truth. They are both true. There is a Zen saying (sorry, but when we get into this type of philosophical territory, I get very Zen! ;-)): When you first study Zen mountains are mountains. Then mountains are no longer mountains. Finally mountains are mountains again. This means that the beginning student of Zen has only the knowledge of the world of samsara: that people are people, mountains are mountains, and that everything is separated and conventional. This thinking comes from the duality of the mind. After the practice of Zen and the student gets the beginning realizations of the ultimate truth (Abhidhamma) then suddenly there aren't any people or mountains anymore, there are only dhammas and nibbana. This thinking also comes from the duality of the mind. Finally, when the ultimate truth is directly realized and the duality of the mind is overcome, people are people, mountains are mountains, and dhammas/nibbana about them all is also known. Ken, you are in the middle stage where there is no conventional truth, only ultimate truth. As soon as you overcome the duality of your mind, you will see that there are both truths. As for myself, I don't claim to know both; however, my empathic senses hardly ever allow me to form a strong duality in my mind. For every realization of ultimate truth that I have, my sense of conventional reality of `entities' pulls me back into the everyday world. Ken: We can conceptualise about a living being who will remember to clean his teeth, trim his dsg posts, speak kindly and wisely; but arisen dhammas are always the only reality. Dhammas arise according to conditions (other dhammas), not according to concepts. James: Okay, I am going to be straight with you even though it will probably freak you out, I don't view people as concepts. Purple elephants are concepts but people are real. The Buddha also didn't teach that people are only concepts; he taught that people are real. If there were only dhammas and nibbana, no people, then the Buddha wouldn't care about the suffering of the world would he? Concepts don't suffer but people do. The Buddha had compassion for all of the entities of the cosmos because he saw that they were real, their suffering was real, and the path to there liberation was possible. It won't be possible for you to understand this deeply because the duality of your mind won't allow it. Ken: Wouldn't you agree, from your own experience, that the monk who is the most adamant – "I will always obey Lord Buddha! I will never break the rules of training!" -- is possibly the most likely to fail? Whereas the monk, who understands conditionality, understands accumulated tendencies (in other words, understands ultimate reality) and concedes his own fallibility, will probably do better. James: Well, this is a very leading question. You want me to answer in a certain way. I cannot predict with any certainty whether a monk is going to succeed or fail the following of precepts with given personal motivations. Let me just say this: Rules are not absolute reality; they only apply in conventional reality. In other words, morality is relative. Those who view morality as the end goal have the wrong view, those who view morality as a means to an end have the right view. Is this what you are looking for? Ken: The texts you quote to me always confirm my understanding of satipatthana. Sometimes, I can't believe you would select those particular quotes because they so obviously prove my case and disprove yours. :-) James: Well, you know, I am just very generous! LOL! You don't see mountains as mountains so no matter what I quote to you, you are going to see only one side of it. Ken: But I do understand that conversation with me can be frustrating: James: No, the fact that you understand this means that it isn't that frustrating really. Ken: Beautiful! My point exactly! :-) James: Hey, you aren't supposed to say that! ;-)) You view the quote about concentration as a description of something that happens, I see it as a lesson for a person to follow and a description of something that happens. It is both for me. The Buddha gave this description for a purpose, as a learning tool, a model to follow. He didn't just tell it as if it was a story. He wasn't like, "Monks, gather around, I want to tell you a story of a perfect monk: There is the case where a monk goes to a secluded place…etc, etc.... Now, wasn't that a nice story? Too bad none of us have a self to influence this to happen. Okay, now go about your business and maybe one day the same thing will happen to you!" ;-)) Metta, James 29319 From: Vijita Teoh Chee Keam Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 1:04am Subject: Angulimala Nina, Thanks for your elaboration. You'd pointed out essential details which keep others "clinging" for further answers. I know my weaknessess, will learn for betterment. Sadhu, Vijita 29320 From: Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 0:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi, James (and Victor) - In a message dated 1/24/04 2:36:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > > Hi Victor, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > >Hi Ken, James, and all, > > > >The Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths. Did the Buddha > >characterize the Four Noble Truths as ultimate or conventional? > > James: Gosh, I love the simple questions! ;-)). He characterized > them as both because they are both. > > > > >May all be happy and well. > > James: My sentiments also! ;-) > > > > >Peace, > >Victor > > Metta, James > > =========================== I don't think he actually characterized them as both, James, because I'm not aware of his having having dealt with the distinction in the suttas at all. I'm not aware of the Buddha having taught any suttas about "mere concept" in the Sutta Pitaka. I think that the distinction between conventional truth (involving true statements pertaining to conventional phenomena) and literal truth (involving true statements pertaining to phenomena that are not projections of concepts, but are actual and direct objects of experience) is a valid one, but is not a clearly demarcated one. For example, consider the sentence "No sight, sound, taste, smell, odor, or mind-door object is me or mine." That sentence is true, I certainly believe. On the surface, it deals with paramattha dhammas, and it is a perfect instance of paramattha sacca - about as much as any sentence could be. But what of the language of this sentence? It speaks of sights, sounds, odors, and mind-door objects, syntactically, as things. Implicitly, this language deals with entire categories of dhammas, also, and that makes it conventionaI. Moreover, the language *has* to deal with "things". That is how language works. Now, isn't the noun phrase "mind-door object" a general concept? Well, yes, but the instances of it do occur - so the concept isn't merely imagined/projected. So, that usage may fall on the literal/ultimate side, I suppose. What about the word 'is', signifying the bearing of a characteristic? Is "is-ness" directly observed, or is it a mind construct? I don't know, but I think it is a mind construct. (Paramattha dhammas such as hardness don't *have* conditions - they *are* conditions.) Also, the sentence, though in a negative way, does use the words 'me' and 'mine'. They are concepts. And many maintain that the Buddha implied they are *empty* concepts, and thus *merely* conventional. So, even a sentence that is normally said to express "ultimate truth," even the quintessence of ultimate truth, is difficult to pidgeonhole. As far as the four noble truths are concerned, it seems to me that they are conventional truths, as are assertions with regard to dependent origination and the tilakkhana. What could be more conventional than statements asserting that birth is suffering, death is suffering, having what one doesn't want is suffering, and being separated from what one does want is suffering? This is completely conventional, and perfectly true. In fact, all language is conventional and concept-bound. there is no escaping that. To discuss what is actually experienced requires the use of terms and concepts whose alleged referents are not actually experienced. There is no escape from convention in speech or in thought. Speech and thought are mere pointings. Still, isn't there a real difference between sights, sounds, tastes, and body-sense and mind-sense phenomena, on the one hand, and such things as trees, cars, molecules, and governments, on the other? I believe there is. But as soon as we open our mouth, the distinction evaporates! ;-) 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) 29321 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 8:43am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Howard (All), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James (and Victor) - > > In a message dated 1/24/04 2:36:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, > buddhatrue@y... writes: > > > > > Hi Victor, > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > > wrote: > > >Hi Ken, James, and all, > > > > > >The Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths. Did the Buddha > > >characterize the Four Noble Truths as ultimate or conventional? > > > > James: Gosh, I love the simple questions! ;-)). He characterized > > them as both because they are both. > > > > > > > >May all be happy and well. > > > > James: My sentiments also! ;-) > > > > > > > >Peace, > > >Victor > > > > Metta, James > > > > > =========================== > I don't think he actually characterized them as both, James, because > I'm not aware of his having having dealt with the distinction in the suttas at > all. I'm not aware of the Buddha having taught any suttas about "mere concept" > in the Sutta Pitaka. Well, I should have known I wouldn't get off that easy! ;-)) I couldn't just answer the question, NOW I have to explain my answer! ;-)) I agree with you that all language is conventional, but I do believe that language can point to things that are conventional and other things that are ultimate. Let me go through a very quick analysis of why I believe the Four Noble Truths are presented on both a conventional and ultimate level: First Noble Truth: The Noble Truth of Dukkha: "Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. <> In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha. <>" Second Noble Truth: The Noble Truth of the Origination of Dukkha: "And this, monks is the noble truth of the origination of dukkha: the craving that makes for further becoming -- accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there -- i.e., craving for sensual pleasure <>, craving for becoming, craving for non- becoming. <>" Third Noble Truth: The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Dukkha: "And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of dukkha: the remainderless fading & cessation <>, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving. <>" Fourth Noble Truth: The Noble Truth of the Path Leading to the Cessation of Dukkha: ""And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of dukkha: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration." < Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Angulimala Dear Vijita Teoh, op 24-01-2004 10:04 schreef Vijita Teoh Chee Keam op cheekeam@t...: > > Thanks for your elaboration. You'd pointed out essential details which keep > others "clinging" for further answers. I know my weaknessess, will learn for > betterment. N: There is nothing wrong asking further questions, keep on asking. Discussing difficult points is always good, for both parties. Nina. 29323 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body )/James, Ken H Hi Ken H and James, I did not intend to butt in, I have too many last minute chores, and also we have to attend to my father, his mental problems. But I read here: Ken: said that monks should clean their teeth, is that to be > understood in terms of ultimate reality?> Reading in the Vinaya about the monk's daily life is most inspiring and helpful. The monks were not sitting all the time at the roots of trees, and not all of them were doing so. They had to walk out for almsfood, had to clean their kutis, remove cobwebs, wash and mend robes, etc. The Buddha laid down rules for many reasons: the wellbeing of the Sangha, inspiring confidence in the faithful, etc. but whatever the monks were doing his message was: do not forget to develop understanding of nama and rupa now. This does not imply denying the conventional realities of daily life. We can stand with both feet planted firmly on the ground, and at the same time develop understanding of what things really are. The conventional truth does not exclude ultimate truth, and ultimate truth does not exclude conventional truth. I am happy to read about the monk's daily life, it is inspiring for laypeople who also have to do their chores, often similar chores. I am usually distracted when cleaning teeth, thinking of many different things. But what is there in the ultimate sense: different namas and rupas. If we are not aware, it is self and mine all the time. Thank you Ken, for this reminder! I think again of the satipatthana sutta: the monk should develop sati and panna no matter he is walking, sitting, etc. Satipatthana in daily life is by no means an easy way out. It is constant checking, verifying, reflection, considering. We have to check constantly whether the Path we are walking is well grounded on the Tipitaka and this is not easy. We should not read only one Pitaka, but all three. Not one sutta, but many. We should be honest to ourselves: do we take for kusala what is akusala? Do we develop all perfections, none excluded? I like Ken's sutta at the end: <(4) "And what is the development of concentration that... leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five clinging- aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents."> When we compare with many other suttas we can understand what concentration implies here: it is actually calm that goes together with deep understanding of the five khandhas, of nama and rupa. This is very deep, the sutta does not only refer to the momentary falling away of the khandhas, it also refers to the Dependent Origination, and that is, when ignorance ceases, there is the end of the cycle, no more arising of nama and rupa. Nina. ------------------------------ op 24-01-2004 03:30 schreef kenhowardau op kenhowardau@y...: > Take, for example, the Vinaya rules of training: When it is > said that monks should clean their teeth, is that to be > understood in terms of ultimate reality? I think so. Monks, > teeth, toothpicks; these are mere conventional designations > (concepts). They are ideas triggered by ultimate realities > (dhammas) and, logically, they can be consistent or > inconsistent -- depending on those dhammas. 29324 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendencies Ch 1, no 7 Dear Jon, How kind of you to write to me from the beach! I agree, we have to go to the root of the evil. Knowing about the latent tendencies will prevent us deluding ourselves that we do not have wrong view, wrong practice, conceit. But I realize that theoretical understanding about them is not enough. I hope both of you have a good rest, Nina. op 24-01-2004 05:42 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonoabb@y...: > I'm enjoying this series very much. It is so relevant to daily life. > > It also brings out very well one of those aspects in which the dhamma > is 'contrary' to conventional thinking: it is not the gross > defilements that are difficult to eliminate but the very finest, most > subtle ones! 29325 From: Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi again, James & Victor - In a message dated 1/24/04 8:32:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Still, isn't there a real difference between sights, sounds, tastes, > and body-sense and mind-sense phenomena, on the one hand, and such things as > > trees, cars, molecules, and governments, on the other? I believe there is. > But > as soon as we open our mouth, the distinction evaporates! ;-) > ========================== Perhaps I should explain what I mean by "As soon as we open our mouth, the distinction evaporates!" What I mean is that as soon as we speak or write or think, it is all concept-only. For example, the "hardness" we think of is not the hardness we directly experience. Thus even the thought of a hardness, no longer directly references the intended paramattha dhamma - it references a constructed concept forged by the mind from memories of many actual hardnesses of varying degrees and sorts. As the Korean Son master, Seung Sahn, says, "Open mouth already a mistake!" (So .. I apologize for opening mine! ;-) 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) 29326 From: Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:42am Subject: To All Who Celebrate the New Year at This Time Hi, all - Happy Chinese/Asian New Year! (Check out the web site below. :-) With metta, Howard > http://annualecard.tsmc.com.tw/inet/harmony1.swf /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) 29327 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 2:42pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/Victor Hi Victor, You asked: ---------------------------- > Did the Buddha characterize the Four Noble Truths as ultimate or conventional? ---------------- As ultimate – as has been explained, at length, here at DSG, more or less continuously, for the past three years. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 29328 From: Eddie Lou Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 4:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Buddha's disease Hi, Nina, Thanks for filling in and expanding and enlightening me esp. on the info that food unfinished by Buddha had been supplemented with nutrients by Devas. Thanks for that info (I am ignorant on this) and also glad I was understood. Again, another reader (James) also mentioned the writer is a Buddhist monk and is or was a medical physician. I actually knew beforehand but somehow overlooked the fact. Thanks James for the input. Bc Buddhists are accorded true freedom, but they do have to be aware of the consequences (ie - kusala or akusala). That is another reason, I like Buddhism for not being dogmatic. I think Buddha will not have minded of his criticism (Kalama Sutta mentioned that - do not believe anything without checking them out and I tend to think his own words are no exception, if so he is so great). He can say his mind but should be careful to say more clearly if it his own opinion or a hearsay. Lest it can be taken as a true fact that Buddha really grumbled, senility and so on and so forth. That itself can be seen as anomalies as we understand what it (in modern terms, - the model) means to be a fully-enlightened Buddha. His physical body maybe just like us, subject to wear and tear but his mind/wisdom ??? , I do not think so. That complete, all-knowing wisdom of his is the single crowning attribute (achieved the hard way by almost countless - more than 100,000 worlds (not 100,000 lives) - of parami/merits accumulation) that made any fully-enlightened Buddha totally different from us and even Pacceka Buddhas. I will be happy to be corrected. I think, the website should also have it proof-read and edited properly as to its correctness. Metta, Eddie Lou --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Eddie, > op 23-01-2004 19:37 schreef Eddie Lou op > eddielou_us@y...: > > I think it (the article-`Did Buddha die of > > Mesenteric Infarction?') may be a subliminal > > distortion of the real events with added > subliminal > > comments with intent to confuse. I was taken aback > > also. > N: I tried to be patient and not have dosa, but I > had trouble, just like > you. But dosa does not bring anything and is not > constructive. > E: On arahant's attributes, my guess is how can > Buddha > > grumble and had failing fully enlightened mind ? I > > hope the writer knows what he is writing. > N: Yes, I think the Bhikkhu may not have understood > what he was writing > about. > E: But one thing is we should not have personality > > worship mentality and have bias for Buddha (snip) > N: It depends. When you appreciate the Dhamma and > begin to understand it, > you may feel gratefulness. Even though the Buddha > passed away, you can have > kusala citta with gratefulness and respect. This can > also be expressed > through body and speech. It depends on the culture > you feel at home with or > your personal inclinations how you express it, there > are no rules. The best > respect is satipatthana, being mindful and develop > understanding of the > present moment, that is his teaching. Then you can > also discover that when > paying respect there are also bound to be cittas > with clinging in between. > E: Honestly, we all do not know the most recent > Buddha in > > person, but to me, one and only single thing that > > impresses me is his discourse and concept (Dhamma) > of > > true realities especially in Abidhamma. With such > > complex details and structures, with so far - no > known > > anomalies or discrepancies over thousands of years > of > > scrutiny. So different from other religious books > (I > > do not agree to the notion of Buddhism as a > religion, > > though). No ordinary person can have such > abilities > > and insights. > N: I am really happy you have such respect for the > Abhidhamma. And it is > meant for application in our life. > E: Another thing (that is maybe really true) in > that > > article is - 'so he told Cunda to bury it.' I > think > > that shows Buddha's out of the norm but is correct > > response. That also makes me respect him even > more. > N: Bhikkhu Metananda M.D. did not understand the > reason. There was another > reason. It is said, in several texts, that alsmfood > offered to the Buddha > but not eaten by him, cannot be partaken of by > others. See Verses of Uplift, > 82, Pataligama. It is not digestable by others. > Devas put special nutrition > in it. I do not find this difficult to understand. > The Buddha speaks time > and again about devas and men. And think of all the > suttas about devas. > As to the spirit of the article, I generally miss a > feeling of respect for > the Buddha here. It seems that the Buddha is dealt > with as just a clinical > case. > I appreciate your observations. > Nina. 29329 From: gazita2002 Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:17pm Subject: Re: Prompting Beautiful Consciousness-Andrew Dear Andrew, Sorry its taken me a while to get back to you about this one. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > > Your question - can I prompt BC? Well, BC can be prompted > by "deliberate endeavour" it seems. This is where we get into the > conventional/ultimate discourse muddles. How would you phrase > it? Mmmmm - deliberate endeavour - like when I am talking with someone, want to say something about an absent 3rd person, and 'deliberately bite-my-tongue' so I won't say anything bad. For me, its that grey area where I seem to be doing something good, but in reality it is only a moment of restraint, very dependent on various conditions. Hopefully one of those conditions being a developing wisdom - but how would we know? I guess its all our kilesa that makes us think it is 'us' that do good things/bad things. I believe that by knowning about kusala/akusala can be a condition for that 'deliberate endeavour'. There is endeavour and there is restraint, but its not 'me'. > I hear you're getting some rain at long last? Enjoy it. > Metta > Andrew Yes, and quite a bit of rain too. And I am enjoying it. Patience, courage and good cheer. Azita. 29330 From: gazita2002 Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:43pm Subject: Sarah, Sarah, Sarah. Dear Sarah, Hoping the subject title will attract your attention :) A question for T.A. Sujin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Latent Tendencies, Ch 1, no 9. -snip- > We see from these text quotations that there are three levels of > defilements: > Defilements that are transgressions (vítikkama kilesa), coarse defilements > of the degree of unwholesome courses of action. > Defilements one is possessed by and that arise (pariyutthåna kilesa) are > medium defilements that disturb the citta. > Latent tendencies (anusaya kilesa) are subtle defilements that lie dormant > in the citta and that can be completely eradicated by the four Paths (at the > four stages of enlightenment). > To conclude: there are latent tendencies which have their own distinct > nature and characteristic. Why are the defilements grouped like this? It is my understanding that they are all of the akusala cetasikas, or most of them, so what is the advantage to developing wisdom, to know these different degrees? Hello to Jon and hope you are enjoying your rest time. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita 29331 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 8:20pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi James, ---------------- J: > When you first study Zen mountains are mountains. Then mountains are no longer mountains. Finally mountains are mountains again. ---------------- I'm not so sure. It's easy to get caught out by these pithy Zen sayings -- we mistake the sound for the meaning. You explain that, when there is direct understanding, there are mountains again. I don't see why. Also, talk in terms of duality/non-duality is lost on me. I've seen these terms in Mahayana books, without ever really understanding them. Fortunately, as a Theravada student, I don't need to. But thanks for the explanation, anyway. :-) --------------- J: > Okay, I am going to be straight with you even though it will probably freak you out, I don't view people as concepts. Purple elephants are concepts but people are real. The Buddha also didn't teach that people are only concepts; he taught that people are real. -------------------------- You were right! I am freaked out! :-) Where did you get the idea that people are real? Buddhists don't believe it, scientists don't believe it; you're on your own, I think. ------------------------- J: > If there were only dhammas and nibbana, no people, then the Buddha wouldn't care about the suffering of the world would he? ------------------------ That's a good point. Certainly, the Buddha did care, but in what sense? Not in the sense of `upset and worry.' Not in the sense that he was an abiding entity that cared about other abiding entities. Even when people saw and heard the Buddha, there was no abiding entity, no living being; there were only dhammas -- (beautiful dhammas such as panna, karuna and metta). ---------------- >> Ken: Wouldn't you agree, from your own experience, that the monk who is the most adamant – "I will always obey Lord Buddha! I will never break the rules of training!" -- is possibly the most likely to fail? Whereas the monk, who understands conditionality, understands accumulated tendencies (in other words, understands ultimate reality) and concedes his own fallibility, will probably do better. >> > > James: Well, this is a very leading question. You want me to answer in a certain way. I cannot predict with any certainty whether a monk is going to succeed or fail the following of precepts with given personal motivations. Let me just say this: Rules are not absolute reality; they only apply in conventional reality. In other words, morality is relative. Those who view morality as the end goal have the wrong view, those who view morality as a means to an end have the right view. Is this what you are looking for? > ---------------- What I was looking for was; "Oh yes, I agree with you completely: Usually, when we think we are keeping the precepts, there is simply rite and ritual. The genuine, ultimate, morality exists only in a moment of consciousness -- a billionth of a second -- when kusala citta is accompanied by virati (abstention from wrong doing)." :-) Thanks again for quoting that sutta on concentration: (Nina, please note, it was James who deserved credit for this, not me. :- ) ) ------------------------------------ J: > You view the quote about concentration as a description of something that happens, I see it as a lesson for a person to follow and a description of something that happens. It is both for me. The Buddha gave this description for a purpose, as a learning tool, a model to follow. He didn't just tell it as if it was a story. He wasn't like, "Monks, gather around, I want to tell you a story of a perfect monk: There is the case where a monk goes to a secluded place…etc, etc.... Now, wasn't that a nice story? Too bad none of us have a self to influence this to happen. Okay, now go about your business and maybe one day the same thing will happen to you!" ;-)) --------------------------------- Even though you send it up, at least you see the Abhidhamma point of view. I'm glad of that; previously, it has seemed as if the message was not getting through. All we can hope to do is hear the Buddha's teaching. At dsg, the idea is to hear the teaching `as found in the ancient Theravada texts.' There is no expectation that we believe it or that we accept it as the genuine teaching of the Buddha – just that we know what those texts are saying. The way you put it: ".... Now, wasn't that a nice story? Too bad none of us have a self to influence this to happen," is fair comment, I think. As the suttas tell us, the flood is crossed, not by striving, and not by standing still. There is no self who can influence right concentration to happen. But really, it's not "too bad," it's beautiful! Kind regards, Ken H 29332 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi James, I like this sutta very much, even taking it with me!. Nina op 24-01-2004 17:43 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > so I recommend the Sammaditthi Sutta with > its invaluable commentary where Ven. Sariputta goes through a > systematic analysis of mundane Right View and supramundane Right View > and how each of them create a mundane Eightfold Path and a > supramundane Eightfold Path: 29333 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:20pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi James, Howard, Ken, and all, Thank you, James, Howard, and Ken, for your replies. As I understand your responses, there are three different positions given in your replies regarding the question: "Did the Buddha characterize the Four Noble Truths as ultimate or conventional?" 1. The Buddha characterized the Four Noble Truths as both ultimate and conventional. 2. The Buddha did not characterize the Four Noble Truths as ultimate or conventional (or both, for that matter.) 3. The Buddha characterized the Four Noble Truths as ultimate. If the Buddha indeed characterized the Four Noble Truths as ultimate or as both ultimate and conventional, could anyone find a reference to the discourses in the Pali Canon indicating that the Buddha did characterize the Four Noble Truths as such? Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Howard (All), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, James (and Victor) - > > > > In a message dated 1/24/04 2:36:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, > > buddhatrue@y... writes: > > > > > > > > Hi Victor, > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > > > wrote: > > > >Hi Ken, James, and all, > > > > > > > >The Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths. Did the Buddha > > > >characterize the Four Noble Truths as ultimate or conventional? > > > > > > James: Gosh, I love the simple questions! ;-)). He characterized > > > them as both because they are both. > > > > > > > > > > >May all be happy and well. > > > > > > James: My sentiments also! ;-) > > > > > > > > > > >Peace, > > > >Victor > > > > > > Metta, James > > > > > > > > =========================== > > I don't think he actually characterized them as both, James, > because > > I'm not aware of his having having dealt with the distinction in > the suttas at > > all. I'm not aware of the Buddha having taught any suttas > about "mere concept" > > in the Sutta Pitaka. > > > Well, I should have known I wouldn't get off that easy! ;-)) I > couldn't just answer the question, NOW I have to explain my answer! > ;-)) > > I agree with you that all language is conventional, but I do believe > that language can point to things that are conventional and other > things that are ultimate. Let me go through a very quick analysis of > why I believe the Four Noble Truths are presented on both a > conventional and ultimate level: > > First Noble Truth: The Noble Truth of Dukkha: > "Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, > aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & > despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; > separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is > dukkha. <> In short, the five clinging-aggregates are > dukkha. <>" [snip] > > Metta, James 29334 From: Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 4:42pm Subject: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, all - There is the following from the Sammaditthi Sutta to be found on ATI at the address (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn009.html) 54. "And what is mentality-materiality, what is the origin of mentality-materiality, what is the cessation of mentality-materiality, what is the way leading to the cessation of mentality-materiality? Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention -- these are called mentality. The four great elements and the material form derived from the four great elements -- these are called materiality. So this mentality and this materiality are what is called mentality-materiality. With the arising of consciousness there is the arising of mentality-materiality. With the cessation of consciousness there is the cessation of mentality-materiality. The way leading to the cessation of mentality-materiality is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration. This reiterates that namarupa is dependent on consciousness. ("With the arising of consciousness there is the arising of mentality-materiality. With the cessation of consciousness there is the cessation of mentality-materiality.") If feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention, and the four great elements and the material form derived from the four great elements all arise dependent on consciousness and cease with the cessation of consciousness, as this directly says, then all conditioned objects of consciousness are dependent on consciousness, and do not exist independent of consciousness. In particular, rupas do not exist other than as objects of consciousness. And, hence, the Buddha instructed: "Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how your should train yourself." 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) 29335 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:55pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hello James, Howard, Ken, Victor, and all, I think these two suttas below may have relevance. Bhikkhu Bodhi says in his introduction to the Khandhavagga p840: "Examination of the five aggregates plays a critical role in the Buddha's teaching for at least four reasons. First, because the five aggregates are the ultimate referent of the first noble truth, the noble truth of suffering and since all four truths revolve around suffering, understanding the aggregates is essential for understanding the Four Noble Truths as a whole. Second, because the five aggregates are the ojective domain of clinging and as such contribute to the causal origination of future suffering. Third, because the removal of clinging is necessary for the attainment of release, and clinging must be removed from the objects around which its tentacles are wrapped, namely, the five aggregates. And fourth, because the removal of clinging is achieved by wisdom, and the kind of wisdom needed is precisely clear insight into the real nature of the aggregates." 56 Saccasamyutta 13 (3) Aggregates p.1847 Bodhi "Bhikkhus, there are these Four Noble Truths. What four? The noble truth of suffering, the noble truth of the origin of suffering, the noble truth of the cessation of suffering, the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering. "And what bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering? It should be said: the five aggregates subject to clinging; that is, the form aggregate subject to clinging... the consciousness aggregate subject to clinging. This is called the noble truth of suffering. "And what, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering? It is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination. This is called the noble truth of the origin of suffering. "And what, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering? It is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it. This is called the noble truth of the cessation of suffering. "And what, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering? It is this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view ... right concentration. This is called the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering. "These, bhikkhus, are the Four Noble Truths. "Therefore, bhikkhus, an exertion should be made to understand: "This is suffering' ... An exertion should be made to understand: 'This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.'" 14 (4) Internal Sense Bases "Bhikkhus, there are these Four Noble Truths. What four? The noble truth of suffering, the noble truth of the origin of suffering, the noble truth of the cessation of suffering, the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffer. "And what, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering? It should be said: the six internal sense bases. What six? the eye base.... the mind base. This is called the noble truth of suffering." (The rest of the sutta is identical with (13).) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi James, Howard, Ken, and all, > > Thank you, James, Howard, and Ken, for your replies. As I > understand your responses, there are three different positions given > in your replies regarding the question: "Did the Buddha characterize > the Four Noble Truths as ultimate or conventional?" > > 1. The Buddha characterized the Four Noble Truths as both ultimate > and conventional. > > 2. The Buddha did not characterize the Four Noble Truths as ultimate > or conventional (or both, for that matter.) > > 3. The Buddha characterized the Four Noble Truths as ultimate. > > If the Buddha indeed characterized the Four Noble Truths as ultimate > or as both ultimate and conventional, could anyone find a reference > to the discourses in the Pali Canon indicating that the Buddha did > characterize the Four Noble Truths as such? > > Peace, > Victor 29336 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 10:21pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Buddha's disease Hi Eddie, Nina, James, everyone on this thread, Eddie wrote ------------------------ He can say his mind but should be careful to say more clearly if it his own opinion or a hearsay. Lest it can be taken as a true fact that Buddha really grumbled, senility and so on and so forth. ------------------------- I wouldn't want to fall into the trap of slandering the Buddha. However, isn't it true that his mental faculties, just like his physical faculties, did become impaired by old age? This wouldn't have led him to behave in a confused or undignified manner, but it may have manifested in other ways – tiredness, for example. Robert K, if I understood him correctly, has explained that deterioration of the heart base does not impair mind-door consciousness. I take this to mean that, when we grow old and feeble (senile even), right mindfulness can still be conditioned to arise – there can still be progress towards the Eightfold Path (provided the conditions have been put in place, of course.) Kind regards, Ken H 29337 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 10:38pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Buddha's disease Dear KenH,Nina, Eddie, James and all, In the Jara Sutta (SN XLVIII.41) - Old Age The Buddha is now a wrinkled old man -- but one who has conquered aging, illness, and death. "there's a discernible change in his faculties -- the faculty of the eye, the faculty of the ear, the faculty of the nose, the faculty of the tongue, the faculty of the body." His thinking and reasoning processes are not affected. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn48-041.html metta and peace, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi Eddie, Nina, James, everyone on this thread, > > Eddie wrote > ------------------------ > He can say his mind but should be careful to say more > clearly if it his own opinion or a hearsay. Lest it > can be taken as a true fact that Buddha really > grumbled, senility and so on and so forth. > ------------------------- > > I wouldn't want to fall into the trap of slandering the Buddha. > However, isn't it true that his mental faculties, just like his > physical faculties, did become impaired by old age? This wouldn't > have led him to behave in a confused or undignified manner, but it > may have manifested in other ways – tiredness, for example. > > Robert K, if I understood him correctly, has explained that > deterioration of the heart base does not impair mind-door > consciousness. I take this to mean that, when we grow old and feeble > (senile even), right mindfulness can still be conditioned to arise – > there can still be progress towards the Eightfold Path (provided the > conditions have been put in place, of course.) > > Kind regards, > Ken H 29338 From: Jeffrey S. Brooks Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 3:55pm Subject: Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism Dear James, you do not get ecstasy (jhana) without concetration). How Applied and Sustained Concentration (Vitakka And Vicára) Leads to Ecstatic Absorption (jhana/dhyana/kundalini) There has been some question regarding whether spiritual absorption can be accomplished via applied and sustained concentration or applied and sustained thought. In the Pali canon two words Vitakka and Vicára are used to refer to a method of access to spiritual absorption (jhana) via some willful direction of one's awareness through a process of sustained application. Scholars believe it is applied and sustained thought. My argument is, how can applied and sustained thought lead to absorption? That is what everyone has been doing all along, and it has not lead to anything but a busy mind, unhappiness and strife (dukkha). Therefore I conclude Vitakka and Vicára must mean applied and sustained concentration. How is concentration is different from thought? I use concentration for the reflections that are spoken of in the Sati (meditation) suttas, such as the awareness of the body (inside and out), the senses, and the mental states and mental objects. For me to explain concentration and how I use it is no small conversation, because it requires explaining a number of things, therefore I am afraid I will not be able to cover the whole subject in a single message. First let me explain how I use the term 'concentration.' It is simply a turning of the awareness to an object, say in this case the observation of the breath. Coincident to this process is an effort to still the cognitive processes of thinking, reasoning, memory and perception. In the process of engaging in concentration, the awareness can wander to other objects, so there is an effort to bring the awareness back to the object. Therefore this process is consistent with an applied and sustained effort that the Pali terms 'Vitakka And Vicára' imply. But, this is not a thought process for me. Thinking engages the cognitive process listed above, whereas what I have described suspends them, and seeks just awareness directed toward a single object. Since I am intent on ecstatic absorption (jhana/dhyana), then I use the objects of awareness [the breath, body (inside and out), the senses, and the mental states and mental objects] as a "home base" as it is recommended in the three Sati suttas. But, once charismatic manifestations (jhana-nimitta) arise, then they become the new "objects" of concentration. By the time the charisms (jhana-nimitta) have arisen, then the cognitive processes have fully subsided and calm abiding is thus fully established. Therefore there is no reason to keep directing and redirecting the awareness to the "object." It is as though the awareness has fused with the object, which is now, as I have said, the various charismatic manifestations or charisms (jhana-nimitta). It is at this time that the first absorption (jhana/dhyana) naturally and inexorably leads to the second absorption, but only if one is both sensitive to charisms (jhana-nimitta), and is willing to let go of the object of concentration. In the case of the various meditations on the breath, body (inside and out), the senses, and the cognitive processes, they are just objects of meditation. I only remain with them until charisms (jhana-nimitta) have arisen. Once charisms have arisen, then the breath, body, senses and mind are no longer my object of concentration. I am as the Buddha instructed, "sensitive to pleasure," a pleasure that is "not of the senses," which are these charisms. When that pleasure arises, I ignore the sense objects that do not lead to the pleasure of ecstatic absorption (jhana/dhyana), therefore I become "secluded" from the objects of the senses. Throughout the day I practice concentration as awareness of the breath, the body (inside and out), the senses, and the mental states and mind objects. I am always aware of relinquishing any grasping and aversion as they arise. I endeavor to still the cognitive processes of thinking, reasoning, memory and perception, thus maintaining calm abiding throughout the day. And, I am always "sensitive to pleasure," a pleasure that is "not of the senses," which are the charisms (jhana-nimitta). I begin each day with a few hours of meditation. Every day I lead at least one 1 hour public meditation, and I end each day with a couple more hours of meditation. Every time I sit charisms (jhana-nimitta) arise and fill me throughout the sit. And in this way charisms have not only become a regular feature of my daily sitting practice regimen, but they have also become a regular feature of my moment-to-moment mindfulness practice as well. Therefore my mind is calm and tranquil throughout my sits, as well as throughout the day. And, I have become saturated and suffused with charisms (jhana-nimitta) throughout my sits as well as throughout the day. This is how 30 years of daily meditation practice has led to ecstatic absorption (jhana), and a saturation in charismatic manifestations (jhana-nimitta), which have so flooded my awareness domain that the pains of aging, such as arthritis, and tooth decay, are no longer with me. And, when I have illnesses, such as the passing of kidney stones a few years ago, there is no pain, just charisms (jhana-nimitta) have replaced all of the sensations. Thus I have become saturated and suffused with a pleasure that is "not of the senses," charisms (jhana-nimitta). This is how I have become established in the fourth absorption (jhana/dhyana) as my base of awareness. Please note: I use jhana-nimitta (a Pali term) to mean the various charismatic manifestations of ecstasy, or what the Buddha called "a pleasure that is not of the senses." These are the same as the common term kundalini. The Buddha's discourses on meditation and awareness training (Sati) are described in these suttas (sutras): Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn118.html Maha-satipatthana Sutta (DN. 22) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn22.html Satipatthana Sutta (MN 10) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn010.html I have made modifications to the translation of the above suttas to accommodate a more ecstatic absorption (jhana) appropriate rendering. If anyone is interested in this version of the translation then they are on the Jhana Support Group at this URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas/files/ Thank-you for your kind interest, Jeff Brooks Jhana Support Group A support group for ecstatic contemplatives website http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas/ Subscribe: Jhanas-subscribe@yahoogroups.com --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > Jeff: I have had many people say that I might have become addicted to > ecstasy. I have been saying, no, all along because ecstasy requires > dispassion and equanimity for it to emerge and deepen, whereas > addiction is based upon grasping and aversion. > > James: I wouldn't say that you are addicted to ecstasy, that would be > going too far, but I do think that you put too much emphasis on > ecstasy. The practice of Jhana is to develop the powers of the mind, > ecstasy just happens to be a `side-effect' of that practice. When > you focus on how tingly and good jhana makes your whole body feel, > and the images and psychic abilities it gives you, you have lost the > point of the practice and you will remain stuck in the first stages. > Ecstasy isn't wisdom and the point to doing Jhana is to eventually > develop the mind to the level where wisdom arises. > > I wish that I could do jhana meditation but I don't have the > dedication to the practice that you have. I could NOT meditate for > an hour each morning, several hours each evening, and then even more > hours on the weekend like you do! But, that is what Jhana requires. > From the outside people are going to think that you have gone looney > or something, let them think what they want. But, I would recommend > that you stop focusing on the `ecstasy' part of Jhana and start > focusing more on the `concentration' part. > > Metta, James 29339 From: Jeffrey S. Brooks Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 4:09pm Subject: Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism Hello Htoo Naing, it does not seem that you understand the Language of Ecstasy in English, nor does it seem you understand the central importance of ecstasy (jhana) in Buddhism. I have found the Pali term 'jhana' is too often regarded as a dirty word in many Buddhist circles. I find that remarkable since the Buddha mentions it in almost every sutta, and in the Digha Nikaya alone it has 19 references in the glossary. And, even when jhana is acknowledged then its definition as ecstasy is too often denied. The term 'ecstasy' has been used as a word to describe the experience of enlightenment by English speaking contemplatives for quite some time. Also, please take note that Theresa of Avila and John of the Cross used Spanish terms that have been translated into the English as 'ecstasy' to describe the experiences in their contemplative practice. And, they described 7 absorption states. Therefore I believe it is reasonable to assume that the term 'ecstasy' is a valid translation of the Pali term jhana. From the Digha Nikaya Glossary jhanas - Absorptions, DN 42, 1.3.21f., n.79, n.50, n.57, n.76f., 2.75ff., 4.33, n.168, 9.10ff., 16.6.8f., 17.2.3, n.583, n.611, 26.28, 29.24, 33.3.3(6), n.1118, n.1127, n.1143 Majjhima Nikaya 59 Bahuvedaniya Sutta a translation from the Pali by Bhikkhus Nanamoli and Bodhi, Wisdom Publications, Boston 1995 "The pleasure and joy that arise dependent on the five sense cords (senses)... are called sense pleasure....There is another kind of pleasure here, Ananda, (when one is) secluded from the sense pleasure, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhana, which is accompanied by applied and sustained (concentration) with joy and pleasure born of seclusion. This is that other kind of pleasure (bliss) loftier and more sublime than the previous pleasure. Pasadika Sutta DN 29 The Delightful Discourse a translation from the Pali by Maurice Walshe, Wisdom Publications, Boston 1987, 1995 24.2 There are, Cunda, these four kinds of life devoted to pleasure which are conducive to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to tranquillity, to realization, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. What are they? First a monk detached from sense-desires, detached from unwholesome mental states, enters and remains in the first jhana... Anapanasati Sutta, MN 118 Awareness of In-&-Out Breathing [6] "One trains oneself to breathe in sensitive to joy, and to breathe out sensitive to pleasure." The Language of Ecstasy in English Absorb tr.v. 1. To take (something) in through or as through pores or interstices. 2. To occupy the full attention, interest, or time of; engross. See Synonyms at monopolize. 3. Physics. To retain (radiation or sound, for example) wholly, without reflection or transmission. 4. To take in; assimilate: immigrants who were absorbed into the social mainstream. 5. To receive (an impulse) without echo or recoil: a fabric that absorbs sound; a bumper that absorbs impact. 6. To take over (a cost or costs). 7. To endure; accommodate: couldn't absorb the additional hardships. [Middle English, to swallow up, from Old French absorber, from Latin absorbre Absorption n. 1. The act or process of absorbing or the condition of being absorbed. 2. A state of mental concentration. Bliss n. 1. Extreme happiness; ecstasy. 2. The ecstasy of salvation; spiritual joy. Ecstasy n., pl. ecstasies. 1. Intense joy or delight. 2. A state of emotion so intense that one is carried beyond rational thought and self-control. 3. The trance, frenzy, or rapture associated with mystic or prophetic exaltation. [Middle English extasie, from Old French, from Late Latin extasis effusive adj. 1. Unrestrained or excessive in emotional expression; gushy: an effusive manner. 2. Profuse; overflowing: effusive praise. euphoria n. A feeling of great happiness or well-being. [New Latin, from Greek, from euphoros, healthy : eu-, eu- + pherein, to bear; see bher-1 below.] exhilaration n. 1. The act of exalting or the condition of being exalted. 2. A state or feeling of intense, often excessive exhilaration or well-being. See Synonyms at ecstasy. 3. A flight of larks. See Synonyms at flock1. exuberant adj. 1. Full of unrestrained enthusiasm or joy. 2. Lavish; extravagant. 3. Extreme in degree, size, or extent. 4. Growing, producing, or produced abundantly; plentiful: Note: because exhilaration exuberant have the quality of effusiveness, then I relegate them to the first jhana, which seems to be typified by a youthful and gushy kind of joy. Rapture n. 1. The state of being transported by a lofty emotion; ecstasy. 2. Often raptures. An expression of ecstatic feeling. See Synonyms at ecstasy. 3. The transporting of a person from one place to another, especially to heaven. Note: Because 'rapture' has the quality of being transported then I take this to be the Contemplative Christian term for an out-of-body experience. And, since the out-of-body experience typically leaves the subject in a cataleptic trance, then I am going to associate it with the supramundane absorption states trance (trans) n. 1. A hypnotic, cataleptic, or ecstatic state. 2. Detachment from one's physical surroundings, as in contemplation or daydreaming. 3. A semiconscious state, as between sleeping and waking; a daze. Note: because the word 'trance' has the quality of "Detachment from one's physical surroundings in a cataleptic-like state then I believe we should use this term for the Supramundane absorption states. Blessings to you, Jeff Brooks Ecstatic Buddhism A newsletter for ecstatic Buddhists website: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ecstatic_Buddhism/ Subscribe: Ecstatic_Buddhism-subscribe@yahoogroups.com --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Dear James, > > How nice you redirected to be on the right path! Jhana is just for > Sammasamadhi as one of Eight Parts of The Path. > > Jhana should not be assume as ecstacy. Jhana is Jhana and ecstacy is > ecstacy. If one of illegal drugs is used,one might be in a state of > ecstacy but not in Jhana. > > Jhana finally should not be interpreted as ecstacy. > > May you be able to reach Jhana. > > With Unlimited Metta, > > Htoo Naing 29340 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 0:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] latent tendencies Ch 1, no 7 Hi, Nina Yes, we are having a good rest, mainly by doing plenty of exercise! The highlight of our day is of course the discussion on the list, which I download each day onto a floppy disk at the local internet cafe and then read with Sarah on my laptop at the hotel. I like what you say about wrong view, wrong practice and conceit. It needs to be known. The more it is seen the better! I hope things go well for you as you prepare to get away. Jon --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Jon, > How kind of you to write to me from the beach! I agree, we have to > go to the > root of the evil. Knowing about the latent tendencies will prevent > us > deluding ourselves that we do not have wrong view, wrong practice, > conceit. > But I realize that theoretical understanding about them is not > enough. > I hope both of you have a good rest, > Nina. 29341 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 0:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sarah, Sarah, Sarah. Azita Thanks for the question. It'll be added to the list! Jon PS Yes, having a very restful time, thanks. (Also have just discovered there's an ashtanga centre here on Samui) --- gazita2002 wrote: > Dear Sarah, > Hoping the subject title will attract your attention :) > A question for T.A. Sujin. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom > > wrote: > > Latent Tendencies, Ch 1, no 9. > > -snip- > > We see from these text quotations that there are three levels of > > defilements: > > Defilements that are transgressions (vítikkama kilesa), coarse > defilements > > of the degree of unwholesome courses of action. > > Defilements one is possessed by and that arise (pariyutthåna > kilesa) are > > medium defilements that disturb the citta. > > Latent tendencies (anusaya kilesa) are subtle defilements that > lie > dormant > > in the citta and that can be completely eradicated by the four > Paths (at the > > four stages of enlightenment). > > To conclude: there are latent tendencies which have their own > distinct > > nature and characteristic. > > Why are the defilements grouped like this? It is my > understanding that they are all of the akusala cetasikas, or most > of > them, so what is the advantage to developing wisdom, to know these > different degrees? > > Hello to Jon and hope you are enjoying your rest time. > > Patience, courage and good cheer, > Azita 29342 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 0:20am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Ken H, Ken: I'm not so sure. It's easy to get caught out by these pithy Zen sayings -- we mistake the sound for the meaning. James: Mistake the sound for the meaning? Huh??? Is that one of those pithy Abhidhamma sayings?? ;-)) Ken: Also, talk in terms of duality/non-duality is lost on me. I've seen these terms in Mahayana books, without ever really understanding them. Fortunately, as a Theravada student, I don't need to. James: Oh yes, those pesky Mahayanas! ;-)) Actually Ken, the Buddha spoke on duality also, it isn't just a Mahayana concept. However, Mahayana Buddhism does take the concept of non-duality a little too far in my opinion. In Theravada the goal is to recognize the duality of Samsara and Nibbana, not to try to make them one. Well, it is a deep subject and no reason to get into it. If you want to educate yourself on the subject of duality, from a Theravada perspective, I would recommend this article: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/news/essay27.html Ken: You were right! I am freaked out! :-) Where did you get the idea that people are real? Buddhists don't believe it, scientists don't believe it; you're on your own, I think. James: Really? On my own? Hmmm…then maybe I can form my own cult like K. Sujin? ;-)) If you think that scientists don't believe it then I don't know where you are coming from. You are misunderstanding what I mean by `real'. I mean it in a conventional sense…but you obviously can't think in conventional terms. Ken: Even when people saw and heard the Buddha, there was no abiding entity, no living being; there were only dhammas -- (beautiful dhammas such as panna, karuna and metta). James: Okay, what have you been smoking?? Hehehe…(just kidding). The Buddha wasn't a living being? Well, I guess we will just have to disagree on that one. Haven't you been paying attention to the `Buddha's Disease' thread? The Buddha was once alive and then he was dead. He lived, he died. He was a human being…and he was also a collection of beautiful dhammas. It doesn't have to be either/or. This is what I mean by the duality in your thinking. Ken: What I was looking for was; "Oh yes, I agree with you completely: Usually, when we think we are keeping the precepts, there is simply rite and ritual. The genuine, ultimate, morality exists only in a moment of consciousness -- a billionth of a second -- when kusala citta is accompanied by virati (abstention from wrong doing)." :-) James: If I ever reply like that I want someone to shoot me immediately!! ;-)) Ken: Even though you send it up, at least you see the Abhidhamma point of view. I'm glad of that; previously, it has seemed as if the message was not getting through. James: I'm not sure what `send it up' means. However, yes I finally figured out what all you K Sujinians were trying to say (and I now don't think it is an `Abhidhamma Point Of View', it is very unique to the K. Sujinian group). It was somewhat difficult for me to get the big picture because I consider it pretty off the wall. The Buddha described the Eightfold Path as a path of PRACTICE: "And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of dukkha: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration." Ken, do you notice that very important word `practice'? Do you know what `practice' means?: "prac•tice n.A habitual or customary action or way of doing something: makes a practice of being punctual. Repeated performance of an activity in order to learn or perfect a skill: Practice will make you a good musician. A session of preparation or performance undertaken to acquire or polish a skill: goes to piano practice weekly; scheduled a soccer practice for Saturday. Archaic. The skill so learned or perfected. The condition of being skilled through repeated exercise: out of practice. The act or process of doing something; performance or action: a theory that is difficult to put into practice." However, since you usually only respond to Pali, let me explain in Pali terms: The path of practice includes Pariyatti, Patipatti, and Pativedha. Simply Pariyatti is not enough; there must also be present Patipatti which includes Sila and Samadhi. Understand? (Bet you didn't know I had that in me did you? Hehehe..;-)) Ken: All we can hope to do is hear the Buddha's teaching. At dsg, the idea is to hear the teaching `as found in the ancient Theravada texts.' There is no expectation that we believe it or that we accept it as the genuine teaching of the Buddha – just that we know what those texts are saying. James: This is only pariyatti. Memorizing/Knowing texts alone isn't enough. ;-) Metta, James ps. Okay, I have filled my Pali quota for the New Year!! ;-)) 29343 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 0:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Aggregates and detachment (was, characteristics) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > As I see it, the distinction between dhammas and pannatti becomes > known as and when dhammas are gradually seen as they truly are. In > other words, pannatti are 'seen' only by the seeing of dhammas; there > is nothing to be seen in pannatti themselves since they are mere > creations of the mind. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I largely agree with that. In fact it is a point I recently made in a post (to Larry, I think) about meditating. However, I don't think the process is entirely linear. As one starts to see the tilakkhana in dhammas, concepts begin to lose their hold. As one starts to see through concepts, it becomes easier to see the nature of dhammas. There is sort of a positive feeback loop between the two levels of developing wisdom. J: It's good to find ourselves in agreement! I'm just not sure about your 'positive feedback loop’ model in this particular instance. The reason I say that is that although the Buddha spoke repeatedly about seeing the tilakkhana in dhammas, I'm not sure he spoke about 'seeing through concepts'. Happy to be corrected, though. ------------------------------------------------- Pannatti do not form part of the 'soil' in> > which understanding can grow. But with the development of panna they > are no longer taken for something that is real. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: We are likely pretty much in agreement on this, Jon. J: Thanks, Howard. The key, as ever, is the development of panna. There's not a lot else to say;-)) Jon 29344 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 0:33am Subject: Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism Hi Jeff: Jeff: Dear James, you do not get ecstasy (jhana) without concetration). James: Jeff, you missed my point. Jhana is NOT defined as Ecstasy!! If you want just ecstasy, go buy some pills! ;-)) Stop defining Jhana as ecstasy. Jhana is: vitakka (directed thought), vicara (evaluation), piti (rapture), sukha (pleasure), and ekaggatarammana (singleness of preoccupation). You are presently concerning yourself with only piti and sukha and thinking that is everything. That was my point. Metta, James 29345 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 0:39am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Victor, Victor: If the Buddha indeed characterized the Four Noble Truths as ultimate or as both ultimate and conventional, could anyone find a reference to the discourses in the Pali Canon indicating that the Buddha did characterize the Four Noble Truths as such? James: I already gave references to the Pali Canon to support what I said. Please see post: 29321. If you don't agree or don't think that these are sufficient, I think you should find further references yourself. Metta, James 29346 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 0:43am Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi James, > I like this sutta very much, even taking it with me!. I'm glad that you appreciated the sutta. Hope you have a nice time on your trip. Don't worry about a thing. > Nina Metta, James 29347 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 0:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Space element a concept? Howard I agree with you where you say: 'If you and I "touch the same table," the hardness you experience is not the hardness I experience.' That is of course because the idea of ‘you and I touching the same table’ is a statement of conventional reality, not ultimate reality. The ultimate reality is in each case the experience of hardness. But you go on to say: 'Though they correspond, one is content of your experience and one is content of mine. Each of us experiences an experiential content when we feel hardness, not an external, independent entity.' … 'What we observe is *the content of an experience*, whether it be hardness or space or anything else. Only experiential content is observable, not any alleged "external things".' The idea of 'content of an experience' versus 'alleged external thing' is not something found in the texts, as far as I'm aware, and I'm not sure what is the point you’re trying to make here. The moment of experience of hardness is just that, different kinds of nama and a rupa, and if awareness/insight arises its object will be one of those namas or the rupa. Is there any purpose in characterizing the moment in terms other than those? Likewise the classification of dhammas into ‘observable’ and ‘unobservable’. All dhammas are potentially experiencable by panna of the appropriate level, otherwise they would not be counted among the dhammas. There is no purpose as far as I can see in classifying dhammas into ‘observable by me’ and ‘not observable by me’. Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > Besides, none of the dhammas mentioned in the texts were unobservable > to the Buddha. To rule out the possibility of their existence simply > because they are unobservable *to us* would be something of a conceit > as I see it. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: You are missing what I mean. What we observe is *the content of an experience*, whether it be hardness or space or anything else. Only experiential content is observable, not any alleged "external things". ------------------------------------------------ ... > J: I don't think anyone is suggesting we should *believe in* > unobservables. However, we should not forget that the presently > observable/not observable is largely a function of our present level > of developed understanding (or, to put it another way, our ignorance > and wrong view). ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: But I am not talking about "presently observable." (At the conventional level, the interior of no star of Alpha Centauri is presently observable, but it likely exists and, under proper conditions, could be observed. But at no time is any "thing" independent of awareness an object of awareness, because the only object of awareness is an experiential content. If you and I "touch the same table," the hardness you experience is not the hardness I experience. Though they correspond, one is content of your experience and one is content of mine. Each of us experiences an experiential content when we feel hardness, not an external, independent entity. ... ------------------------------------------------ Howard: It is notobservable "period." When looked for, wherever it might be, it is unseen, and thus there is no basis for countenancing its existence. --------------------------------------------------- Rather, they are saying that as and when dhammas come to be> > known by developed awareness and panna/insight those dhammas are seen > as exhibiting characteristics that are incompatible with their being > a 'self'. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: And is it "presumed" that these dhammas are all that exist? Yes, because they are all that is ever seen. One cannot ultimately *prove* nonexistence of an alleged something. It is existence that requires evidence. -------------------------------------------------- ... > > So the characteristic of 'not-self' is not to be seen by looking for > a self and not finding one (anyone could 'do' that), but rather by > the development of understanding of the true nature of dhammas. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Only because it is only the dhammas that are ever actually observed. ----------------------------------------------------- 29348 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 1:03am Subject: Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism Hello Jeffrey, I wonder if you believe people can never have too much of a 'good thing'? Your post is identical to a post entitled "Jhana is Ecstasy" that you made to this list (and many others) on Monday 8 December, 2003, merely with the addition of the patronising remarks to Htoo added to the first paragraph. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/27786 As well, it seems there are an excess of unfortunates, today they included Htoo and David from Insightpractice List, who just 'don't understand' {?agree with your understanding?} of ecstasy, gnosis, jhana, if the post to insightpractice group is anything to go on. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/insightpractice/message/13610 Htoo's understanding of English and the Dhamma has always seemed remarkably clear and mature to me, I regard him as someone with much to teach us all. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey S. Brooks" <<<>>> > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" > wrote: > > Dear James, > > > > How nice you redirected to be on the right path! Jhana is just for > > Sammasamadhi as one of Eight Parts of The Path. > > > > Jhana should not be assume as ecstacy. Jhana is Jhana and ecstacy is > > ecstacy. If one of illegal drugs is used,one might be in a state of > > ecstacy but not in Jhana. > > > > Jhana finally should not be interpreted as ecstacy. > > > > May you be able to reach Jhana. > > > > With Unlimited Metta, > > > > Htoo Naing 29349 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 4:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism Hi Jeffrey Jhana is literally meant as meditation according to PEDs (online electronic version). There is no doubt that in Jhana there is a feeling of pleasure or equanimity. If you equate ecstasy as in the feeling portion of jhana that is agreeable to me, however if you equate the whole of Jhana as ecatasy then we should look at the sutta text whether your definition is in accordance with the suttas, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an09-035.html Gavi Sutta "The thought occurs to him, 'What if, with the fading of rapture, I... were to enter & remain in the third jhana...' Without jumping at the third jhana, with the fading of rapture, he remains in equanimity, mindful & alert, and physically sensitive to pleasure, entering & remaining in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' He sticks with that theme, develops it, pursues it, & establishes himself firmly in it. "The thought occurs to him, 'What if I... were to enter & remain in the fourth jhana...' Without jumping at the fourth jhana, with the abandoning of pleasure & stress -- as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress -- he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither-pleasure-nor-pain. He sticks with that theme, develops it, pursues it, & establishes himself firmly in it.>> K: If you see that in the fourth Jhana, it does not just include ecstasy but it also includes mindfulnss. Hence I dont think you translation of jhana is ecstasy is correct. Ecstasy is part of jhana and not the whole of jhana. k: furthermore, jhana not accompanied by wisdom is not Buddhist practise, during Buddha times, there are already acestics reach jhana levels without panna. Hence Buddhist concept of jhana is not just ecstasy but also includes panna and mindfulness best wishes Ken O 29350 From: nidive Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 4:44am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Howard, > ... then all conditioned objects of consciousness are > dependent on consciousness, and do not exist independent of > consciousness. In particular, rupas do not exist other than > as objects of consciousness. Mentality-materiality depends on consciousness and consciousness depends on mentality-materiality. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-067.html "Just now, friend Sariputta, I understood your statement as, 'It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that name-&-form are self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that -- without self-making or other-making -- it arises spontaneously. However, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form' But then I understood your statement as, 'It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that consciousness is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that -- without self-making or other-making -- it arises spontaneously.' However, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.' Now how is the meaning of these statements to be understood?" "Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form 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 suffering & stress. "If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html "And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements & the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form." [SN XII.2] Regards, Swee Boon 29351 From: connie Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 5:02am Subject: Re: Angulimala revisited Hi, Sarah, Ken O, ... I think most of what there is is given in MN86. The commentaries don't add much more. Where was your scary Mongolian Jataka tale from? (Ken O, I don't think this was from the Pali canon). .. c: Nope, not Pali Canon, Ken - a book called the Sutra of the Wise and the Foolish or Ocean of Narratives... "legend telling us that the tales were heard in Khotan by Chinese monks", then on into Tibet and Mongolia... a 1714 Peking xylograph translated by Stanley Frye. Someone once said there are no non-Buddhist teachings; I think it means there are only dhammas when we read it right. > ...the longest scary story still just might > be The Momentary Existence Saga. ... Connie, could you elaborate on your comments here. I think it could be useful. TIA (Azita, Jon explained to me that non-medically this means thx in advance, i.e if I thank now, I don't have to again when you write back to me;-)) Thx also for sharing the steps with Icaro;-) ... c: Ok, Sarah, just that it's all stories... whether they're strung out over aeons of lives, just this one, just today or a single consciousness-originated breath... the stories last, but each little All is just namas and rupas; life is only as long as a single thought moment and even what I call good kamma rests on defilements. We just keep on, like those countless 1000's doing the Angulimala; or I look down in the snow on my way to the post office and I'm walking in the same footsteps I made two days ago. Walking with the neighbour last summer, it was my old tracks in the dust two miles from here. There are stories in my life I'd rather not repeat, however interesting they might be, but the footsteps say I've walked over the same mountain of bones so much I don't even know how deep the ruts are or how much higher it would be if I had all my thumbs. To make it a short story, we never know what those 7 javana dwarves are going to mine, but we wear the necklaces and are distracted by ever more glitter, all of it pauper's gems, while Pinocchio brings such passion to the interpretive dance that no one's watching the doors; robbers waltz in and we're carried away with ourselves by the ring in our nose, forgetting to listen to the wind as we shuffle off to hell. metta, connie 29352 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 6:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sarah, levels of defilements Dear Azita, I am glad you mention this. Don't worry, Jon checks Email every day. See below. op 25-01-2004 02:43 schreef gazita2002 op gazita2002@y...: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom > wrote: >> We see from these text quotations that there are three levels of >> defilements: >> Defilements that are transgressions (vítikkama kilesa), coarse > defilements >> of the degree of unwholesome courses of action. >> Defilements one is possessed by and that arise (pariyutthåna > kilesa) are >> medium defilements that disturb the citta. >> Latent tendencies (anusaya kilesa) are subtle defilements that lie > dormant >> in the citta and that can be completely eradicated by the four > Paths (at the >> four stages of enlightenment) > > Why are the defilements grouped like this? It is my > understanding that they are all of the akusala cetasikas, or most of > them, so what is the advantage to developing wisdom, to know these > different degrees? N: It is useful to know that there are different levels of these akusala cetasikas. Otherwise we may, for example, think that the following of rules is sufficient and delude ourselves into thinking that when we just observe sila we are doing very well. Then we do not see the danger of latent tendencies which are subtle but powerful. We do not see that these can condition the actual arising of akusala cetasikas with akusala citta (pariyutthaana kilesa) any time. Or someone may think that it is sufficient to develop jhana, since that can subdue defilements temporarily. We read in the Suttas that the Buddha said time and again that just jhana is not enough. Thus, these levels show us all the more the danger of latent tendencies. When these are not eradicated, we shall be troubled by akusala all the time. The lokuttara citta eradicates latent tendencies, in different stages. People may wonder why it is said that sila, taught in the Vinaya, opposes coarse defilements, concentration (read: samadhi), taught in the Suttanta, opposes medium defilements and panna, taught in the Abhidhamma, opposes subtle defilements. This is a tripartite division of sila, samadhi and panna, such as we find also in the suttas and in the Visuddhimagga: the first words, with a sutta quote: Here is the tripartite division, that is a division according to method, to the method of teaching. It does not mean that there has to be first sila, then samadhi, then panna, as we often discussed. Only Buddhas can teach satipatthana, and satipatthana is implied in all three Tipitakas. Sila should never be separated from satipatthana, otherwise it cannot become perfected. In the Suttanta not only jhana is taught. In the Suttas the Buddha taught satipatthana all the time, and he adapted his teaching to the capability of the listeners. When we reflect on the suttas, there is calm, samadhi. The suttas remind us to persevere developing understanding of nama and rupa. By means of the Abhidhamma the Buddha taught ultimate realities, the objects of satipatthana. But we should remember that there is Abhidhamma in the Vinaya and in the Suttanta. We shall discuss all this, Azita. Thanks for the tip. Nina. 29353 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 6:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Buddha's disease Hi Eddie, op 25-01-2004 01:30 schreef Eddie Lou op eddielou_us@y...: I think, the website should also have it proof-read > and edited properly as to its correctness. N: What is more, this was published by the Pali text society in Journal 26. The PTS is much respected for the Pali texts they publish and all their translations. E: He can say his mind but should be careful to say more > clearly if it his own opinion or a hearsay. Lest it > can be taken as a true fact that Buddha really > grumbled, senility and so on and so forth. That itself > can be seen as anomalies as we understand what it (in > modern terms, - the model) means to be a > fully-enlightened Buddha. His physical body maybe just > like us, subject to wear and tear but his mind/wisdom > ??? , I do not think so. N: The Buddha developed the perfections for aeons, and all his excellent qualities conditioned the rupas of his body. Sutta: D III, Sutta 30, The marks of the Superman. Thritytwo marks. When we read about these, we may at first sight not understand them. But the meaning of the sutta is this: to show how his excellent qualities were expressed by his bodily characteristics. Nama conditions rupa. We read about his dana, his sila, his compassion in helping others: We read about his serenity, not being angry, and <.. he acquires this Mark of the Superman, to wit, his complexion is like bronze, and his skin is like gold>. Elsewhere in the Suttanta these marks are mentioned. The Commentator Buddhaghosa, in the Co to the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta (and he rendered the words of the oldest commentaries he edited) refers with deep respect to these marks, and we read about the Buddha and his son Rahula: When Rahula looked at the Buddha he thought: We also read that sometimes the Buddha hid his aura, he always thought of the welfare of others. E: That complete, all-knowing wisdom of his is the single > crowning attribute (achieved the hard way by almost > countless - more than 100,000 worlds (not 100,000 > lives) - of parami/merits accumulation) that made any > fully-enlightened Buddha totally different from us and > even Pacceka Buddhas. N: The Buddha's qualities were unsurpassable. How could we compare a Fully Enlightened One with an ordinary human being. But the Buddha himself stated that his faculties were declining with old age. Thus he indicated that even a Buddha's bodily appearance is impermanent. But at this moment we still have his teachings. Appreciating your post, Nina. 29354 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 6:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Hi Howard, good you brought this up. Worth discussing. op 24-01-2004 19:17 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > Perhaps I should explain what I mean by "As soon as we open our mouth, > the distinction evaporates!" What I mean is that as soon as we speak or write > or think, it is all concept-only. For example, the "hardness" we think of is > not the hardness we directly experience. N: this also touches on the question can the subtle rupa be experienced through mind-door. How? Only through insight? H: Thus even the thought of a hardness, > no longer directly references the intended paramattha dhamma - it references a > constructed concept forged by the mind from memories of many actual > hardnesses of varying degrees and sorts. N: I am thinking of the Buddha who pointed to paramattha dhammas all the time. He was speaking about them. He used words, concepts, but, a concept can denote what is real and also what is not real. When it denotes what is real, it can help others to reflect on reality and later on be directly aware of it. This is what counts. It does not matter if we at first only think, because there may be right thinking, correct thinking and this is a foundation for satipatthana. The Buddha reminded people of ultimates when speaking, all the time. Also when we listen or read just now, there may be thinking *about* realities, but in between realities are appearing very naturally. When speaking or listening: hearing, sound, thinking, seeing. When people listened to the Buddha they could be aware of all types of realities appearing during that time and even attain enlightenment there and then. Nina. 29355 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 6:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Prompting Beautiful Consciousness-Andrew Dear Azita, I appreciate your explanation, Azita, it is not me. The Buddha said to Rahula, to think first before speaking. It seems like *we* can do that, we can pause and think, but in fact it all depends on conditions what types of citta arise. But the fact that the Buddha said this was in itself a reminder that could be a condition for Rahula to have wise attention instead of unwise attention. And Rahula understood already that this is not to be taken for self. Nina. op 25-01-2004 02:17 schreef gazita2002 op gazita2002@y...: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" > wrote: >> Your question - can I prompt BC? (snip) Azita: ... > I guess its all our kilesa that makes us think it is 'us' that > do good things/bad things. I believe that by knowning about > kusala/akusala can be a condition for that 'deliberate endeavour'. > There is endeavour and there is restraint, but its not 'me'. 29356 From: Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 3:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Aggregates and detachment (was, characteristics) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 1/25/04 3:32:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard: > I largely agree with that. In fact it is a point I recently made in a > post (to Larry, I think) about meditating. However, I don't think the > process is entirely linear. As one starts to see the tilakkhana in > dhammas, concepts begin to lose their hold. As one starts to see > through concepts, it becomes easier to see the nature of dhammas. > There is sort of a positive feeback loop between the two levels of > developing wisdom. > > J: It's good to find ourselves in agreement! I'm just not sure > about your 'positive feedback loop’ model in this particular > instance. The reason I say that is that although the Buddha spoke > repeatedly about seeing the tilakkhana in dhammas, I'm not sure he > spoke about 'seeing through concepts'. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: That's true. He didn't use that sort of language. I do think, though, that my meaning when I use it is compatible with the Buddha's teachings. -------------------------------------------------- Happy to be corrected,> > though. > > ------------------------------------------------- > Pannatti do not form part of the 'soil' in> > >which understanding can grow. But with the development of panna > they > >are no longer taken for something that is real. > > > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > We are likely pretty much in agreement on this, Jon. > > J: Thanks, Howard. The key, as ever, is the development of panna. > There's not a lot else to say;-)) > > 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) 29357 From: Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 3:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism Hi, James (and Jeff) - In a message dated 1/25/04 4:08:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Hi Jeff: > > Jeff: Dear James, you do not get ecstasy (jhana) without > concetration). > > James: Jeff, you missed my point. Jhana is NOT defined as Ecstasy!! > If you want just ecstasy, go buy some pills! ;-)) Stop defining > Jhana as ecstasy. Jhana is: vitakka (directed thought), vicara > (evaluation), piti (rapture), sukha (pleasure), and ekaggatarammana > (singleness of preoccupation). You are presently concerning yourself > with only piti and sukha and thinking that is everything. That was > my point. > > Metta, James > ============================= I agree with what you say, James. Moreover, the rapture leaves upon entry to the 2nd jhana, being replaced by great joy, and then even sukkha is replaced by more of a "satisfaction," and then even that is gone leaving only equanimity, which is optimal for investigation of dhammas, and is far from ecstasy. However, there is the possibility of quickly shuttling between jhanas, for example, between the 2nd & 5th, so that one *seems* to experience extraordinary joy simultaneously with infinite space. That "combination," which I've experienced, turns out to be specifically described by Ven Sheng-Yen in his discussion of "silent illumination" meditation in his book "The Footsteps of the Ox." With jhana-shuttling, one may *seem* to experience a mixing of jhana characteristics. 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) 29358 From: Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 4:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, Swee Boon - Nice to hear from you! :-) In a message dated 1/25/04 7:45:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > Mentality-materiality depends on consciousness and consciousness > depends on mentality-materiality. > > ========================== Yes, that's right. I agree. The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta is one of my favorites. 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) 29359 From: Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 4:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Hi, Nina - In a message dated 1/25/04 9:38:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > > Hi Howard, > good you brought this up. Worth discussing. > op 24-01-2004 19:17 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > >Perhaps I should explain what I mean by "As soon as we open our mouth, > >the distinction evaporates!" What I mean is that as soon as we speak or > write > >or think, it is all concept-only. For example, the "hardness" we think of > is > >not the hardness we directly experience. > N: this also touches on the question can the subtle rupa be experienced > through mind-door. How? Only through insight? > H: Thus even the thought of a hardness, > >no longer directly references the intended paramattha dhamma - it > references a > >constructed concept forged by the mind from memories of many actual > >hardnesses of varying degrees and sorts. > N: I am thinking of the Buddha who pointed to paramattha dhammas all the > time. He was speaking about them. He used words, concepts, but, a concept > can denote what is real and also what is not real. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Of course. But with concepts there is always an indirection. They are the vehicle for thought and communication, but they do not constitute direct seeing. They constitute *pointing*. Thank goodness for the Buddha who knew perfectly where and how to point! -------------------------------------------- > When it denotes what is > real, it can help others to reflect on reality and later on be directly > aware of it. This is what counts. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: No question. There is a real distinction between true and useful speech and misleading speech. -------------------------------------------- It does not matter if we at first only> > think, because there may be right thinking, correct thinking and this is a > foundation for satipatthana. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: I have no argument with this. ----------------------------------------- The Buddha reminded people of ultimates when> > speaking, all the time. Also when we listen or read just now, there may be > thinking *about* realities, but in between realities are appearing very > naturally. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. There is useful thinking "about," and there is direct knowing. These are related, but quite different. ------------------------------------------ When speaking or listening: hearing, sound, thinking, seeing.> > When people listened to the Buddha they could be aware of all types of > realities appearing during that time and even attain enlightenment there and > then. ------------------------------------------ Howard: For sure. A mind that is well cultivated may turn towards reality and awakening in a brief moment in response to just the right statement made in just the right way. It is what the Zen folks call a "turning word". ----------------------------------------- > Nina. > > ===================== 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) 29360 From: Htoo Naing Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 9:37am Subject: Sensing feeling where it arises and where it vanishes ( 01 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, We have been travelling through our Samsara, wheel of life that is life after life endlessly. Some wise men had got through the Samsara and there is no more traces of them here in Samsara, the circle of life that is life after life. There had been many Arahats who had gone and left the Samsara. Those all Arahats can be classified into three groups according to their status of how they were enlightened and their power to share the method. The first group of Arahats are Sammasambuddhas. Samma means right, rightly, righteousness, genuine and Buddhas are those who are self-fully-enlightened. Sammasambuddhas are the most intelligent, the most powerful, the widest wisdom holding Arahats and they hold all the most. These Arahats do not have any teacher for their enlightenment and they are self-enlightened Arahats. They can show the way round to others. They are Sammasambuddhas and simply called The Buddha. Their Nana is called Sammasambodhi. The second group of Arahats are Pacchekabuddhas. They are also self-enlightened and they do not have any teacher for their enlightenment. They are next to Sammasambuddhas in terms of wisdom or Nana. But Pacchekabuddhas do not show the way up to other beings and they just get through the Samsara on their own and each gone. Their wisdom is called Pacchekabodhi. They do not teach other beings. The third group of Arahats are Savakas. Apart from Sammasambuddhas and Pacchekabuddhas all other Arahats are Savaka. Savaka means pupil. They can never be enlightened on their own but with the aid The Buddha or His Disciples. This aid may be direct or indirect and this may be a library-full of books or just a single word or single sentence or single verse or single item of speech. The wisdom of these Arahats is called Savakabodhi. Those who are practising to get through the Samsara can also be designated as Bhikkhu even though they are not monks. The Dhamma practitioner is striving to get through the Samsara. He has been practising for a long time. He has practised contemplation on his own body. Through his body he can access to all senses and he knows all senses at each time they appear at their respective door. Every time he contemplates on his own body he sometimes notices that there is something that arises along with each event. That something is sometimes not conspicuous but at a time it is very obviously displayed. That something is sometimes vividly seen with his mind-eye and sometimes not. He decides to contemplate on that something. It is a kind of feeling. At every moment, there always is a feeling. It is called Vedana. Now the Dhamma practitioner is looking at each feeling and he is contemplating on Vedana. May all beings contemplate on feelings where they arise. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 29361 From: m. nease Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:46am Subject: Jaatavidasa Note Dear Mods and Friends, Today is my birthday, anniversary of the most unfortunate (because reborn) and most auspicious (because human) of events for Buddhists. I think that most take this as a once-in-a-lifetime event. In my opinion, understanding that death and rebirth occur at every instant is an indispensible step for beginning to understand the Buddhadhamma. A lifetime is a concept--so this is also an opening into sacca vs paramattha dhamma, so essential to understanding dhamma, Dhamma and abhidhamma. Here's hoping that each will come to understand this in her/his own way and time. Cheers, mike 29362 From: icarofranca Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:58am Subject: Re: Jaatavidasa Note Great Mike "Today is my birthday," ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cheerio, great Mike!!!! It´s good to hear about you again! I just imagine you were out on Asia, clearing a path on a dense, tropical forest to find and ancient and lost buddhist temple or stupa like the good Allan Quartemain!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------- anniversary of the most unfortunate (because reborn) and most auspicious (because human) of events for Buddhists. ---------------------------------------------------------------- I think that´s a good oportunity (no martian pun intended!) to find the words of Buddha and to put it in diary pratice! ------------------------------------------------------------------ I think that most take this as a once-in-a-lifetime event. In my opinion, understanding that death and rebirth occur at every instant is an indispensible step for beginning to understand the Buddhadhamma. A lifetime is a concept--so this is also an opening into sacca vs paramattha dhamma, so essential to understanding dhamma, Dhamma and abhidhamma. > > Here's hoping that each will come to understand this in her/his own way and time. ------------------------------------------------------------------- I will make mine your words!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A Happy Birthday to you, Good Mike!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mettaya, Icaro 29363 From: Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 6:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Jaatavidasa Note Hi, Mike - Happy birthday, Mike! May you be happy and well, and may this be a time of reaffirming right effort. But what is it that is that dies and is reborn at every instant? ;-) Please don't answer with a stock quotation, but just turn your mind to the question, and look with the intention of seeing. I think this is a matter of critical importance. I'm certainly not saying I have "the answer", though, somehow, it seems to be lurking "in the back of my mind", rather like "being on the tip of one's tongue". ;-). With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/25/04 1:47:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, mlnease@z... writes: > Dear Mods and Friends, > > Today is my birthday, anniversary of the most unfortunate (because reborn) > and most auspicious (because human) of events for Buddhists. I think that > most take this as a once-in-a-lifetime event. In my opinion, understanding that > death and rebirth occur at every instant is an indispensible step for > beginning to understand the Buddhadhamma. A lifetime is a concept--so this is also > an opening into sacca vs paramattha dhamma, so essential to understanding > dhamma, Dhamma and abhidhamma. > > Here's hoping that each will come to understand this in her/his own way and > time. > > Cheers, > > mike > /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) 29364 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 0:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Swee Boon and Howard, Swee Boon, I am really glad to see you again. I think your quotes make it very clear how intricate conditions are. And it clarifies what is exactly meant by nama and rupa being dependent on citta. We also find many details in the Visuddhimagga XVII, 218 etc. Citta: rebirth-consciousness and vipakacitta in life, conditions nama and rupa. Which nama? The conascent cetasikas. Which rupa? It conditions rupa by way of conascence only at the moment of birth and after that by way of postnascence, and that goes for all rupas of the body, no matter they are produced by kamma, by citta, by temperature or by nutrition. Nama and rupa condition the six bases: the five sensebases and the sixth: the mind-base which is citta. See also Ven Nyanatiloka dict. this gives many details. And B.B.: The Great Discourse on Causation. I find the subject always difficult, have to do some homework, but that won't hurt. Thus we have to study exactly which nama (citta or cetasika) and which rupa (great elements, sensebases etc.) are conditions in which way and when. By way of conascence, postnascence or prenascence. Nina. op 25-01-2004 13:44 schreef nidive op nidive@y...: Howard wrote: >> ... then all conditioned objects of consciousness are >> dependent on consciousness, and do not exist independent of >> consciousness. In particular, rupas do not exist other than >> as objects of consciousness. Swee Boon quotes: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-067.html > (snip) > It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one > another. In the same way, from name-&-form 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.(snip) > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html > > "And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & > attention: This is called name. The four great elements & the form > dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & > this form are called name-&-form." > > [SN XII.2] 29365 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 0:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi James, thanks, appreciating, Nina. op 25-01-2004 09:43 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > > I'm glad that you appreciated the sutta. Hope you have a nice time > on your trip. Don't worry about a thing. 29366 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 0:16pm Subject: Re: Jaatavidasa Note Hello Mike,:-) May you have a happy day - you are born (this time) on the same auspicious day as the modern nation of Australia. Here, for most of us, it is a wonderful day of excitement in the present, hope for the future and gratitude for the past. May this be your experience and the experience of your loved ones. :-) For others, those of us who were dispossessed at the coming of the Europeans it is an unfortunate day, Invasion day - filled with resentment, hurt and wondering why. Though the past can't be changed, may there be understanding, reconciliation and healing in the present and future. We are many, but we are One. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Mods and Friends, > > Today is my birthday, anniversary of the most unfortunate (because reborn) and most auspicious (because human) of events for Buddhists. I think that most take this as a once-in-a-lifetime event. In my opinion, understanding that death and rebirth occur at every instant is an indispensible step for beginning to understand the Buddhadhamma. A lifetime is a concept--so this is also an opening into sacca vs paramattha dhamma, so essential to understanding dhamma, Dhamma and abhidhamma. > > Here's hoping that each will come to understand this in her/his own way and time. > > Cheers, > > mike 29367 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 0:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Jaatavidasa Note Dear Mike, op 25-01-2004 19:46 schreef m. nease op mlnease@z...: > Today is my birthday,...In my opinion, understanding that > death and rebirth occur at every instant is an indispensible step for > beginning to understand the Buddhadhamma. A lifetime is a concept--so this is > also an opening into sacca vs paramattha dhamma, so essential to understanding > dhamma, Dhamma and abhidhamma. > > Here's hoping that each will come to understand this in her/his own way and > time. N: All good wishes for a happy and fruitful year with Dhamma. And, as you say, we should not forget momentary birth and death. As you say, you hope that Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 3:18pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi James, You provided the reference to Pali Canon and went through an analysis of why you believe the Four Noble Truths are presented on both a conventional and ultimate level. While your analysis does show that you characterize the Four Noble Truths as both ultimate and conventional, the passage you provided and your analysis do not indicate in anyway that the Buddha himself characterized the Four Noble Truths as such. The reference itself and your analysis do not support your claim that the Buddha characterize the Four Noble Truths as both ultimate and conventional. I did not make the claim that the Buddha characterized the Four Noble Truths as both ultimate and conventional. The burden of backing up such claim is not mine. Again, the question was: Did the Buddha characterize the Four Noble Truths as ultimate or conventional? The question was not about if you think or believe the Four Noble Truths are ultimate or conventional. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Victor: If the Buddha indeed characterized the Four Noble Truths as > ultimate or as both ultimate and conventional, could anyone find a > reference to the discourses in the Pali Canon indicating that the > Buddha did characterize the Four Noble Truths as such? > > James: I already gave references to the Pali Canon to support what I > said. Please see post: 29321. If you don't agree or don't think > that these are sufficient, I think you should find further references > yourself. > > Metta, James 29369 From: Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 4:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Howard, One flaw in your logic. The formula doesn't say that namarupa _only_ arises as an object of consciousness. If that were the case we would only be alive when life force was an object. Larry -------------------- Howard: "If feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention, and the four great elements and the material form derived from the four great elements all arise dependent on consciousness and cease with the cessation of consciousness, as this directly says, then all conditioned objects of consciousness are dependent on consciousness, and do not exist independent of consciousness. In particular, rupas do not exist other than as objects of consciousness." 29370 From: Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 4:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Hi Nina and Howard, I've been contemplating this for a few days and I'm wondering if something is being left out in the progress of insight as outlined in the Visuddhimagga, namely, the investigation of concepts. For example, investigating a whole to see if there is in reality a whole; or investigating a concept such as beauty to see if it actually exists. Why isn't this considered to be an element of insight? Isn't the majority of our attachments to concepts? Larry 29371 From: Akasa Levi Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 6:44pm Subject: Love & Other Difficulties: Rilke, Rumi & Buddha On Relationship - Sunday MEDITATION February 8 Love & Other Difficulties: Rilke, Rumi & Buddha On Relationship - Sunday MEDITATION February 8 - Laughing Buddha Sangha ... please MAX your screen The collection of words that follows is literally my 'labor of love' - the world's literature on love is huge, but only some of it maturely intelligent and not naive sentimental sugar. We've tried to offer you the very best. Read some of it now, as the Meditation Retreat will be mostly in silence. Please feel free to use anything you read in this email to send to your friends & loved ones . and enjoy! _____________________________________________________________________________ "Love doesn't make the world go 'round. Love is what makes the ride worthwhile" ~ Adida meditation: simply the power of silence. Some Silent Hours of Again Establishing Stillness & Clarity... Simply being in silence with silent group support. Silence works! The Laughing Buddha Sangha zen men mystic women: vipassana meditation with akasa levi Our February Laughing Buddha Sangha "Awakening Practice" Sunday FEBRUARY 8 ... SAVE the Date - Please RSVP earlier! Be in Silence from 10am til' 3pm ... in Santa Monica and check www.LADharma.org Scroll near bottom-half for more Details... "Love is the difficult realization that something other than oneself is real" ~ Iris Murdoch ________________________________________ " Love exists only in the Friendship. Love is Friendship set on fire." ~ Rilke Love & Other Difficulties Rilke, Rumi & Buddha On Relationship: February 8 A Tint of Rose Color & Insightful Thorns as Our Retreat is Near Valentine's Day Romance? Longing? Passion? Friendship? Marriage? Solitude? Absence? Abandonment? Naivety? Hiding Out? Loneliness? Loss? Grief? Given Up? Resentment? Forgiveness? Uncompromised Creativity & Divine Callings? We're encouraged by Buddha's relaxed, intimate non-attachment practice versus a protective, aloof spiritual indifference or obsessive co-dependency... " Talk not of wasted affection - affection never was wasted. It is impossible to repent of love. The sin of love does not exist." ~ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow _____________________________________ "A spiritual awakening which does not awaken the sleeper to Love, has roused him in vain" Rainer Maria Rilke, (1875-1926) world-renown German existential poet/author "On Love & Other Difficulties" Highly mature, sobering letters and poems on love - show Rilke's profound understanding of men and women and his ardent spirituality. His radical books, were written over ninety years ago in the avant-garde' bohemian Paris of Picasso. Rilke introduces the contradictory concept of solitude as a blessing. He seems to have this way of reaching into your inner soul and grabbing a hold of 'your reality' and making you face it, in a tone of controlled urgency, in a passionate sort of way. Experimental openness to experience, on grasping what is most difficult - and turning what is most alien into that which we can most trust. XXXA __________________________________________________________________________________________________ "The best relationship is the one in which your love for each other exceeds your need for each other" On Love & Other Difficulties... by Rilke ..deep reading certainly not for lovers of the naive " The point of marital or any relationship is not to create a quick commonality by tearing down all boundaries - on the contrary, a good relationship is one in which each partner anoints the other to be the guardian of their solitude, and in this they show each other the greatest possible trust. This I hold to be the highest task of a bond between two people: that each should stand guard over the solitude of the other. For, since it lies in the nature of indifference or insecurity of the common crowd to recognize no solitude - then love and friendship are specifically there for the purpose of continually providing the opportunity for solitude. And only love and friendship are the true sharings which rhythmically interrupt periods of deep solitary emotion. " ___________________________________ " A merging, a togetherness between two people is an impossibility - and where it seems to exist, nevertheless - yes, it is a narrowing, a hemming-in, a mutual compromised consent, that really does limit one party or both of their fullest freedom and development. But once the realization is accepted that even between the closest people, infinite distance continues to exist - a wonderful living side-by-side can grow up for them - if they succeed in loving the expanse, loving the distance between them - which gives them the possibility of always seeing each other as a whole being before an immense wide sky! " "On Love & Other Difficulties" ~ the above was adapted from Translations and Considerations of Rainier Maria Rilke by John Mood; W.W. Norton, 1975 and The Selected Poetry of Rainer Maria Rilke by Stephen Mitchell & Robert Hass; Vintage, 1989 - both as translated from the German. _____________________________________ " Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart. Try to love the 'Questions' themselves - like locked rooms and like books that are written in a foreign language. Do not right now seek for the Answers. The 'Answers' which cannot now be given to you -because you would not be able to live them. And the point is to live everything - experiencing everything. At present, you need to live the Questions. Perhaps you will then gradually, without even noticing it, live along some distant day into the Answer. " ~ Rilke's "Letters to a Young Poet" (1903-1908) "...a change of heart changes everything " _________________________________ Jelaluddin Rumi (1207-1273) Sufi mystic poet from eastern Persia in what is now Afghanistan Let the lover be disgraceful, crazy, absent-minded. Someone sober will worry about events going badly. Let the lover be. Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it. Come out of the circle of time And into the circle of love. _____________________ Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) French paleontologist and philosopher of the avant garde The day will come when, after harnessing the winds, the tides and gravitation - we shall harness for God the energies of Love. And on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire. _____________________________________________________________________ In the middle ages, romantic young men and women drew names from a basket to see who their Valentines would be. They would then wear these names on their sleeves for one week. This is said to be the origin of the expression, "wearing your heart on your sleeve." You come to Love not by finding the 'perfect' person, but by seeing an imperfect person perfectly. ~ Sam Keen Do you love me because I'm beautiful, or am I am beautiful because you love me? ~ Oscar Hammerstein On reflection, one of the things I needed to learn was to allow myself to be loved. ~ Isha McKenzie-Mavinga, The Quaker Reader I love people. I love my family, my children - but inside myself is a place where I live all alone and that's where you renew your springs that never dry up. ~ Pearl S. Buck To fall in love is easy, even to remain in it is not difficult - our human loneliness is cause enough. But it is a hard quest worth making to find a 'comrade' through whose steady presence you become steadily the person you desire to be. ~ Anna Louise Strong Love doesn't just sit there like a stone - it has to be made, like bread, remade all the time, made new. ~ Ursula K. LeGuin, "The Lathe of Heaven" The pain of love is the pain of being alive. It is a perpetual wound. ~ Maureen Duffy Love is but the discovery of ourselves in others, and the delight in the recognition ~ Alexander Smith *************************************************************** some DETAILS & CONTACT info for Sunday FEBRUARY 8 meditation: simply the power of silence. The Laughing Buddha Sangha zen men mystic women: vipassana meditation with akasa levi Our February Laughing Buddha Sangha "Awakening Practice" Sunday FEBRUARY 8 ... SAVE the Date - Please RSVP early! We Gather & Settle Down at 9:30am - and Sit in Silence from 10am til' 3pm in 25 minute sitting-periods with plenty of breaks as usual. and some poetry And then we just sit down again & wait - again allowing 'Stillness' to take over. 12713 Dewey Street, CA90066 - is just south of Santa Monica Airport off Walgrove Ave ( 2 blocks north of Rose Ave) just at the edge of Santa Monica & Mar Vista. ______________________________________ You can always check www.LADharma.org under "A Sunday of Silent Awareness" for MORE DETAILS about the day's program, what to bring, very exact driving directions & teacher biography. Please RSVP by phone 310-450-2268 or email AkasaLevi@m... ______________________________________________ If you know someone in your life who just might benefit by our meditation instruction, please put them in touch with us by phone or email... or if you've made an RSVP, and they'd like to come to... check with us & then bring them! ____________________________________________________________ some Housekeeping Notes for NEWCOMER'S and some other folks also... About RSVPs ~ Please, we'd like your RSVP by phone 310-450-2268 or email AkasaLevi@m... as soon as you can, if you're coming! It really helps us plan, as our sweet little space does get limited... but even last minute just might be OK -- but please, call & check with us... NEWCOMERS ~ IF YOUR PLANS DO CHANGE - people usually let us know by phone if they suddenly can't come, even down to the very last minute -- so that we may offer your patch of floor-space to another valuable person & not have to turn them away as we do not keep a waiting list -- so please be kind, CALL IN and let us know before Sunday morning. Being a 'newcomer' anywhere is always a challenge! Our thanks to you in the spirit of loving-kindness... About Donations ~ All of our Laughing Buddha Program Set Up Costs & Rentals are totally supported by the kindness-practice of your voluntary donations. And they get completely used up! There is never any charge for the Dharma Teachings themselves. Akasa's role as 'teacher' is his donation -- his living-income does not depend on your donations. Our overhead does! A donation by you of $25 - $30 is suggested & does feel very reasonable for a 1/2 day workshop. AND. No one is ever turned away for lesser or lack of funds. We Thank You! You can always check www.LADharma.org under "A Sunday of Silent Awareness" for MORE DETAILS about the day's program, what to bring, very exact driving directions & teacher biography. Please RSVP by phone 310-450-2268 or email AkasaLevi@m... _________________________________________________________ some real classic quotes: maybe store these emails, there's a lot of goodies here! There is more hunger for Love and Appreciation in this world than for bread. Loneliness and the feeling of being unwanted is the most terrible. We can do no great things - only small things with great love. ~ Mother Teresa Better to have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all ~ St. Augustine Love and Compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them humanity cannot survive. ~ The Dalai Lama Be the change you want to see in the world " ~ Gandhi Kindness in words creates confidence. Kindness in thinking creates profoundness. Kindness in giving creates love. ~ Lao Tzu To be loved, be lovable. ~ Ovid _________________________ The Laughing Buddha Sangha zen men mystic women meditate The Spiritual Adulthood Dharma Project Santa Monica ~ CA 90405 ~ USA 310-450-2268 AkasaLevi@m... Monthly MEDITATION ~ "The POWER of SILENT AWARENESS" One Sunday Each Month, 10am-3pm ~ details www.LADharma.org 2004 Sunday RETREAT DATES: January 11, February 8, March 7, April 4, May 2, June 6, July 11, August 8 ... and ongoing Weekly MEN's GROUP at The Medicine Men's Lodge - Wed 7:30pm Weekly DHARMA STUDY GROUPS: please phone to inquire or apply Individual COUNSELING & THERAPY: more details, phone Noon-6pm 29372 From: Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 2:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/25/04 7:28:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > One flaw in your logic. The formula doesn't say that namarupa _only_ > arises as an object of consciousness. If that were the case we would > only be alive when life force was an object. > > Larry > -------------------- > Howard: "If feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention, and > the four great elements and the material form derived from the four > great elements all arise dependent on consciousness and cease with the > cessation of consciousness, as this directly says, then all conditioned > objects of consciousness are dependent on consciousness, and do not > exist independent of consciousness. In particular, rupas do not exist > other than as objects of consciousness." > > > > =========================== That namarupa arises with consciousness as sole condition would, indeed, be a flawed assumption were I to assume it, but I did not and do not. I merely said that consciousness is "a" condition (not "the" condition), and a necessary one, for the arising of namarupa. That is, indeed, what the sutta says. There is no flaw in the logic used based on that assumption, as that assumption was never made and never used. 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) 29373 From: Jeffrey S. Brooks Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 7:12pm Subject: Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism Hello James, and thank-you for your kind reply. While I have gotten your "point" all along it does not seem that my point is sinking into you. As long as one depends on translation of the Tipitaka by translators who have never experienced jhana and the other supramundane phenomena, you will never read a translation of the Tipitaka that will not lead you into ignorance, delusion and doubt. Many blessings to you, Jeff Brooks --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Jeff: > > Jeff: Dear James, you do not get ecstasy (jhana) without > concetration). > > James: Jeff, you missed my point. Jhana is NOT defined as Ecstasy!! > If you want just ecstasy, go buy some pills! ;-)) Stop defining > Jhana as ecstasy. Jhana is: vitakka (directed thought), vicara > (evaluation), piti (rapture), sukha (pleasure), and ekaggatarammana > (singleness of preoccupation). You are presently concerning yourself > with only piti and sukha and thinking that is everything. That was > my point. > > Metta, James 29374 From: Jeffrey S. Brooks Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 7:21pm Subject: Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism Hello Christine, and thank-you for your rather challenging reply. I did not intend any offense to Htoo, but when someone who is not a native speaker of the language that I was born and raised up in and acquired a degree in the study of, attempts to define for me what those words mean, I believe that person is walking on thin ice. Don't you think? Also, when a person who may have given rise to jhana wishes to argue with me how jhana manifests and how to describe it in my native language, again I believe this person is walking on thin ice. I would of course not attempt to either interpret the pitaka in Htoo's native language, nor would I attempt to argue with him how to describe jhana in his native language, whatever that may be. Many kind regards to you and Htoo. Jeff Brooks a--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Jeffrey, > > I wonder if you believe people can never have too much of a 'good > thing'? Your post is identical to a post entitled "Jhana is Ecstasy" > that you made to this list (and many others) on Monday 8 December, > 2003, merely with the addition of the patronising remarks to Htoo > added to the first paragraph. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/27786 > As well, it seems there are an excess of unfortunates, today they > included Htoo and David from Insightpractice List, who just 'don't > understand' {?agree with your understanding?} of ecstasy, gnosis, > jhana, if the post to insightpractice group is anything to go on. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/insightpractice/message/13610 > > Htoo's understanding of English and the Dhamma has always seemed > remarkably clear and mature to me, I regard him as someone with much > to teach us all. > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- > 29375 From: Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 9:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Howard: "In particular, rupas do not exist other than as objects of consciousness." Hi Howard, If the above were the case, eye sensitivity couldn't exist except as an object of consciousness. Larry 29376 From: Andrew Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:26pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi KenH and James Pardon my butting in here but I really do think James is right on this one. James wrote: If there were only dhammas and nibbana, no people, then the > Buddha wouldn't care about the suffering of the world would he? > KenH wrote: That's a good point. Certainly, the Buddha did care, but in what > sense? Not in the sense of `upset and worry.' Not in the sense > that he was an abiding entity that cared about other abiding > entities. Even when people saw and heard the Buddha, there was no > abiding entity, no living being; there were only dhammas -- > (beautiful dhammas such as panna, karuna and metta). Andrew: I hope I am reading this correctly, but IMHO just seeing paramattha dhammas is in the end pointless. After his enlightenment, Buddha was prompted by Brahma Sahampati and "out of compassion for beings", Buddha surveyed the world and decided to teach the Dhamma. Compassion for what? Beings. Not a moment of the conditioned arising of the 5 aggregates of clinging. CMA p 90 tells us that compassion's proximate cause is "seeing helplessness in those overwhelmed by suffering". Seeing helplessness in what? Those overwhelmed by suffering. Not a moment of the conditioned arising of the 5 aggregates of clinging. It is absurd to think of feeling compassion for the rising and falling of the waves in the ocean. Similarly, if we look at our plane of existence and all we see is the arising and passing away of paramattha dhammas, what is there to feel compassion for or about? There's no point. It's all just the playing out of conditions with no "actors" (fundamentally real or not) overwhelmed by suffering. No grounds here for the arising of compassion. Fortunately, the Dhamma (including the Abhidhamma) doesn't require us to adopt such an absurd position. For example, the Abhidhamma acknowledges something BEYOND one present moment of namarupa and teaches us that these moments actually occur in patterns of 17. This necessarily introduces the dimension of time. Sorry if I'm misrepresenting you, KenH (and it wouldn't be the first time!) but the conventional/absolute reality distinction is no substitute for "direct knowledge". Absolute realities alone aren't the key to Nibbana. No need to contort ourselves over the semantics of abiding essences and so on. Like all of the Dhamma, the conventional/absolute realities distinction is a useful tool that will become redundant when direct knowledge is attained. It is a raft to be left on the far shore. Conventional reality IS reality and as such, the Buddha taught it. How can you possibly say he didn't? There ARE beings [see definition of "sattavasa"] even if we must remind ourselves intellectually that they are not permanently abiding entities but more like patterned streams of namarupa always in flux. Too much surfing, KenH. Your "absolute reality only" view is going way too far and leaves you just standing and watching the rising and falling of the waves in the ocean. What's the point? Metta Andrew 29377 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 0:17am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi James, > > You provided the reference to Pali Canon and went through an analysis > of why you believe the Four Noble Truths are presented on both a > conventional and ultimate level. > > While your analysis does show that you characterize the Four Noble > Truths as both ultimate and conventional, the passage you provided and > your analysis do not indicate in anyway that the Buddha himself > characterized the Four Noble Truths as such. The reference itself and > your analysis do not support your claim that the Buddha characterize > the Four Noble Truths as both ultimate and conventional. > > I did not make the claim that the Buddha characterized the Four Noble > Truths as both ultimate and conventional. The burden of backing up > such claim is not mine. > > Again, the question was: Did the Buddha characterize the Four Noble > Truths as ultimate or conventional? > > The question was not about if you think or believe the Four Noble > Truths are ultimate or conventional. > > Peace, > Victor Oh, then I misunderstood your question. I believe you are misusing the word `characterize'*. To characterize something is to simply describe it in a way that leads to certain assumptions or a general picture of that thing/person. You are using `characterize' as meaning to `define'**, they are entirely different. If you had asked, "Did the Buddha define the Four Noble Truths as conventional or ultimate?" I would have answered: neither. The Buddha was a pragmatist and there would be no point to make such a definition. Only us silly worldlings on DSG concern ourselves with such things! ;- )) Metta, James *characterize \Char"ac*ter*ize\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Characterized; p. pr. & vb. n. Characterizing.] [LL. characterizare, Gr. ?: cf. F. charact['e]riser.] 1. To make distinct and recognizable by peculiar marks or traits; to make with distinctive features. **define \De*fine"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Defined; p. pr. & vb. n. Defining.] [OE. definer, usually, to end, to finish, F. d['e]finir to define, L. definire to limit, define; de- + finire to limit, end, finis boundary, limit, end. See Final, Finish.] 1. To fix the bounds of; to bring to a termination; to end. ``To define controversies.'' -- Barrow. 2. To determine or clearly exhibit the boundaries of; to mark the limits of; as, to define the extent of a kingdom or country. Ps. I think that if you want to make a point about something you should just make it, not ask leading questions. Such tactics at discourse characterize you as supercilious ;-)). 29378 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 2:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Birthday Mike (and All) Many happy returns of the day, and many thanks for the dhamma words. What a nice gesture, to share some dhamma on your birthday. Anyone else who would like to do the same on their birthday is most welcome. Jon (and Sarah) --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Mods and Friends, > > Today is my birthday, anniversary of the most unfortunate (because > reborn) and most auspicious (because human) of events for > Buddhists. I think that most take this as a once-in-a-lifetime > event. In my opinion, understanding that death and rebirth occur > at every instant is an indispensible step for beginning to > understand the Buddhadhamma. A lifetime is a concept--so this is > also an opening into sacca vs paramattha dhamma, so essential to > understanding dhamma, Dhamma and abhidhamma. > > Here's hoping that each will come to understand this in her/his own > way and time. > > Cheers, > > mike 29379 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 2:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Aggregates and detachment (was, characteristics) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > > J: It's good to find ourselves in agreement! I'm just not sure > > about your 'positive feedback loop’ model in this particular > > instance. The reason I say that is that although the Buddha > spoke > > repeatedly about seeing the tilakkhana in dhammas, I'm not sure > he > > spoke about 'seeing through concepts'. > > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > That's true. He didn't use that sort of language. I do > think, though, > that my meaning when I use it is compatible with the Buddha's > teachings. > -------------------------------------------------- It sounds OK to me; but I've learnt to be careful about giving emphasis that is not found in the texts. Experience tells me that what I think is just another way of stating the teachings turns out so often to be off-track. So I simply caution ;-)). Jon 29380 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 2:31am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Dear Andrew and Ken, Here are some quotes to consider: 'The mental and material (nama and rupa) are really here, But here there is no human being to be found, For it is void and merely suffering fashioned like a doll.' Visuddhimagga XVIII32 'For there is suffering but none who suffers' XVI93 'Therefore the wise should see the aggregates (khandhas)as murderers and otherwise' XIV227 As you say Andrew metta and karuna both have the concept of a person as object. All arahants have concepts - and they understand paramattha. I quite like the zen poem James quoted about the mountains and rivers. We need to understand the conceptual world and that of paramattha dhammas. Then life becomes untangled gradually. RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > Hi KenH and James > Pardon my butting in here but I really do think James is right on > this one. > > James wrote: If there were only dhammas and nibbana, no people, then > the > > Buddha wouldn't care about the suffering of the world would he? > > > KenH wrote: That's a good point. Certainly, the Buddha did care, but > in what > > sense? Not in the sense of `upset and worry.' Not in the sense > > that he was an abiding entity that cared about other abiding > > entities. Even when people saw and heard the Buddha, there was no > > abiding entity, no living being; there were only dhammas -- > > (beautiful dhammas such as panna, karuna and metta). > > Andrew: I hope I am reading this correctly, but IMHO just seeing > paramattha dhammas is in the end pointless. After his enlightenment, > Buddha was prompted by Brahma Sahampati and "out of compassion for > beings", Buddha surveyed the world and decided to teach the Dhamma. > Compassion for what? Beings. Not a moment of the conditioned > arising of the 5 aggregates of clinging. CMA p 90 tells us that > compassion's proximate cause is "seeing helplessness in those > overwhelmed by suffering". Seeing helplessness in what? Those > overwhelmed by suffering. Not a moment of the conditioned arising of > the 5 aggregates of clinging. > It is absurd to think of feeling compassion for the rising and > 29381 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 2:38am Subject: I have two questions ... Dear Group, During dinner in a restaurant this evening, my friends discussed, with varying levels of distaste or horror, the following story: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1031412.htm The word "alive" is not a misprint - the T.V. news showed it happening. Apparently, it saves money. I have two questions regarding this news story: 1. Whose is the kamma? The prisoners and soldiers who are required to do it; The officials who ordered it; Or the general population who hasn't protested at SUCH a thing. 2. My friends asked me - how can this method be allowed to happen in any country, but especially in a buddhist country? I had no answer. Do any of you? metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 29382 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 3:33am Subject: Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism - Long Hello Jeffrey, and all, Thank you for explaining that you meant no offense. Email is a difficult medium, and misunderstandings can happen easily. I apologise for the challenging tone of my last post. The oldest record of the Buddha's teaching is in Pali, not english, or burmese, or thai. So the Dhamma (as preserved in the Tipitaka - the Three baskets) doesn't need 'interpretation'. It needs accurate translation and faithful rendering to keep the meanings of the Teachings pristine, and exactly as the Buddha taught. Perhaps you may feel more comforable with the words of a New Yorker born to a Jewish family in 1944, who lived all his life in Brooklyn, went to a public elementary school, junior high school and college in Brooklyn; received a BA degree in philosophy in 1966 and then went to Claremont Graduate School in California; completed his doctorate (PhD) in 1972; has been a Mahayana monk and is a Theravada Bhikkhu, is well versed in Pali, was the President of the Buddhist Publication Society for many years, has addressed the United Nations and is esteemed as the translator of many important suttas from the Pali as well as the Samyutta Nikaya, parts of the Anguttara Nikaya, and is a joint translator of the Majjhima Nikaya with Bhikkhu Nanamoli. He is Bhikkhu Bodhi. The Majjhima Nikaya Introduction p.38 ff Regarding Insight (vipassanaa) Bhikkhu Bodhi states: "The methods of meditation taught by the Buddha in the Pali Canon fall into two broad systems. One is the development of serenity (samatha), which aims at concentration (samaadhi); the other is the development of insight (vipassanaa) which aims at understanding or wisdom (pa~n~naa). In the Buddha's system of mental training the role of serenity is subordinated to that of insight because the latter is the crucial instrument needed to uproot ithe ignorance at the bottom of samsaaric bondage. **The attainments possible through serenity meditation were known to Indian contemplatives long before the advent of the Buddha. The Buddha himself mastered the two highest stages under his early teachers but found that they only led to higher planes of rebirth, not to genuine enlightenment. (MN 26.15-16)** However, because the unification of mind induced by the practice of concentration contributes to clear understanding, the Buddha incorporated the techniques of serenity meditation and the resulting levels of absorption into his own system, treating them as a foundation and preparation for insight and as a "pleasant abiding here and now".... "Whereas in serenity meditation the meditator attempts to focus upon a single uniform object abstracted from actual experience, in insight meditation the endeavour is made to contemplate, from a position of detached observation the ever-shifting flux of experience itself in order to penetrate through to the essential nature of bodily and mental phenomena. The Buddha teaches that the craving and clinging that hold us in bondage are sustained by a network of "conceivings" (ma~n~nita) - deluded views, conceits, and suppositions that the mind fabricates by an internal process of mental commentary of "proliferation" (papa~nca) and then projects out upon the world, taking them to possess objective validity. The task of insight meditation is to sever our attachments by enabling us to pierce through this net of conceptual projections in order to see things as they really are. To see things as they really are means to see them in terms of the three characteristics - as impermanent, as painful or suffering, and as not self. Since the three characteristics are closely interlinked, any one of them can be made the main portal for entering the domain of insight, but the Buddha's usual approach is to show all three together - impermanence implying suffering and the two in conjunction implying the absence of self. When the noble disciple sees all the factors of being as stamped with these three marks, he no longer identifies with them, no longer appropriates them by taking them to be mine, I or self. Seeing thus, he becomes disenchanted with all formations. When he becomes disenchanted, his lust and attachment fade away and his mind is liberated from the taints. Instructions for the development of insight in the Majjhima Nikaaya, though concise, are many and diverse. The single most important lesson on the practice conducing to insight is the Satipatthaana Sutta, the Discourse on the Foundations of Mindfulness (MN10; also found in the Diigha Nikaaya with an amplified section on the Four Noble Truths). The sutta sets forth a comprehensive system called satipatthaana designed to train the mind to see with micropscopic precision the true nature of the body, feelings, states of mind, and mental objects. The system is sometimes taken to be the paradigm for the practice of "bare insight" - the direct contemplation of mental and bodily phenomena without a prior foundation of jhaana - and, while several exercises described inthe sutta canalso lead to the jhaanas, the arousing of insight is clearly the intent of the method. Other suttas in the Majjhima Nikaaya describe approaches to developing insight that either elaborate upon the satipatthaana contemplations or reach them from a different starting oint. Thus MN 118 shows how the practice of mindfulness of breathing fulfils all four foundations of mindfulness, not the first alone as shown in MN 10. Several suttas - MN 28, MN 62, MN 140 - present more detailed instructions on the contemplation of the elements. MN 37, MN 74 and MN 140 contain illuminating passages on the contemplation of feeling. In some suttas the Buddha uses the five aggregates as the groundwork for insight contemplation (e.g. MN 22, MN 109); in some, the six sense bases (e.g. MN 137, MN 148, MN 149); in some, the two combined (MN 147). MN112 has sections dealing with insight based on the five aggregates, the six elements, and the six sense bases, and as resulting from the gradual training. MN 52 and MN 64 show that insight can also be aroused with the jhaanas, the immaterial attainments, and the divine abodes as its objects; the disciple enters any of these states and contemplates its constituent factors as subject to the three characteristics." metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey S. Brooks" wrote: > Hello Christine, and thank-you for your rather challenging reply. I > did not intend any offense to Htoo, but when someone who is not a > native speaker of the language that I was born and raised up in and > acquired a degree in the study of, attempts to define for me what > those words mean, I believe that person is walking on thin ice. Don't > you think? > > Also, when a person who may have given rise to jhana wishes to argue > with me how jhana manifests and how to describe it in my native > language, again I believe this person is walking on thin ice. I would > of course not attempt to either interpret the pitaka in Htoo's native > language, nor would I attempt to argue with him how to describe jhana > in his native language, whatever that may be. > > Many kind regards to you and Htoo. > > Jeff Brooks 29383 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 3:45am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi James, Mike, everyone, ------------------------- J: > You are misunderstanding what I mean by `real'. I mean it in a conventional sense…but you obviously can't think in conventional terms. ----------------------- I am just as familiar with conventional things (tables and chairs) as you are. But, with difficulty, I can intellectually understand that they are not `real' in the true sense of the word. Leaving aside the Dhamma for a moment: a nuclear physicist would say the only realities are sub-atomic particles appearing and disappearing at incredibly high frequencies. You might say, "Yes, but they create conventional realities!" But do they? If we didn't `think' those things existed, wouldn't there be just sub-atomic particles? Sitting on a chair is different from trying to sit in mid air; but that doesn't mean the chair and the sitter are real. It means that concepts have been created to explain the dhammas that have been experienced. I won't explain further, not because I don't want to, but because that's about as far as my understanding goes. :-) ---------------- J: > The Buddha wasn't a living being? Well, I guess we will just have to disagree on that one. --------------------- Have you read Mike's birthday message? :-) In this present moment; we are born, we live and we die. There is no other reality. There is no conventional reality outside the present moment – conventional reality is a term, a mere designation, for `the process of conceptualising.' -------------------- J: > I'm not sure what `send it up' means. ------------------- Pardon my colloquialism; send up means parody. ----------------------- J: > However, yes I finally figured out what all you K Sujinians were trying to say ------------------------- K Sujinians are trying to learn the Dhamma as found in the Theravada texts, that's all. ---------------------------- J: > (and I now don't think it is an `Abhidhamma Point Of View', it is very unique to the K. Sujinian group). It was somewhat difficult for me to get the big picture because I consider it pretty off the wall. ----------------------------- If you are suggesting there is some sort of cult mentality involved, you are totally wrong. I understand that literally millions of people are grateful to K Sujin for explaining the texts, and only the texts, and for pointing out some inconsistencies between their practices and the practice described in the texts. She doesn't teach her own, personal, insights and she doesn't claim to have high attainments or special powers (not even ESP :-) ). ------------------------------- J: > The Buddha described the Eightfold Path as a path of PRACTICE: "And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of dukkha. Ken, do you notice that very important word `practice'? Do you know what `practice' means? ------------------- Yes, and I know what you think [Buddhist] practice means. You have explained it in a recent post on meditation. But can you show where those meditative techniques are listed in the Canon? No, because they are not there. And there is a good reason why they are not there. -------------------- >> KH: >At dsg, the idea is to hear the teaching `as found in the ancient Theravada texts.' There is no expectation that we believe it or that we accept it as the genuine teaching of the Buddha – just that we know what those texts are saying. >> > > J: > This is only pariyatti. Memorizing/Knowing texts alone isn't enough. ;-) --------------------- Agreed, and I think that, too, is explained in the texts. :-) The link between pariyatti and patipatti is a fascinating thing. For me, it is more fascinating than any exploit into formal meditation. Kind regards, Ken H PS: Happy birthday, Mike, and happy birth-moment, everyone. 29384 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 3:51am Subject: Hey Azita! Hello Azita, You will be proud of me! - six days and nights of clothes, books, accessories and toiletries in ONE international size carry-on!!!!!!!! + one handbag. Are you SURE the Customs Officers won't think it strange when they see all the rolled up crushed clothes?; Will the concierge treat me with disdain when I arrive looking like the rest of you Gypsies (i.e. you, Sarah, Jon)? :-):-) Do I give the bell boy half the tip, for half the usual luggage? :-) Are you SURE I can survive with one pair of shoes? :-) Is there a SupportLine to ring when one feels shaky and weak? Perhaps even a mantra? :-) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time 29385 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 3:52am Subject: Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism Hi Jeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey S. Brooks" wrote: > Hello James, and thank-you for your kind reply. While I have gotten > your "point" all along it does not seem that my point is sinking into > you. As long as one depends on translation of the Tipitaka by > translators who have never experienced jhana and the other > supramundane phenomena, you will never read a translation of the > Tipitaka that will not lead you into ignorance, delusion and doubt. > > Many blessings to you, > > Jeff Brooks I can see that this dialogue isn't getting very far. Let me quote some passages from Ajahn Lee, a monk who was a master at Jhana meditation: "When people criticize you, saying that you're in a blind state of jhana, it's still better than having no jhana to be in. And if they say that you're like a baby chick that hasn't come out of its egg, that's okay, too. When a baby chick is still in the egg, no hawk can swoop down on it and catch it. When it comes out of the egg is when it becomes prey." "They may say that you're sitting in "stump" concentration, but don't pay them any mind, because stumps can have their uses. Sometimes they grow new branches, with tender leaves you can eat. But if the stump catches fire and burns to a crisp, that's no good at all." "Momentary concentration is like a house roofed with thatch; its posts are made out of softwood. Momentary concentration isn't jhana. Threshold concentration is like a house made out of hardwood with a tile roof. Fixed penetration is like an immovable concrete building. This is where we become "one" in a single preoccupation on the single or direct path (ekayana-magga). It's like sitting alone in a chair or lying alone on a bed, without anyone trying to come and take up our space, or like being alone in a room without anyone else coming in to disturb us. When we're alone in a room, we can be at our ease. We can even take off our clothes if we like. We can behave with good manners or bad, and no one will complain. This is why a mind with jhana as its dwelling can be at its ease. It has a deep well so that it can get plenty of water -- to the point where it can drop directed thought and evaluation, leaving nothing but pleasure: This is where feeling becomes your frame of reference (vedananupassana- satipatthana). The body feels full. All four properties -- earth, water, fire, and wind -- feel full. When the mind feels full in this way, nothing is lacking. That's rapture. You don't want any more of the four properties. When the mind soaks for a long time in this sense of rapture, it's like something you've soaked in water for a long time: The water is bound to permeate it to a point of saturation. This sense of rapture is the second level of jhana. When the sense of rapture begins to move, you don't feel at ease, in the same way as when a boat begins to sway you want to get back on land. So once rapture fills the body, you let go of it, leaving nothing but pleasure and singleness of preoccupation. When the mind has soaked itself in pleasure to a point of saturation, it lets go, leaving an empty sense of equanimity. When the mind is really empty, it feels spacious and light. The more it soaks in equanimity, the more still it gets, giving rise to an inner sense of light. When the light is really intense you arrive at Right Mindfulness." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/skillof.html#skills Metta, James 29386 From: Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 0:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/26/04 12:05:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Howard: "In particular, rupas do not exist other than as objects of > consciousness." > > Hi Howard, > > If the above were the case, eye sensitivity couldn't exist except as an > object of consciousness. > > Larry > ======================== Okay, a good point, a smart observation! Assuming that "eye sensitivity" is a rupa, a proposition that I don't readily accept, and if, indeed, it does *not* arise as arammana (a negativity which *seems* to be the case), this would show that a rupa may arise other than as an object of consciousness, and that would show that I overstated in saying that "rupas do not exist other than as objects of consciousness." What I *should* have stated, and which is all that one can *directly* obtain from the sutta, is that rupas have consciousness as a necessary condition for their arising. (What the form of the dependency involved is isn't stated.) In particular, then, "eye sensitivity," if it is a paramattha dhamma, arises in dependence on consciousness as one condition, and does not arise without consciousness as condition. This would make eye sensitivity, whether it is an actual phenomenon or merely the pa~n~natti of "the physical capacity to see," something that never arises without consciousness as condition, and, thus, never exists independent of consciousness. The sutta itself makes it clear that all namas and all rupas arise in necessary dependence on consciousness. And, as Swee Boon makes clear, and the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta states, namarupa and consciousness are mutually dependent. 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) 29387 From: Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 0:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Aggregates and detachment (was, characteristics) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 1/26/04 5:20:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard: > > That's true. He didn't use that sort of language. I do > >think, though, > >that my meaning when I use it is compatible with the Buddha's > >teachings. > >-------------------------------------------------- > > It sounds OK to me; but I've learnt to be careful about giving > emphasis that is not found in the texts. Experience tells me that > what I think is just another way of stating the teachings turns out > so often to be off-track. So I simply caution ;-)). > ----------------------------------------- Howard: I understand. It does make sense to be careful. ------------------------------------------ > > 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 phanto m, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 29388 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 5:10am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Ken, Ken: K Sujinians are trying to learn the Dhamma as found in the Theravada texts, that's all. James: In my opinion that is the first mistake. You should be trying to learn the Dhamma that is found in life, not in some texts (Theravada or otherwise). Start with the First Noble Truth: Life is Dukkha, and work from there. You don't need to know all the texts, just look around and pay attention. What do you see? What do you smell? What do you feel? What do you taste? What do you hear? What do you cognize? These are all the teachers you need. Ken: If you are suggesting there is some sort of cult mentality involved, you are totally wrong. I understand that literally millions of people are grateful to K Sujin for explaining the texts, and only the texts, and for pointing out some inconsistencies between their practices and the practice described in the texts. James: I am not just suggesting, I am stating it straight out. But I am simply expressing my opinion and you don't have to agree, and I could be wrong. And I am not trying to insult anyone. I am just calling it as I see it (as I always do) But it sure does sound like a cult to me: Cult k lt)n .A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. Ken: She doesn't teach her own, personal, insights and she doesn't claim to have high attainments or special powers (not even ESP :-) ). James: If she admits that she doesn't know anything, doesn't have any special insights, why does anyone listen to her? Heck, if she at least had some ESP ability she could maybe give you the winning lottery numbers! ;-)) Anyway, as the Buddha said, "Be a light unto yourselves." Ken: Yes, and I know what you think [Buddhist] practice means. You have explained it in a recent post on meditation. But can you show where those meditative techniques are listed in the Canon? No, because they are not there. And there is a good reason why they are not there. James: Of course meditation is explained, defined, and listed in the Canon. What do you think? Buddhists around the world have been getting it wrong for 2,500 years and then along comes K. Sujin and straightens everything out? That would be pretty far-fetched don't you think? Ken: Agreed, and I think that, too, is explained in the texts. :-) The link between pariyatti and patipatti is a fascinating thing. For me, it is more fascinating than any exploit into formal meditation. James: Yes, very fascinating. You could find out just how fascinating if you actually did it. Metta, James 29389 From: abhidhammika Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 5:26am Subject: Re: FW: [Pali] Buddhaghosa: To Nina Dear Nina How are you? Are you in Bankok? Thank you for forwarding Rett's reply to your request. Regarding commentary definitions of the term "bandhu", I have the following quotes. 1. Bandhupaadaapaccaati ettha bandhuuti brahmaa adhippeto. Tañhi braahma.naa pitaamahoti voharanti. Paadaanam apaccaa paadaapaccaa, brahmuno pi.t.thipaadato jaataati adhippaayo. Section 263, Amba.t.thasuttava.n.nanaa, Siilakkhandhavagga Diighanikaayo. 2. Bandhuuti maarassa bandhubhuute maarapakkhike. Paadaapa cceti mahaabrahmuno paadaanam apaccabhuute paadato jaateti adhippaayo. Section 113, Aggaññasuttava.n.nanaa, Paathikavaggo, Diighanikaayo. 3. Bandhana.t.thena bandhu, kassa pana bandhuuti aaha maarassa bandhubhuuteti. Section 113, Aggaññasutta .Tiikaa, Paathikavaggo, Diighanikaayo. As you see, in the quote (1), Buddhaghosa defined the term "bandhu" as a brahmaa. But, in the quote (2), he defined the term "bandhu" as "a relative" which is also correct. In this passage, he seemed to want to indicate the meaning of relative in addition to the meaning of brahmaa. And he did not forget to include the meaning of brahmaa because he explained the expression "Paadaapacce" as the sons born from the feet of the great brahmaa. Thus, we have the swearing word "bandhupaadaapacce" as meaning the sons born from the feet of the great brahmaa who are also the relatives of the Devil (maaraa). In short, the swearing word "bandhupaadaapacce" contains the meanings of double insult by defining the term "bandhu" as relative(s) as well as a brahmaa. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org (Nina forwarded the following:) Dear Suan, How are you? Very kind of you to offer help. This was on the Pali list. Jim answered Rett. Jim mentions that the gloss may come from the old commentaries Buddhaghosa translated, but, I think these must be right. They were rehearsed at the three councils, from the beginning. If you can add something, it will always be helpful. It is possible that some details are not always clear because of the transcribing of manuscripts. These may be only minor details. I added something on Pali list about the interpretation of words, and it appears that Buddhaghose also in this detail was right. Some people miss the subtle points. Thank you, with appreciation, Nina. ---------- Van: "Jim Anderson" Beantwoord: Pali@yahoogroups.com Datum: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:23:07 -0500 Aan: Onderwerp: Re: [Pali] Buddhaghosa Hi Rett, I don't understand why it is glossed that way yet. Elsewhere, Buddhaghosa does recognize that 'bandhu' is an epithet of Brahmaa at Sv I 254, Ps II 418, Ppk II 397. And even for 'paadaapacce' at Sv III 862 he has 'mahaa-brahmuno paadaa . . . For the 'bandhu' gloss that you quote, Dhammapaala has: bandhana.t.thena bandhu, kassa pana bandhuuti aaha: maarassa bandhubhuute ti. (Sv-p.t III 47). Perhaps Buddhaghosa is merely adding a second interpretation. We also have to keep in mind that the gloss is likely not his interpretation, but comes from the old Sinhalese commentary he has translated into Pali. Jim Rett wrote: Nina: When people think that Buddhaghosa is wrong, could you, please, give >concrete examples. Have you heard of such? Or maybe just one concrete >example? Here is an example which I read of in an article yesterday, and which I promised to provide earlier today. In D27 at the end of section four, (PTS Diigha Nikaaya, Vol iii, page 81, line 20 ) the bhikkhus are disparagingly referred to by brahmins as 'bandhupaadaapacce' which means 'offspring of the feet of the kinsman'. Kinsman (bandhu) is an epithet of Brahman, from whose mouth the brahmins are said to originate. This context has already been established, since a few lines earlier the brahmins describe themselves as 'mukhato jaataa brahmajaa'. This is an allusion to the Rig Veda X,19,13 "His mouth was the Braahman...from his two feet the ´Sudra was born". (Macdonell, page 201) Buddhaghosa, in the Sumangalavilaasinii (vol iii, p862) misses that 'Bandhu' is an epithet of Brahman, and instead glosses: bandhuu ti maarassa bandhubhuute maarapakkhike. either "Allies of Maara" in acc plural (-uu), or if singular perhaps locative of sense. 'in the sense: ally of maara'. In any case Buddhaghosa has given the wrong meaning for the word 'Bandhu' at that point in the commentary by missing that it is just an epithet. I don't see why this should in any way detract from Buddhaghosa's deserved reputation, or the reputation of the commentarial tradition of which he was the custodian. It is only if we make the exaggerated claim that he could somehow be entirely free of mistakes (over the course of thousands of pages of exegetical writing) that the occasional miss would count against him. I doubt that he himself would ever have made the claim "my work is entirely without errors". Nina: First we read how brahmans considered themselves. After that we have deprecating words about the recluses. Footborn, and this is used here in a disparaging way, after all, the brahmans are disparaging the samanas. That is why Buddhaghosa adds here: allies of Maara. Also PED at the end: It must be this way when we see the whole context. We coculd easily miss the subtle point. But then the Tiika can help us. And as Jim said, < For the 'bandhu' gloss that > you quote, Dhammapaala has: bandhana.t.thena bandhu, kassa pana > bandhuuti aaha: maarassa bandhubhuute ti. (Sv-p.t III 47).> 29390 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 6:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Jaatavidasa Note, Sarah. Hi Howard, You have here an excellent remark, not only to Mike but to all of us. I take this one to Bgk. We may give an orthodox answer, but that is not enough. This is a point Ven. Dhammadharo used to remind us of. On the other hand, we want to be consistent with the Tipitaka! Nina. op 25-01-2004 20:12 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > Happy birthday, Mike! May you be happy and well, and may this be a > time of reaffirming right effort. > But what is it that is that dies and is reborn at every instant? ;-) > Please don't answer with a stock quotation, but just turn your mind to the > question, and look with the intention of seeing. I think this is a matter of > critical importance. I'm certainly not saying I have "the answer", though, > somehow, > it seems to be lurking "in the back of my mind", rather like "being on the > tip of one's tongue". ;-). 29391 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 6:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts, Sarah Hi Larry, Thanks for your excellent question touching on the eseence of insight. I take it to Bgk. It is difficult to answer it, my last day. I try to give some thoughts about it, but I am not sure I really answer your question. You render us a service if you keep posting, Jon prints out Email daily, also in Bgk. op 26-01-2004 01:41 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > > I've been contemplating this for a few days and I'm wondering if > something is being left out in the progress of insight as outlined in > the Visuddhimagga, namely, the investigation of concepts. For example, > investigating a whole to see if there is in reality a whole; or > investigating a concept such as beauty to see if it actually exists. Why > isn't this considered to be an element of insight? Isn't the majority of > our attachments to concepts? > N: To start with your last Question:< Isn't the majority of > our attachments to concepts?>, we cling to concepts but also to realities such as seeing, colour, visible object, sound. We cling very much to feeling. Only nibbana and the lokuttara cittas that experience nibbana are not objects of clinging. We should also verify in our life whether this is true. Seeing or hearing fall away immediately but when we reflect we can know that we like to see and hear, we like to live and have all these experiences. We do not realize this yet on the level of practice, that is true. As to investigating concepts, yes, this is done anyway when understanding is of the level of pariyatti. When we reflect on birth, old age and death being dukkha, we may think with kusala citta about concepts. Wise people also before the Buddha's time could do this. But the Buddha found the Path leading to the end of dukkha: the eightfold Path, the development of insight or satipatthana, it amounts to the same. Therefore, the Buddha said, after explaining about the dukkha in life: . Thinking about dukkha is different from insight that can directly experience that nama and rupa arise and fall away each moment and are thus dukkha. We may think endlessly about or the other person who suffers from old age, but we should find out for ourselves whether that changes our life. But, without the Buddha's teaching we would never know that there can be development of direct understanding of one object at a time through one doorway and that this leads to detachment. The Buddha taught this in many suttas, for example the sutta about the six worlds, about the world that is crumbling away. As insight develops in stages, it is natural that thinking about concepts also arises time and again. Then it can be known that thinking is a conditioned reality, a nama. If we would only investigate concepts, we would not know that the thinking itself that investigates concepts, is bound to be taken for self, is bound to be object of clinging. There would be no end to clinging. Is this an answer to your question? When we experience a pleasant object we are bound to like it and when we experience an unpleasant object we are bound to dislike it. We read in the ³Kindred Sayings² (IV, Kindred Sayings on SEnse, Fourth Fifty, ch V, § 202, Lustful) that Mahaamoggallaana spoke to the monks about a monk who has unwise attention to the objects impinging on the senses and the mind. Objects overcome a monk, he does not overcome objects. We read about the monk who is free from lust: ³Herein, friends, a monk, seeing an object with the eye, is not attached to objects that charm, nor averse from objects that displease...² The same is said about the objects experienced through the other doorways. We read: ³With mind cognizing a mind-state, he is not attached to mind-states that charm, nor averse from mind-states that displease, but dwells, having established mindfulness of the body and his thought is boundless, so that he realizes in its true nature that emancipation of heart, that emancipation of wisdom, wherein those evil unprofitable states that have arisen come to cease without remainder. This monks, friends, is called Œnot lustful after objects cognizable by the eye... not lust ful after objects cognizable by the mind.¹ Thus dwelling, friends, if Mara come upon him by way of the eye, of the tongue, of the mind... Mara gets no access, gets no opportunity... Moreover, friends, so dwelling a monk conquers objects, objects do not conquer him. He conquers sounds, scents savours, tangibles, mind-states. They do not conquer him. Such a monk, friends, is called Œconqueror of objects, sounds, scents savours, tangibles, mind-states.¹ He is conqueror, not conquered. He conquers those evil, unprofitable states, passion-fraught, inciting to lust, leading to rebirth, states unhappy, whose fruit is pain, rebirth, decay and death. Thus, friends, is one free from lust.² This sutta deals with insight, understanding of one object at a time through one doorway. Even the Dhamma student who is a very beginner could verify for himself whether there is a difference between the moments he is completely taken in by concepts of persons and situations, and the moments there is a beginning of awareness of one object at a time, through one doorway at a time. He can verify whether this is the way eventually leading to detachment. Nina. 29392 From: Eddie Lou Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 10:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] I have two questions ... Hi, Christine, --- christine_forsyth wrote: Christine: During dinner in a restaurant this evening, my > friends discussed, > with varying levels of distaste or horror, the > following story: > http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1031412.htm > The word "alive" is not a misprint - the T.V. news > showed it > happening. Apparently, it saves money. > I have two questions regarding this news story: > 1. Whose is the kamma? The prisoners and soldiers > who are required > to do it; The officials who ordered it; Or the > general population > who hasn't protested at SUCH a thing. Eddie: Humbly, my guess is the officials carry some burden but actually global driver(s) whoever they are at that moment for that purpose, maybe the major culprit. (Please see my following posting on globalization issue.) However, your question really brings up what I have always want for 'many years' to be clarified on - How do we differentiate whether the action or volition is just the starting (in other words, - a cause) or actually the result or effect of previous cause (- from recent or previous existence)??? I really hope someone can really enlighten me on this. Thanks in advance. Christine: 2. My friends asked me - how can this method be > allowed to happen in > any country, but especially in a buddhist country? > I had no answer. > Do any of you? Eddie: IMHO is all this comes from 'Globalization of many different things especially - Economies)' making us all in one way or another tied to it in a humongous network - as masters and/or slaves. All this (master & slave status designation) is in a constant shifting / reversing flux (Buddhist impermanence! ??). (Hope my guess is correct here. I am not sure if IMHO stands for 'In My Humble Opinion', which is what I mean here, correct me if I am astray) Increasing global communication & computing capabilities in general are playing in a big way to shrink our big mother earth / civilization to become a small world or village. Those poor businesses in Thailand as a player in global economy, really have to respond to prevent losses. Sometimes I felt I must be foolish enough to think there's got to be better way out and still be in line with Buddha's teaching. Resulting in more inner peace and tranquility. Metta, Eddie Lou > ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 29393 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 10:27am Subject: Pativeda Realization Dear Dhamma Friends, When the Dhammafarer thinks that Dhamma is too complicated and complex he might be reluctant to search for it. It will be better to start simple. It is simple to start. Just start right now. Take a mat and sit on that crosslegged with erect body and placing palms facing upwards the right on the left both putting on crosslegged and thumbs are touching each other. And eyes are closing. The place chosen should be free of strong smell, obvious noice, and with suitable ambient temperature. The meditator has to be clean. Just start paying attention to own nose and nostrils. A breath comes in. The air touches the nostrils. Make a mental note of 'touch..touch..'. The breath goes out. 'Touch..touch..'. It is simple. Meditation is simple. Simple to start. As the meditator is trying to be free from unwholesome actions, he is already free from misconducts ( taking life, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, taking intoxicants ). If his consciousness are stitched together and all consciousness are those of fully aware of the nature then his mind is said to be well concentrated. This awareness should arise all the time from waking up till sleep. With this practice he will start to notice impermanence and then he will develop a special wisdom. Not all Arahats learned theory first and then practical and so on but there are those who never learned before their enlightenment but they did pick up a booster message where appropriate. Once a Bhikkhu was smiled by a very beautiful woman. If he was not ripe enough he might have gone into a disaster. But he picked up the booster message. What he saw was her beautiful pearly white teeth but he contemplated on them as bone and his wisdom was rocketed to upmost. Sunlun Sayadaw ( U Thar Dun when he was a man ) was an illiterate. He could not read any word or any letter. What he learned was just general speaking ( Myanmar ) and how to grow paddy, corn, maize, peas and beans, lentils etc etc. He was just an ordinary man. But he was ripe enough to pick up the booster message from his working field while he was ploughing. He passed through 4 gates and after passing the last gate he changed his life into fully ordained Bhikkhu. He could preach Dhamma, which he had never known before and he could talk on Dhamma, which we would not talk before his enlightenment. He did not learn theory first and then did practical but he effectively picked up the booster message and actually he had been striving since he first noticed 'change' that is Anicca while he was ploughing. The body of Sunlun Sayadaw is still in Myanmar. It was not treated with any chemical but it is natural and the body has never been stale, rotten and never went into decomposition but just dry. The body was near Sunlun villege, near Sunlun creek or stream in Myingyan township of Mandalay Division in Myanmar. In Jataka, Culapanthaka never learned anything except a verse taught by his brother Thera Mahapanthaka. Again he never remembered the full verse. The Live Buddha gave him a piece of cloth and made him rubbing and saying a word. Soon after The Buddha left the monastry, he (Culapanthaka ) developed his wisdom in a matter of minutes. Culapanthaka did not learn theory first and then practical but he picked up the booster message from the cloth which changed from clean to dirty. It is simple to start. What to start? Start Vipassana meditation. Once someone said Vipassana is not of The Buddha's word. Anyway, Vipassana is well known to all Buddhists. Vipassana here may mean.. 1. Vipassana 2. Satipatthana 3. Mahasatipatthana 4. Insight meditation 5. 6 doors watching 6. Real time contemplation 7. Chasing of very present 8. Vipassana Kammatthana 9. Mind watching 10.Dhamma contemplation 11.Moment to moment meditation 12.Moment after moment recognition 13.Moment to moment contemplation 14.Watching every moment 15.Insight Bhavana 16.Wisdom developing meditation 17.Mindfulness cultivation 18.Looking realities 19.Realization practice on realities 20.Special conmtemplation on 6 doors events... and many endless other names are just the same. Internet conveys electronic messages. But what you see now is just colour. But again what you actually see is words. You cannot actually even see words when check that. Instead you hear in your mind loud this message. Word after word gone. If this message is transformed into speech the essence will be the same but you will be using your ear. Whatever will be will be, all these words that I composed are just Pannatti. Writing and speech are just alternative form. Again these Pannatti carries essence of Paramattha Dhamma. When really realize, there will be no more problem with Pannatti and Paramattha Dhamma. Here while you are reading this message, word after word has gone. So does the sense of touch at your nostril which, if you attend, will be recognized. This contemplation of breath has to be aware of all the time except when there is strong sense at other sources. This contemplation has to be made from wakeness to sleep. With time impermance will be recognized and realities will also be realized. If this happen, the meditator will drop Tanha where he usually picks up and then he will be released from binding of Tanha and he will be liberated and free. This freeing has to be associated with development of special wisdom which again will eradicate ignorance totally. May you all be liberated from fetters and defilements. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 29394 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 10:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cults, metta, paramatthas. Dear Ken H, James and Andrew, Ken, thanks for this good wish, you got the essence. I followed your dialogue with interest and would like to butt in for a moment, just going to close down my Email lists. I wonder, can I do something about a misunderstanding re A. Sujin? James, it may help if you look in Archives under Sujin. I can add a few things. you and Ken do not know her personally. Right from the beginning she said; it is the Dhamma that matters, not the person who speaks about it. True, her personality does not invite to attachment, to personal ties. She is full of metta, metta with detachment. I remember Ven. Dhammadharo who also listened to her, saying: remember, when you are attached, you lack metta. i found that such a good reminder at that time. Some people have accumulated inclinations for detachment, and she is one of them. I always like to learn from such people. She is far, far away from any cultus. No need to say much about that. In the old days there were hardly any Co translations, teachers would quote without mentioning the sources. People were inclined just to follow their teachers and teachers were approving of this. There is a trend like this but not only in Asia. She did not want to follow teachers, she set up the translation of commentaries and encouraged that. As mentioned before, she will always ask advice from Pali experts and say many times: please correct me if I am wrong. She received a degree at the monk's university, and when Rob K suggested to mention it in her book, she did not like that. She would rather that others speak, not she, always pushing the mike's into our hands. People pay respect to her, why? Because of the Dhamma she helped to explain. It is not respect to a person. The same way as when paying respect to a monk, even to a monk who does not observe the Vinaya so well. You pay respect to the Sangha. James, you hear us often say, A. Sujin says... Can there be attachment here? Yes, imperfect as we are. But different moments. We know that A. Sujin advices us to develop the Path ourselves. Now we visit her, because we appreciate her wise council, this should be recognized as such. But on the other hand I also think of discussions between ourselves, Sarah, Jon and others, this is to the benefit of us all. Andrew came in, speaking about metta, the world of conventional realities and the world of paramattha dhammas. Excellent, there is no contradiction. Metta is towards a person, but at the same time it is the *metta-citta* that counts:a paramattha dhamma. In a natural way you think of a person with metta, but in between there can also be moments of developing satipatthana. This helps so that there is less opportunity to get involved with attachment to an idea of he and me, even conceit. Satipatthana can help metta to be purer. I read with interest that James was using a somewhat strong wording to Sarah, but said at the same time: I give you metta. I found that a very good example. Different moments of citta. With metta-citta to all, Nina. P.S. What a nice idea of Jon that we all share Dhamma on birthdays. James, you are in March, arent't you? op 26-01-2004 12:45 schreef kenhowardau op kenhowardau@y...: > PS: Happy birthday, Mike, and happy birth-moment, everyone. 29395 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 1:23pm Subject: [dsg] Re: cults, metta, paramatthas. Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Ken H, James and Andrew, > Ken, thanks for this good wish, you got the essence. > I followed your dialogue with interest and would like to butt in for a > moment, just going to close down my Email lists. I wonder, can I do > something about a misunderstanding re A. Sujin? Thank you very much for your explanation. I don't know K. Sujin personally so perhaps I spoke too hastily. Another member contacted me off-list, someone who I respect, and told me as much. If what you have described about K. Sujin is accurate then I don't believe she should be characterized as a cult leader; nor do I think that those who admire her should be characterized as cult followers. This is my mistake and I apologize. As you have seen, sometimes I use strong language but it isn't (usually) with the intent to harm, it is with the intent to help. But even goodness, if not used unskillfully, can cause harm. I will lay this subject aside, reserving further judgment, until I know more facts personally. No need to discuss it further and I probably shouldn't have brought it up. Metta, James Ps. No, my birthday is in May, but I don't like to recognize or acknowledge birthdays. Don't know why, just never have (this rritates my family to no end! ;-)). 29396 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 1:30pm Subject: [dsg] Re: cults, metta, paramatthas. Hi again Nina, Correction: The sentence: "But even goodness, if not used unskillfully, can cause harm." Should read, "But even goodness, if not used skillfully, can cause harm." Metta, James 29397 From: Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 4:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Howard: "The sutta itself makes it clear that all namas and all rupas arise in necessary dependence on consciousness." Hi Howard, Perhaps, but there may be another way of reading it. I think someone could argue that "namarupa" is a particular kind of body/mind combination and doesn't include all nama or all rupa. For example, there are temperature produced rupas that don't depend on consciousness for their arising and I would think in the formless realms there is no interdependence between consciousness and rupa. Larry 29398 From: robmoult Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 4:40pm Subject: Re: I have two questions ... Hi Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > During dinner in a restaurant this evening, my friends discussed, > with varying levels of distaste or horror, the following story: > http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1031412.htm > The word "alive" is not a misprint - the T.V. news showed it > happening. Apparently, it saves money. > I have two questions regarding this news story: > 1. Whose is the kamma? The prisoners and soldiers who are required > to do it; The officials who ordered it; Or the general population > who hasn't protested at SUCH a thing. > 2. My friends asked me - how can this method be allowed to happen in > any country, but especially in a buddhist country? I had no answer. > Do any of you? I have been away for too long. I have a new responsibility at the office that means less travel and much more work. The officials who ordered the killing will accumulate the most kamma. The kammic weight will depend on the underlying volition. In this case, it would appear that the intention is not one of cruelty, but rather a sense of responsibility to protect the people. The soldiers and prisoners who executed the acts will also accumulate kamma. The key factor determining the kammic weight will be their individual volition at the time of performing the act. If their mind- state is "I am following orders", the kammic weight will be less than if they are performing the acts with cruelty. The general population does not accumulate any kamma. Of course, the aversion that you and your friends felt over this story is bad kamma for you :-) . On the other hand, if you felt compassion for the soldiers / prisoners / chickens, then this would be good kamma. You and your friends ask how this could be allowed to happen. What alternative would you propose (keeping in mind the relative poverty of central Thailand)? Slaughtering the chickens before burying them would likely condition more bad kamma, wouldn't it? Culling of livestock is a common method used to control the spread of dangerous diseases; consider mad cow disease and the Nipea virus in pigs. Metta, Rob M :-) 29399 From: Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 5:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts, Sarah Hi Nina, Thanks for your reply. I found nothing to argue with (unfortunately), but here are a few thoughts that were running through my head today. It seems to me the primary way we investigate concepts is to try to find them. I own a car, so I try to find the car, the ownership, and me. Not finding them, I know they don't exist. Hence, there is a little less clinging to these concepts. We investigate realities by noticing their impermanence. I can *seemingly* notice the arising and falling away of liking my car. [We can go into this in more detail when we get to vedana and lobha in Vism.] I can also notice that the liking is one phenomenon and the car, whatever it is, is another. This kind of investigation also results in less clinging, in particular to the reality of liking. The question is, what difference does it make whether something is a reality or a concept? Whether something is unfindable or impermanent, either way it is ungraspable. The only problem I see is that most realities are unfindable, for most of us. This might give someone the idea they are not ultimately real and therefore not subject to the cause and effect of conditionality. Are there other problems here? I think I'm going to have to consider this a little more to sort it out. Larry 29400 From: robmoult Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 5:25pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi James and Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Ken: K Sujinians are trying to learn the Dhamma as found in the > Theravada texts, that's all. > > James: In my opinion that is the first mistake. You should be trying > to learn the Dhamma that is found in life, not in some texts > (Theravada or otherwise). Start with the First Noble Truth: Life is > Dukkha, and work from there. You don't need to know all the texts, > just look around and pay attention. What do you see? What do you > smell? What do you feel? What do you taste? What do you hear? > What do you cognize? These are all the teachers you need. A few months ago, I had the opportunity to meet Khun Sujin for the first time. After the initial greeting, I sat beside her and asked her about a relatively obscure point in the Abhidhamma. She smiled and asked, "But what do you sense right now?" It was like a slap on the face. I suspect that Khun Sujin is against analysis paralysis, against texts for the sake of texts. Her words focus on the current moment. Because of my accumulations, it is easier for me to be aware of the current moment when I am sitting in meditation. However, that does not preclude the possibility that others may have accumulations that support them being aware of the current moment in daily life. Certainly the Satipatthana Sutta describes both approaches. The Buddha never wrote anything down, yet he told the Sangha to let the Dhamma be their guide after His parinibbana. I don't think that the Buddha was referring to the texts, I suspect that He was guiding us to look at truths, through our own experiences. On a parallel note, there was a new face in my Abhidhamma class last week. He asked a very intelligent question. Later, somebody told me that he was a Christian lawyer. He had attended one of Ajahn Brahm's dhamma talks and was very impressed. However, he was not yet sure if he was being swayed by Ajahn Brahm's charisma (he's got lots!). A friend suggested that he attend a six day meditation retreat and observe his own mind. That experience was enough to make him realize that there was a lot more to Buddhism than a charismatic speaker. So now he is interested, what is the next step? This person could spend every weekend in a meditation retreat learning more through direct observation. However, he recognized that others had tread a similar path and recorded their insights. Studying these texts would help him put his own experience into a framework, a context. As the Buddha said in the simile of the raft, we have to be ready to abandon even the teachings, after we have crossed the stream. Until we make it to the other side, the texts provide a useful guide. I have touched on some sensitive topics here (value of meditation and value of texts). I hope that I haven't offended either of you. Metta, Rob M :-) 29401 From: robmoult Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 5:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Howard and Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Howard: "In particular, rupas do not exist other than as objects of > > consciousness." > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > If the above were the case, eye sensitivity couldn't exist except as an > > object of consciousness. > > > > Larry > > > ======================== > Okay, a good point, a smart observation! Assuming that "eye > sensitivity" is a rupa, a proposition that I don't readily accept, and if, indeed, it > does *not* arise as arammana (a negativity which *seems* to be the case), this > would show that a rupa may arise other than as an object of consciousness, and > that would show that I overstated in saying that "rupas do not exist other > than as objects of consciousness." > What I *should* have stated, and which is all that one can *directly* > obtain from the sutta, is that rupas have consciousness as a necessary > condition for their arising. (What the form of the dependency involved is isn't > stated.) In particular, then, "eye sensitivity," if it is a paramattha dhamma, > arises in dependence on consciousness as one condition, and does not arise without > consciousness as condition. This would make eye sensitivity, whether it is an > actual phenomenon or merely the pa~n~natti of "the physical capacity to see," > something that never arises without consciousness as condition, and, thus, > never exists independent of consciousness. The sutta itself makes it clear that > all namas and all rupas arise in necessary dependence on consciousness. And, > as Swee Boon makes clear, and the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta states, namarupa and > consciousness are mutually dependent. Eye-sensitivity is a kamma-produced rupa, so it depends on nama. Howard, it seems to me that you are trying to define Buddhism as phenomenological. Though there are many striking similarities between a Buddhist perspective and a purely phenomenological perspective, the two perspectives have different objectives and therefore should not be compared. Specifically, a phenomenological perspective is primarly an ontological issue (nature of reality). A Buddhist perspective, as explained in the Simsapa Sutta and the Culamalunkya Sutta, is an ethical issue ("conducive to the holy life") and a soterilogical issue ("attainment of Nibbana"). In these two Suttas, the Buddha warns about using the Buddha's teaching out of context. Howard, a year or so ago we had a similar discussion and at that time, you and I were on the same page. I have been mulling over this issue for many months and this was my first opportunity to raise the issue again with you. Interested in your feedback. Metta, Rob M :-) 29402 From: Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 1:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/26/04 7:46:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Howard: "The sutta itself makes it clear that all namas and all rupas > arise in necessary dependence on consciousness." > > Hi Howard, > > Perhaps, but there may be another way of reading it. I think someone > could argue that "namarupa" is a particular kind of body/mind > combination and doesn't include all nama or all rupa. For example, there > are temperature produced rupas that don't depend on consciousness for > their arising and I would think in the formless realms there is no > interdependence between consciousness and rupa. > > Larry > ========================== Well, "someone could argue" whatever they want, but the sutta in question says: "Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention -- these are called mentality. The four great elements and the material form derived from the four great elements -- these are called materiality." The four great elements and the material form derived from the four great elements constitute rupas in their entirety. So, it seems to me that the matter is settled - unless, of course, one wants to twist and stretch and squirm to the point that the claim is made that the sutta says "A" but somehow means "not A" by it! ;-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 29403 From: Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 3:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, Rob - In a message dated 1/26/04 9:50:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Eye-sensitivity is a kamma-produced rupa, so it depends on nama. > > Howard, it seems to me that you are trying to define Buddhism as > phenomenological. Though there are many striking similarities between > a Buddhist perspective and a purely phenomenological perspective, the > two perspectives have different objectives and therefore should not > be compared. > > Specifically, a phenomenological perspective is primarly an > ontological issue (nature of reality). > > A Buddhist perspective, as explained in the Simsapa Sutta and the > Culamalunkya Sutta, is an ethical issue ("conducive to the holy > life") and a soterilogical issue ("attainment of Nibbana"). In these > two Suttas, the Buddha warns about using the Buddha's teaching out of > context. > > Howard, a year or so ago we had a similar discussion and at that > time, you and I were on the same page. I have been mulling over this > issue for many months and this was my first opportunity to raise the > issue again with you. > > Interested in your feedback. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > =============================== I wasn't trying to define buddhism as anything - I didn't have to. I merely pointed out what the Buddha said. 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) 29404 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 8:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, Swee Boon Good to see you around again, and thanks for the sutta quote. As a nearby resident of Thailand, you may like to consider a quick trip to Bangkok to join the discussions on Thurs to Saturday. At the latest count there look like being 10-12 DSG members present (some are lurkers). The latest notification received is from Ven Yanattharo who will be in Bangkok for Rob Ed's ordination (we are hoping to see Rob Ed at the discussions also). Jon --- nidive wrote: > Hi Howard, ... > Mentality-materiality depends on consciousness and consciousness > depends on mentality-materiality. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-067.html > 29405 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 8:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Angulimala revisited Connie Thanks for the colourful explanation. Clearer now. Jon (for Sarah) --- connie wrote: > Hi, Sarah, Ken O, > ... > c: Ok, Sarah, just that it's all stories... whether they're strung > out > over aeons of lives, just this one, just today or a single > consciousness-originated breath... the stories last, but each > little All > is just namas and rupas; life is only as long as a single thought > moment > and even what I call good kamma rests on defilements. We just keep > on, > like those countless 1000's doing the Angulimala; or I look down in > the > snow on my way to the post office and I'm walking in the same > footsteps > I made two days ago. Walking with the neighbour last summer, it > was my > old tracks in the dust two miles from here. There are stories in > my > life I'd rather not repeat, however interesting they might be, but > the > footsteps say I've walked over the same mountain of bones so much I > don't even know how deep the ruts are or how much higher it would > be if > I had all my thumbs. > To make it a short story, we never know what those 7 javana dwarves > are > going to mine, but we wear the necklaces and are distracted by ever > more > glitter, all of it pauper's gems, while Pinocchio brings such > passion to > the interpretive dance that no one's watching the doors; robbers > waltz > in and we're carried away with ourselves by the ring in our nose, > forgetting to listen to the wind as we shuffle off to hell. > metta, > connie 29406 From: Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 8:26pm Subject: Attn: SUAN : re: "namarupa" in Sammaditthi Sutta Hi Howard, The only way to settle this is to see what the commentary says. Since Nina is gone maybe Suan can look it up. The question: does consciousness condition all rupa, is all consciousness dependent on rupa according to this sutta? Larry 29407 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 9:20pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Wooh, Now i'm really disapointed to be missing out! rob In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Hi, Swee Boon > > Good to see you around again, and thanks for the sutta quote. > > As a nearby resident of Thailand, you may like to consider a quick > trip to Bangkok to join the discussions on Thurs to Saturday. At the > latest count there look like being 10-12 DSG members present (some > are lurkers). The latest notification received is from Ven > Yanattharo who will be in Bangkok for Rob Ed's ordination (we are > hoping to see Rob Ed at the discussions also). > > Jon 29408 From: Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 5:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Attn: SUAN : re: "namarupa" in Sammaditthi Sutta Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/26/04 11:31:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > The only way to settle this is to see what the commentary says. Since > Nina is gone maybe Suan can look it up. > > The question: does consciousness condition all rupa, is all > consciousness dependent on rupa according to this sutta? > > ============================= Larry, I disagree *entirely*! The sutta is so eminently clear, unambigious, and straightforward that it requires nothing at all from commentary or from me. (Oh, also, I should mention that this sutta states that namas and rupas arise with consciousness as a necessary condition, but does not address the converse.The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta does, asserting both. So, the converse is not part of "the question" at hand.) Another matter made quite clear in this sutta in addition to the dependence of namas and rupas on consciousness, something that has not made sense to me and that I assumed came only from Abhidhamma, is that there are the four great rupas, and that all other rupas are derivative, arising in dependence on them. I've explicitly questioned that dependeny before on this list. But here I see it being stated straight out by the Buddha in this sutta. I will not try to squirm, stretch, and contort, by searching all over for commentaries that will provide an obscure interpretation enabling me to hold onto my fixed beliefs and to show that the sutta means something other than what it plainly says. It clearly means exactly what it says. The Buddha has clearly asserted here that sights, sounds, tastes, odors, and tactile sensations that are not among the four great rupas are derivatives of them, arising with them as condition. I see that the Buddha taught that as a fact in this sutta no more clearly and no less clearly than I see that the Buddha taught here that namas and rupas arise with consciousness as a necessary condition. Now it is my decision to tentatively accept that previously doubted assertion as true - pending future direct, personal confirmation, which I anticipate, or future direct, personal refutation, which I do not anticipate. I accept it, albeit tentatively, due to my great confidence in the Buddha, a confidence gained by putting into practice the Buddha's teachings and seeing the results. My inclination, rather than looking to refute the statement, is to look to understand it and confirm it. However, I will not run from truth regardless of what it is, and regardless of whom or what it may contradict. 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) 29409 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 0:22am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Rob M, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi James and Ken, > I have touched on some sensitive topics here (value of meditation and > value of texts). I hope that I haven't offended either of you. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) You haven't offended me. Quite the opposite! I think you have done a brilliant job! Metta, James 29410 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 0:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Attn: SUAN : re: "namarupa" in Sammaditthi Sutta Hi Howard (Larry and All), Howard: Larry, I disagree *entirely*! James: Oh come on Howard, don't you want Suan to come in and save the day?? ;-)) Howard: The sutta is so eminently clear, unambigious, and straightforward that it requires nothing at all from commentary or from me. James: Well, I don't know about you, but I don't even find the term `consciousness' very clear. What is `consciousness' exactly? Consciousness seems to be so tied up with rupa, thought formations, and feelings that I am not able to sift it out and know what it means. Even my thoughts about `consciousness' have become immediately corrupted due to the thinking process itself. However, Suan doesn't need to provide the commentary to this sutta, it is already available online: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel377.html However, I don't find the commentary in this regard very helpful. Using ambiguous words to define other ambiguous words is really useless to me. I guess you just gotta keep sitting, developing the mind, until the tangle untangles itself and consciousness becomes directly known. Howard: I see it being stated straight out by the Buddha in this sutta. James: Small point of clarification, and not terribly important, this sutta was spoken by Ven. Sariputta. Metta, James 29411 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 1:40am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi James and all, Perhaps I should have posed the question as "Did the Buddha say that the Four Noble Truths are ultimate or conventional?" as the question "Did the Buddha characterize the Four Noble Truths as ultimate or conventional?", seemly simple, gave rise to miscommunication. Anyway, I do think that you've got the point: Given the record of the Buddha's teaching on the Four Noble Truths in the Pali Canon, the Buddha did not say that the Four Noble Truths are ultimate, conventional, or both. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Victor, [snip] 29412 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts, Sarah Hi Larry Satipatthana could only be practised by reality and not concepts. The greatest pblm I have is not understanding the material world that I am looking are just the four great elements and the other rupas. I read I think in the commentary to Abhidhimmatha Sangaha, the word Great is used for the four elements bc they are the greatest deceivers or deluders. When we see things as just rupas and not concepts, satipatthana is in IMHO immediately established. Just for eg, I am attracted to a beautiful lady that walk pass me, if I will to realise that this lady is just visible rupas in my eye cittas, the lobha and moha component will immediately cease, there arise three beautiful roots (but in practise this is extremely hard to do). But I believe once we practise this more often, eventually satipathana will be natural. I do not know how long it takes to be naturally, it may be years before we think like that, or maybe lives. kind regards Ken O 29413 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 4:23am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Andrew, You wrote: ------------------- A: > I hope I am reading this correctly, but IMHO just seeing paramattha dhammas is in the end pointless. After his enlightenment, Buddha was prompted by Brahma Sahampati and "out of compassion for beings", Buddha surveyed the world and decided to teach the Dhamma. Compassion for what? Beings. -------------------------------- True, but there's more to the story than that. :-) --------------------------- A: > Not a moment of the conditioned arising of the 5 aggregates of clinging. CMA p 90 tells us that compassion's proximate cause is "seeing helplessness in those overwhelmed by suffering". Seeing helplessness in what? Those overwhelmed by suffering. Not a moment of the conditioned arising of the 5 aggregates of clinging. --------------------------- I'm no expert on the Paccaya but I can take a guess at what this means: In a way, a concept can condition dhammas. The concept of a person overwhealmed by suffering can condition compassion (adosa). Actually, the conditioning is done by the dhammas that contributed to the concept's being formed. There would be a huge number and a wide variety of them and, as such, they could only be made intelligible, or describable, by our referring to them as the concept itself. (Thus it is said that concepts can condition dhammas.) --------------------------- A: > It is absurd to think of feeling compassion for the rising and falling of the waves in the ocean. Similarly, if we look at our plane of existence and all we see is the arising and passing away of paramattha dhammas, what is there to feel compassion for or about? --------------------------- Nothing. But there can be adosa. When the object of adosa is a paramattha dhamma, it is not called compassion (karuna), it is just `adosa.' We might ask, "How can there be adosa [or any apparent `interestedness'], for a mere, fleeting, nama or rupa?" But our confusion is due to ignorance of paramattha dhammas -- they are different from concepts. ------------------------ A: > Like all of the Dhamma, the conventional/absolute realities distinction is a useful tool that will become redundant when direct knowledge is attained. It is a raft to be left on the far shore. ------------------------- I'm not sure what you mean here but I wouldn't put it like that. I don't believe namas and rupas are part of a story made up by the Buddha. They remain real – just as he described them -- whether or not there is a Buddha in the world. ----------------------- A: > Conventional reality IS reality and as such, the Buddha taught it. How can you possibly say he didn't? There ARE beings [see definition of "sattavasa"] even if we must remind ourselves intellectually that they are not permanently abiding entities but more like patterned streams of namarupa always in flux. --------------------------- Again, I wouldn't put it like that. The past and future are non- existent: Outside the present moment, there is no stream. As I tried to explain above – with my uneducated guess – when disparate dhammas act together to condition other dhammas, they may be acting as some kind of `conventional reality.' (Ugh! A contradiction-in-terms by my reckoning! :-) ) But that's as far as I'm prepared to concede for now. :-) ---------------- A: > Too much surfing, KenH. ---------------- `Too much surfing is barely enough.' (Apologies to Roy and HG.) -------------------------------- A: > Your "absolute reality only" view is going way too far and leaves you just standing and watching the rising and falling of the waves in the ocean. What's the point? ------------------------------ I think, ultimately, that is how we will see the world. Then, a [wholesome] kind of aversion will engulf us, we will renounce the world and we will experience Nibbana. Kind regards, Ken H 29414 From: abhidhammika Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:16am Subject: Re: Attn: SUAN : re: "namarupa" in Sammaditthi Sutta : To Larry Dear Larry, Howard, James and all How are you? Happy New Year to Larry! Thank you, Larry, for inviting me to enter this thread. I will read both the Suttam and its commentary soon, and then get back to you. With regards, Suan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: Hi Howard, The only way to settle this is to see what the commentary says. Since Nina is gone maybe Suan can look it up. The question: does consciousness condition all rupa, is all consciousness dependent on rupa according to this sutta? Larry 29415 From: Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Attn: SUAN : re: "namarupa" in Sammaditthi Sutta Hi, James - In a message dated 1/27/04 3:57:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Hi Howard (Larry and All), > > Howard: Larry, I disagree *entirely*! > > James: Oh come on Howard, don't you want Suan to come in and save the > day?? ;-)) > ------------------------------------------ Howard: LOL! (No offense intended, Suan. You have impressive knowledge. :-) ----------------------------------------- > > Howard: The sutta is so eminently clear, unambigious, and > straightforward that it requires nothing at all from commentary > or from me. > > James: Well, I don't know about you, but I don't even find the > term `consciousness' very clear. What is `consciousness' exactly? > Consciousness seems to be so tied up with rupa, thought formations, > and feelings that I am not able to sift it out and know what it > means. Even my thoughts about `consciousness' have become > immediately corrupted due to the thinking process itself. However, > Suan doesn't need to provide the commentary to this sutta, it is > already available online: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel377.html > However, I don't find the commentary in this regard very helpful. > Using ambiguous words to define other ambiguous words is really > useless to me. I guess you just gotta keep sitting, developing the > mind, until the tangle untangles itself and consciousness becomes > directly known. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, consciousness is a subtle function. And a consciousness is no more aware of itself than a knife blade cuts itself, but still we *are* aware of being conscious, presumably by a consciousness discerning a just-passed consciousness. In any case, while consciousness is subtle, it is clear to me that what it is is a mere awareness (of "whatever") - it is an initial, elementary, mental encountering of object, the subjective aspect of a contact. ---------------------------------------------- > > Howard: I see it being stated straight out by the Buddha in this > sutta. > > James: Small point of clarification, and not terribly important, this > sutta was spoken by Ven. Sariputta. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Whoops! Not so unimportant! At least, however, Ven Sariputta was the Buddha's right-hand man, the "general of the Dhamma". (He is held in sufficiently high esteem by everybody - he was the Abhidhamma trustee, it is said - to make this unproblematical.) ----------------------------------------------- > > 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) 29416 From: Htoo Naing Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 11:35am Subject: Sensing feeling where it arises and where it vanishes ( 02 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, The meditator is striving to realize all phenomena. He has been practising breathing meditation. In that, he knows touching of incoming air to his nostrils, continuing touching, a short pause, touching of outgoing warm air to his nostrils, continuing touching, and then he knows a long pause. He is striving on and on and again and again on his own breath nothing but on his breath. This goes for a while. For another time, he knows that he is sitting and touching of his bottom to the floor. He knows all through his changes in position to standing and then walking and then sitting on the bed and then lying and touching of his body to the bed. At a time, he knows all the processes of changing that is all his actions, going forward, moving backward, looking straight ahead, looking elsewhere, all the processes of changing dressing, and all other bodily activities with fully conscious mind with proper attention. He has been striving in this way as long as he can. At a time, he contemplates on his own body each part one after another and recognizing that body is not to be attached and he realizes that it is unwise to be proud and to be conceited on own body like this is my beautiful face, this is my lovely lip, this is my pink cheek, this is my slender neck, this is my smooth hand, this is my ivory leg and so on. Here he just contemplates his body as undesirable and it is not noted as desirable which again is the source of Mana or conceit. At another time, he contemplates on his own body grouping into four different elements. He realizes that the body is just made up of these four basic elements and it is nothing but four elements. In that, he cannot find anything more than four elements and then he is free of attachment on his own body. At other time, he contemplates his own body as a body and if lifeless it is just a corpse and it will go into different processes of decomposition and it is completely undesirable and then he realizes that his body is not desirable .( It is not Subha but just Asubha ). In all his contemplations on his body including breathing meditation ( Anapanasati ) and other contemplations, he notices that there is a feeling at each mind while he is contemplating and now he switches himself to contemplation on feeling wherever it arises and whenever it arises. With time, he realizes that there are feelings all the time, at any given time, there is a feeling. He cannot find self inside and outside awide. There is selfless. There is no one. There is no life. There is no Satta ( being ). But just feeling. Now he just knows feeling arises and feeling falls away. May all beings be able to contemplate on feeling wherever it arises and whenever it arises. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing JourneyToNibbana 29417 From: Eddie Lou Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pativeda Realization Dear Htoo Naing, Thanks for a lot of great postings which help me a lot. The booster message - is that analogous/comparable to when a days-old infant progressed into a teenager and on to adult ? If one studied carefully, the infant's knowledge and skill gets a jump (similar to quantum jump, from booster message ?) to pick up crawling, to walking and then speaking come on very soon in not-so-gradual steps or stages. In technical jargon - step progression as against stepless progression, as can be represented in a graph. I also think this might also be in aging progression. That also is when the opportune time come for booster message to appear - comparable to blossoming of a plant. In fact, I have heard real-life happenings similar to or the same as - your described booster message, learning languages in just a day or so, if not hours. I do not mean to lean towards or advocate mysticisms or superstitions because Buddhism does not encourage such ( I agreed). Mainly because every things (effects) have their corresponding reason(s) or cause(s). Nothing mystic or superstitious. Only ignorance (moha) and thus ensuing - fear, makes us superstitious. Moha - because certainly we do not know a lot and illusions abound. Science is barely scratching the surface of many true realities - through many illusions on the way. I am learning Buddhism to have 'a little fast forward' ahead of Science, which I think it may converge with Buddha's teaching in only smaller intersect as in Set theory or Venn's diagram. Reason is - I was told Science can and will never be able to measure nama (consciousness). Science maybe just a subset of Buddha's teachings. I am very fascinated and awed in the vast and complex classification/categorizing and information structures in explanation of many phenomena by Buddha with no known anomalies or discrepancies to hide or cover up - so far. After over 2,500 years of scrutiny (by other religions, maybe). Many people do not classify Buddhism as a religion because religion as a definition has other meaning. No conflict/clash with Science, so far either. No ordinary person can accomplish such capabilities. That should be enough for those (who will be curious and lucky enough) to look carefully into his many explanations. Lucky because today we are born as human beings with enough interpreting wisdom to understand the essence of Dhamma, which also still exists today. Dhamma was destined to lessen and disappear (?) in the future. In other words, both has to be there - being a human and existence of Dhamma. Correct me if I am wrong - I understand Dhamma as the 'true (or) as is (no illusion)' concept or description of true realities according to Buddha. Thanks again for imparting a lot of your wisdom. Metta, Eddie Lou --- htootintnaing wrote: > Dear Dhamma Friends, > > When the Dhammafarer thinks that Dhamma is too > complicated and ...[snipped] > Not all Arahats learned theory first and then > practical and so on but > there are those who never learned before their > enlightenment but they > did pick up a booster message where appropriate. ...[snipped] > With Unlimited Metta, > > Htoo Naing 29418 From: Michael Beisert Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hello RobM, RobM: Howard, it seems to me that you are trying to define Buddhism as phenomenological. Though there are many striking similarities between a Buddhist perspective and a purely phenomenological perspective, the two perspectives have different objectives and therefore should not be compared. Specifically, a phenomenological perspective is primarly an ontological issue (nature of reality). Michael: I think you have to review your definitions. In accordance with dictionary.com: Ontology: The branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being. Phenomenology: A philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human consciousness. The way the teachings of the Buddha are generally discussed in this list takes one to the conclusion that the Buddha taught some form of ontology, i.e. ultimate realities that are the real truth underlying the merely conceptual existence of beings. While in the suttas the Buddha rejects metaphysics and presents the teachings in a way which is much closer to phenomenology. Metta Michael 29419 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 4:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Hi Larry, and all, I hope you don't mind me jumping in to share some thoughts: You mentioned attachment to concepts in your message, and I take attachment in the sense of craving (tanha) or clinging/sustenance (upadana). The Buddha defined craving by classifying it into six classes of craving as craving for forms, craving for sounds, craving for smells, craving for tastes, craving for tactile sensations, craving for ideas. [1] In this case, craving is defined by the objects of craving. On the other hand, the Buddha taught clinging/sustenance as sensuality-clinging, view-clinging, precept-&-practice-clinging, and doctrine-of-self-clinging. [2] The objects of clinging/sustenance are classified into the five aggregates: form, feeling, perception, fabrications, and consciousness. Namely, they are the five aggregates of clinging/sustenance. In particular, the Buddha also taught the following: There are, bhikkhus, these two views: the view of existence and the view of extermination. Therein, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple reflects thus: `Is there anything in the world that I could cling to without being blameworthy?' He understands thus: `There is nothing in the world that I could cling to without being blameworthy. For if I should cling, it is only form that I would be clinging to, only feeling … only perception … only volitional formations … only consciousness that I would be clinging to. With that clinging of mine as condition, there would be existence [becoming/bhava]; with existence [becoming/bhava] as condition, birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair would come to be. Such would be the origin of this whole mass of suffering. [3] Regarding attachments to concepts, I see that concepts as either the objects of craving or as the objects of clinging/sustenance. If concepts are the objects of clinging/sustenance, then they would belong to the aggregate of form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, or consciousness. If concepts are the objects of craving, then they would be classified as forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, or ideas. Some may say that concepts do not exist. I would suggest considering if concept is form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, or consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change or if it is form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, or consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, subject to change. After all, the Buddha explicitly stated what it is that the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, of which he too said that it does not exist, and what it is that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which he too said that it exists.[4] Peace, Victor [1] Samyutta Nikaya XII.2, Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta, Analysis of Dependent Co-arising http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-002.html [2] Ibid. [3] The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya. Translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi. SN 22.80, Alms- Gatherer, p.920 [4] Ibid. SN 22.94, Flowers, p.949-950 At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, I do not dispute with the world; rather, it is the world that disputes with me. A proponent of the Dhamma does not dispute with anyone in the world. Of that which the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, I too say that it does not exist. And of that which the wise in the world agree upon as existing, I too say that it exists. "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, of which I too say that it does not exist? Form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, and I too say that it does not exist. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, and I too say that it does not exist. "That, bhikkhus, is what the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, of which I too say that it does not exist. "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. "That, bhikkhus, is what the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Nina and Howard, > > I've been contemplating this for a few days and I'm wondering if > something is being left out in the progress of insight as outlined in > the Visuddhimagga, namely, the investigation of concepts. For example, > investigating a whole to see if there is in reality a whole; or > investigating a concept such as beauty to see if it actually exists. Why > isn't this considered to be an element of insight? Isn't the majority of > our attachments to concepts? > > Larry 29420 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 4:33pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Rob M, Thanks for your comments on this thread. You are welcome back any time you can make it. :-) You wrote to Chris: -------------------------- > I have been away for too long. I have a new responsibility at the office that means less travel and much more work. > ----------------------- Never mind, there is always the present moment. While you were away, there was talk about busy merchants and how, as Buddhists, they should organise their lives. In one sutta, quoted by Robert K, the question was put directly to the Buddha. From memory, the answer was; "'As to the teaching of the Tathagatha, deep, deep in meaning, concerned with the void [anatta], . . . ., from time to time we shall spend our days learning it;' that is how you must organise your lives." So you have no excuse. :-) Furthermore, whether or not we are busy merchants, we can all see, here and now, from the above quote, the path leading to Right Understanding. You wrote to James and me: ---------------- > A few months ago, I had the opportunity to meet Khun Sujin for the first time. After the initial greeting, I sat beside her and asked her about a relatively obscure point in the Abhidhamma. She smiled and asked, "But what do you sense right now?" It was like a slap on the face. I suspect that Khun Sujin is against analysis paralysis, against texts for the sake of texts. Her words focus on the current moment. > ------------------ There's a lesson in that for me too (as a fellow paralytic), but I think I needed to be there. On the face of it, this question is mixing conventional truth with absolute truth (another topic you missed while you were away): Having told you the present moment was too fast for the thinking mind to catch hold of, how did K Sujin expect you to know `what you sense right now?' My answer would have been "According to the texts, the object of sense consciousness is a rupa; visible object for example." Was that what she had in mind? ------------------ RM: > Because of my accumulations, it is easier for me to be aware of the current moment when I am sitting in meditation. > ------------------------- Satipatthana does not require easy, or convenient, circumstances. Provided the conditions have been accumulated, it will accept any dhamma, any where, any time. ------------------------ RM: > However, that does not preclude the possibility that others may have accumulations that support them being aware of the current moment in daily life. Certainly the Satipatthana Sutta describes both approaches. > --------------- I disagree, Rob (which won't surprise you :-) ): It describes only one approach – satipatthana in daily life. There is nothing easy about anapanasati (jhana concentration with a rupa, a paramattha dhamma, as object), but if a person has the accumulations for it, then, for him, that is a time when Right Mindfulness can occur. If a person is engaged in something less difficult (like walking, sitting, eating, toileting, reading, talking and so on), then that, for him, is a time when Right Mindfulness can occur. He should be aware of that fact -- at least, at an intellectual level. For example, when he is seeing, he should be aware of the fact that visible object is present. (!!!) ----------------- RM: > I have touched on some sensitive topics here (value of meditation and value of texts). I hope that I haven't offended either of you. > ----------------- Once again, Rob, you put me to shame with your tact and thoughtfulness. But it's a good point you raise: Why should we worry about offending the meditators (you, James, Howard, Htoo, (the list goes on and on) but not worry about offending the text studiers? We bookworms have feelings too, we are just as attached to, and conceited about, our practices as you are! :-) Kind regards, Ken H 29421 From: Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Hi Victor, Thanks for this material. I wonder what abhidhamma has to say about concept as object of clinging. Larry 29422 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 7:34pm Subject: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Hi Larry, No problem...I wonder what you mean by attachment. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Thanks for this material. I wonder what abhidhamma has to say about > concept as object of clinging. > > Larry 29423 From: Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 4:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts, Sarah Hi KenO, I agree. When I see a beautiful lady what I like is concept. When I see, somewhat, that the concept is in reality paramattha dhammas, the liking vanishes. Alternately, if I see that the concept is concept, liking also vanishes. Additionally, if I see that liking is impermanent, then liking vanishes. If we say satipatthana is practiced disillusionment, then all these apply. What I thought was desirable turns out to be not so desirable after all. If we say satipatthana is disillusionment based on impermanence, then only the impermanence of liking applies. Looking closer, however, it's not so easy to precisely identify liking. Without clearly seeing liking, is liking only a concept? Larry 29424 From: robmoult Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 7:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Michael, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > Hello RobM, > > RobM: > Howard, it seems to me that you are trying to define Buddhism as > phenomenological. Though there are many striking similarities between > a Buddhist perspective and a purely phenomenological perspective, the > two perspectives have different objectives and therefore should not > be compared. > Specifically, a phenomenological perspective is primarly an > ontological issue (nature of reality). > > > Michael: > I think you have to review your definitions. In accordance with > dictionary.com: > > Ontology: The branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being. > Phenomenology: A philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that > reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood > in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human > consciousness. ===== Thanks for the definitions :-) ===== > > The way the teachings of the Buddha are generally discussed in this list > takes one to the conclusion that the Buddha taught some form of ontology, > i.e. ultimate realities that are the real truth underlying the merely > conceptual existence of beings. > While in the suttas the Buddha rejects metaphysics and presents the > teachings in a way which is much closer to phenomenology. I don't beleive that the Buddha ever taught about ultimate realities; my understanding is that paramattha dhammas are a feature of the Abhidhamma, not of the Suttas. I agree that the teachings of the Suttas are close to phenomenology in style, but the focus is different. As per your definition above, phenomenology is about what makes up reality. The Buddha explicitly stated that his focus was on things conducive to the holy life and supporting the attainment of Nibbana. Here is an area where the two diverge. Phenomenology denies the existence of objects outside the realm of human consciousness. There is a Sutta (can't remember which) where the Buddha said that all rupas, seen and unseen, have the three characteristics (ti-lakkhana) of anicca, dukkha and anatta. If rupas that are unseen have the three characteristics, then they must exist. Though they exist, they are not important to support the teaching of the Buddha because of the stated focus of the Buddha's teaching. Metta, Rob M :-) 29425 From: Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 7:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Victor: "Hi Larry, No problem...I wonder what you mean by attachment." Hi Victor, Desire. Larry 29426 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:19pm Subject: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Hi Larry, I suppose by desire you mean desire as defilement; lobha, kamacchanda, raga. In Samyutta Nikaya XXVII, Upakkilesa Samyutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn27.html we see that there are various collections/classifications of objects for desire & passion. Does concept belong to any of those collections/classifications of objects for desire & passion? Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Victor: "Hi Larry, > No problem...I wonder what you mean by attachment." > > Hi Victor, > > Desire. > > Larry 29427 From: Andrew Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:49pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi KenH > You wrote: > ------------------- > A: > I hope I am reading this correctly, but IMHO just seeing > paramattha dhammas is in the end pointless. After his enlightenment, > Buddha was prompted by Brahma Sahampati and "out of compassion for > beings", Buddha surveyed the world and decided to teach the Dhamma. > Compassion for what? Beings. > -------------------------------- > > KH: True, but there's more to the story than that. :-) I agree. That's why we can't put a full stop after "absolute reality" and think we have covered the whole of the Dhamma. You wrote: > I'm no expert on the Paccaya but I can take a guess at what this > means: In a way, a concept can condition dhammas. The concept of a > person overwhealmed by suffering can condition compassion (adosa). > Actually, the conditioning is done by the dhammas that contributed > to the concept's being formed. There would be a huge number and a > wide variety of them and, as such, they could only be made > intelligible, or describable, by our referring to them as the > concept itself. (Thus it is said that concepts can condition > dhammas.) > How can this happen if there is only the present moment which cannot contain the "huge number and wide variety" of paramattha dhammas needed? You wrote: > A: > It is absurd to think of feeling compassion for the rising and > falling of the waves in the ocean. Similarly, if we look at our > plane of existence and all we see is the arising and passing away of > paramattha dhammas, what is there to feel compassion for or about? > --------------------------- > > Nothing. But there can be adosa. When the object of adosa is a > paramattha dhamma, it is not called compassion (karuna), it is > just `adosa.' > > We might ask, "How can there be adosa [or any > apparent `interestedness'], for a mere, fleeting, nama or rupa?" But > our confusion is due to ignorance of paramattha dhammas -- they are > different from concepts. Haven't you just conceded that there is no place for karuna in a wholly paramattha dhamma worldview? You can only see a place for adosa. Why then did the Buddha teach about karuna? Surely you cannot sustain your position until this question is answered. You wrote: > A: > Like all of the Dhamma, the conventional/absolute realities > distinction is a useful tool that will become redundant when direct > knowledge is attained. It is a raft to be left on the far shore. > ------------------------- > > I'm not sure what you mean here but I wouldn't put it like that. I > don't believe namas and rupas are part of a story made up by the > Buddha. They remain real – just as he described them -- whether or > not there is a Buddha in the world. Are the teachings of the Buddha as contained in the Pali canon conventional or absolute reality? What meaning do you ascribe to the simile of the Raft if you maintain that the teachings "remain real"? You wrote: > A: > Conventional reality IS reality and as such, the Buddha taught > it. > How can you possibly say he didn't? There ARE beings [see definition > of "sattavasa"] even if we must remind ourselves intellectually that > they are not permanently abiding entities but more like patterned > streams of namarupa always in flux. > > --------------------------- > > Again, I wouldn't put it like that. The past and future are non- > existent: Outside the present moment, there is no stream. The past and future are non-existent but how do you see the arising of cittas in consistent patterns of 17 mind-moments? Is this just a strange coincidence? Or should it tell us to be cautious about believing we have unraveled the workings of the universe when we get a glimpse of anatta? You wrote: > As I tried to explain above – with my uneducated guess – when > disparate dhammas act together to condition other dhammas, they may > be acting as some kind of `conventional reality.' (Ugh! A > contradiction-in-terms by my reckoning! :-) ) But that's as far as > I'm prepared to concede for now. :-) > Fair enough. You wrote: > A: > Your "absolute reality only" view is going way too far and > leaves you just standing and watching the rising and falling of the > waves in the ocean. What's the point? > ------------------------------ > > I think, ultimately, that is how we will see the world. Then, a > [wholesome] kind of aversion will engulf us, we will renounce the > world and we will experience Nibbana. > KenH, we're both guessing on the long-distance view but I'm not confident that an Ariyan's outlook will necessarily be anything like my present intellectual ability to analyse conventional matters in terms of paramattha dhammas. Are you saying that "yes, the universe IS pointless" and direct knowledge of this will condition the dispassion and turning-away that we often read about in the Dhamma? Metta Andrew 29428 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts, Sarah Hi Larry Concepts can be an object of cittas hence liking do arise in the citta. Since we now only able to see concepts rather than realities, then if you prefer to use concepts as a basis for practising, that is fine. To me, sooner or later, we have to see the "underneath of all concepts" to realise they are just rupas or realities. And that is the start of Satipatthana. In the meantime, even though we practise using conceptss, is not satipatthana but it is a start for developing the wisdom to that level which one day we will see it as reality. kind regards Ken O --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi KenO, > > I agree. When I see a beautiful lady what I like is concept. When I > see, > somewhat, that the concept is in reality paramattha dhammas, the > liking > vanishes. Alternately, if I see that the concept is concept, liking > also > vanishes. Additionally, if I see that liking is impermanent, then > liking > vanishes. > > If we say satipatthana is practiced disillusionment, then all these > apply. What I thought was desirable turns out to be not so > desirable > after all. If we say satipatthana is disillusionment based on > impermanence, then only the impermanence of liking applies. Looking > closer, however, it's not so easy to precisely identify liking. > Without > clearly seeing liking, is liking only a concept? > > Larry > > > > 29429 From: Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Hi Victor, Here's an example of concept as object of desire. In this case read "idea" as "concept": "In whatever monk or nun there arises desire, passion, aversion, delusion, or mental resistance with regard to sounds cognizable via the ear... aromas cognizable via the nose... flavors cognizable via the tongue... tactile sensations cognizable via the body... ideas cognizable via the intellect, he/she should hold the mind in check. [Thinking,] 'It's dangerous & dubious, that path, thorny & overgrown, a miserable path, a devious path, impenetrable. It's a path followed by people of no integrity, not a path followed by people of integrity. It's not worthy of you,' he/she should hold the mind in check with regard to ideas cognizable via the intellect." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn35-205.html Larry 29430 From: robmoult Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:30pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > While you were away, there was talk about busy merchants and how, > as Buddhists, they should organise their lives. In one sutta, > quoted by Robert K, the question was put directly to the Buddha. > From memory, the answer was; "'As to the teaching of the Tathagatha, > deep, deep in meaning, concerned with the void [anatta], . . . ., > from time to time we shall spend our days learning it;' that is how > you must organise your lives." > > So you have no excuse. :-) Furthermore, whether or not we are busy > merchants, we can all see, here and now, from the above quote, the > path leading to Right Understanding. ===== Though I wasn't participating in DSG, I was still studying the Dhamma... so the time wasn't *completely* wasted. :-) ===== > > You wrote to James and me: > ---------------- > > A few months ago, I had the opportunity to meet Khun Sujin for the > first time. After the initial greeting, I sat beside her and asked > her about a relatively obscure point in the Abhidhamma. She smiled > and asked, "But what do you sense right now?" > > It was like a slap on the face. I suspect that Khun Sujin is against > analysis paralysis, against texts for the sake of texts. Her words > focus on the current moment. > > ------------------ > > There's a lesson in that for me too (as a fellow paralytic), but I > think I needed to be there. On the face of it, this question is > mixing conventional truth with absolute truth (another topic you > missed while you were away): Having told you the present moment was > too fast for the thinking mind to catch hold of, how did K Sujin > expect you to know `what you sense right now?' > > My answer would have been "According to the texts, the object of > sense consciousness is a rupa; visible object for example." Was that > what she had in mind? ===== Not sure, but I think that she was reminding me of the objective of study. If we discuss the Abhidhamma (or the Dhamma) in an academic way, we risk missing the point (this ties into my phenomenological thread). ===== > > ------------------ > > RM: > Because of my accumulations, it is easier for me to be aware > of the current moment when I am sitting in meditation. > > > ------------------------- > > Satipatthana does not require easy, or convenient, circumstances. > Provided the conditions have been accumulated, it will accept any > dhamma, any where, any time. > > ------------------------ > RM: > However, that does > not preclude the possibility that others may have accumulations that > support them being aware of the current moment in daily life. > Certainly the Satipatthana Sutta describes both approaches. > > --------------- > > I disagree, Rob (which won't surprise you :-) ): It describes only > one approach – satipatthana in daily life. ===== The initial section of the Sutta starts out "And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself? "There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. "Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or breathing in short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short. He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body and to breathe out sensitive to the entire body. He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. I take this section as a description of formal meditation not "daily life". It is true that the next section talks about walking, standing, sitting and lying down. I take this section as "daily life". This is why I said that the Sutta describes both approaches. Metta, Rob M :-) 29431 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:33am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi Ken H, Ken: We bookworms have feelings too, we are just as attached to, and conceited about, our practices as you are! :-) James: You are absolutely right and I apologize if I have ever hurt your feelings in this regard. Ken: There's a lesson in that for me too (as a fellow paralytic), but I think I needed to be there. James: Also a good point. I think we all need to just follow our hearts when it comes to the practice of the dhamma. Sometimes we may need to read/write, sometimes we may need to meditate…sometimes we may just need to vegetate! ;-)) I like what Ajahn Lee said on this matter: "We have to build up our inner worth, our perfections as quickly as possible, because our conviction in these things isn't yet sure. Some days it shrinks out of sight: That's called turtle-head conviction. Some days it stretches back out again. So if it stretches out today, act on it. Tomorrow it may shrink back in again." Metta, James 29432 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:03am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Ken H, Ken: I'm no expert on the Paccaya but I can take a guess at what this means: In a way, a concept can condition dhammas. The concept of a person overwhealmed by suffering can condition compassion (adosa). Actually, the conditioning is done by the dhammas that contributed to the concept's being formed. There would be a huge number and a wide variety of them and, as such, they could only be made intelligible, or describable, by our referring to them as the concept itself. (Thus it is said that concepts can condition dhammas.) James: Here is where I believe that K. Sujin is leading people astray. She writes: "When we understand the characteristics of the citta and cetasika that arise together and how each is the paccaya on which the other depends, one would gradually attenuate the attachment that mistakes realities for entities, people and the selves." http://www.dhammastudy.com/paccaya.html Now, K. Sujin is saying, in an indirect way, that `entities' should not be viewed as entitites; entities should be viewed as concepts that are really nothing more than a collection of `realities'. In short, there are no entities, only realities. Did the Buddha teach this? No. From the Buddha: "The Tathagata -- a worthy one, rightly self-awakened -- directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you. "He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind... beings as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as Brahma... the luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being... the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... the seen as the seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity... the All as the All... "He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn001.html Notice the very important part where the Buddha `directly knows beings as beings'. He doesn't know beings as `realities'. He doesn't say that beings are concept only and that only `dhammas' are real. Also notice that he lists `the cognized as the cognized' separately. This is why I say that purple elephants are a concept (cognized) but entities are real. Metta, James 29433 From: robmoult Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:52am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi James & Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Ken: I'm no expert on the Paccaya but I can take a guess at what this > means: In a way, a concept can condition dhammas. The concept of a > person overwhealmed by suffering can condition compassion (adosa). > Actually, the conditioning is done by the dhammas that contributed > to the concept's being formed. There would be a huge number and a > wide variety of them and, as such, they could only be made > intelligible, or describable, by our referring to them as the > concept itself. (Thus it is said that concepts can condition > dhammas.) According to the Paccaya, concepts can be conditioning states in three ways: - Object condition: conditioned states are the 89 cittas and 52 cetasikas. In other words, cittas can take concepts as objects - Non-disappearance condition: same as object condition - Natural decisive support condition (some strong past concepts only): conditioned states are later 89 cittas and 52 cetasikas. Here is some more background on natural decisive support condition (sounds like a health-care product, doesn't it:-) ) A fundamental principle of Buddhism is that everything arises because of conditions; there is no God and no self to "decide" things. The Patthana, the seventh book of the Abhidhamma, explains conditional relations; ways in which one thing can be a condition for another. One of these modes of conditioning is "natural decisive support" (pakatupanissaya). Natural decisive support works as a condition when one of the following factors is present: - Strong past concepts - Strong past citta / cetasika - Strong past rupa "Past" not only includes experiences in the current lifetime, but also experiences from previous lifetimes. A concept, citta / cetasika or rupa can be "strong" when: - It was encountered frequently in the past (a past habit) - It was experienced very recently (bad news in one moment influences your reaction to something else in the next moment) - It was associated with very strong volition in the past (strong past impression or a solemn vow) "Strong past concepts, citta / cetasikas or rupa" are the conditioning factors, natural decisive support is the mode of conditioning, but what is conditioned? The texts explain that all 89 cittas and their associated cetasikas are conditioned. In other words, natural decisive support plays a part in the arising of every mental state. Though every single citta is influenced by natural decisive support, we can see that there are certain cittas where this conditioning by natural decisive support plays an important role: - Sense-door adverting: this citta controls the flow of the citta process and "decides" that a certain rupa will become the object of a citta process. Each of the senses is constantly bombarded with information; it is natural decisive support condition that "decides" which data will be processed. - Determining / mind door adverting: this citta controls the flow of the citta process and "decides" which type of javana (kamma producing) cittas will follow. Natural decisive support condition "decides" if our thoughts will be kusala or akusala. - Javana: these cittas create kamma. The weightiness of the kamma produced depends on the strength of the volition (cetana). It is natural decisive support that "decides" how strong the cetana will be and therefore the weightiness of the resulting kamma. - Jhana: The arising of the jhana citta depend on natural decisive support condition. It is this condition that "decides" when we should enter jhana. - Path: The arising of the supramundane cittas depend on natural decisive support condition. It is this condition that "decides" when we are ready to become a Sotapanna (or higher). The popular saying that "people are creatures of habit" is true. If we do metta meditation each morning, our mind naturally reacts with metta throughout the day. If we feel drawn to the Dhamma, it is probably because we studied the Dhamma in a past life and have accumulations to study the Dhamma in this life as well. If we are attracted to a person, it is probably because we have been associated with them in a past life (Yasodhara was the wife of the Buddha in a previous existence). If we have a "talent" in music or art, it is probably because of experience in past lives. There are hundreds of examples in the Suttas and commentaries where the character or circumstances of a person is linked to accumulations from a previous life. The ability to perceive a person's accumulations is one of the unique abilities of a Buddha (Arahants and others do not have this ability). At the time of the Dipankara Buddha, Sumedha the Hermit made a solemn vow that he would become a future Buddha. This solemn vow influenced the Bodhisatta for countless lifetimes. Sariputta and Moggallana were chief disciples of the Buddha and Ananda was the attendant of the Buddha because they had made solemn vows in previous lives that this was the role that they wanted to play. An understanding of how this law of nature called natural decisive support works can be a condition for the creation of kusala kamma: - We should look for opportunities to perform wholesome deeds. This searching for and planning a wholesome deed is, in itself, a wholesome deed. We should ensure that all wholesome deeds are done with strong volition, mindfulness and clear intention. We should review and rejoice in wholesome deeds performed and share the merits of our actions. Each of these activities creates good kamma and good accumulations; a condition to support the performing of more good deeds in the future. - When there is an unwholesome state of mind, we should note it with mindfulness. Seeing an unwholesome state of mind for what it is constitutes a wholesome action. Mindfulness arrests the process of mental proliferation (papanca); the multiplication of unwholesome states of mind. Practicing mindfulness on an unwholesome state of mind weakens the power of the accumulation that conditioned the unwholesome state. - We should understand the potential power of a solemn vow. To increase the potency of the vow, it should be made when the mind is clear and not troubled by restlessness. The creation of kusala kamma will bring pleasant results in the future, but it does not help us to escape from samsara. To escape from samsara, one must develop the accumulation of seeing things as they truly are (nama and rupa) and recognize the three characteristics of realities (anicca, dukkha and anatta). We are often deluded into believing in a "self that has control". Reflecting upon natural decisive support condition supports an understanding of anatta. To draw an analogy, gravity does not "decide" to cause something to fall; gravity is a law of nature. Natural decisive support is also a law of nature. Imagine a pile of rough gravel with a ball placed at the top. Gravity will cause the ball to fall and the laws of physics will determine the path that the ball takes as it rolls down. The path that the ball takes will be determined by many factors including the most recent bounce and any gullies that there may be in the gravel (i.e. accumulations). From this analogy, we can see: - It is almost impossible to predict, with accuracy how the mind will react (i.e. don't know for sure the path the ball may take) - There is no self in control (i.e. the natural laws of physics / natural decisive support condition is "in control") Hope this helps. Metta, Rob M :-) 29434 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:28am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi All, I wrote the following in a post: James: In my opinion that is the first mistake. You should be trying to learn the Dhamma that is found in life, not in some texts (Theravada or otherwise). Start with the First Noble Truth: Life is Dukkha, and work from there. You don't need to know all the texts, just look around and pay attention. What do you see? What do you smell? What do you feel? What do you taste? What do you hear? What do you cognize? These are all the teachers you need. I want to clarify this a bit. I think that maybe I am giving the wrong impression that dhamma study isn't important or useful, and this is not what I intended. I think that both dhamma study and meditation/mindfulness are important: "And how is one the type of person who thunders but doesn't rain? There is the case where a person has mastered the Dhamma: dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions [the earliest classifications of the Buddha's teachings]. Yet he doesn't discern, as it actually is present, that 'This is stress.' He doesn't discern, as it actually is present, that 'This is the origination of stress.' He doesn't discern, as it actually is present, that 'This is the cessation of stress.' He doesn't discern, as it actually is present, that 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.' This is the type of person who thunders but doesn't rain. This type of person, I tell you, is like the thunderhead that thunders but doesn't rain. … "And how is one the type of person who both thunders and rains? There is the case where a person has mastered the Dhamma: dialogues... question & answer sessions. He discerns, as it actually is present, that 'This is stress.'... 'This is the origination of stress.'... 'This is the cessation of stress.'... 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.' This is the type of person who both thunders and rains. This type of person, I tell you, is like the thunderhead that both thunders and rains. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an04-102.html The Buddha doesn't qualify which is better; he just states that these types of people exist. But hey, if I am going to be a thunderhead, I might as well rain and thunder!! ;-)) Metta, James 29435 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:42am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Rob M, Rob M: According to the Paccaya, concepts can be conditioning states in three ways: … Hope this helps. James: Hmmm…could help. Is there a Cliffs Notes version?? ;-)) I don't know what Paccaya you are describing (Abhidhamma?) but it doesn't appear to be the one taught by Lord Buddha. Rather than quote the entire Paccaya Sutta, I will quote the last part, the part that I find relevant to what I am saying: ""When a disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they are actually present, it is not possible that he would run after the past, thinking, 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past?' or that he would run after the future, thinking, 'Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' or that he would be inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' Such a thing is not possible. Why is that? Because the disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they are actually present." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-020.html So, again, at the end, mountains are mountains, beings are beings, dhammas are dhammas, and there is no perplexity about it. Metta, James 29436 From: Htoo Naing Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:51am Subject: Sensing feeling where it arises and where it vanishes ( 03 ) Dear Dhamm Friends, The Dhamma practitioner is enthusiastically striving on his Dhamma practice and he is now contemplating on feeling wherever it arises and whenever it arises. As he is well trained his mind and his mind is well concentrated each and each feeling are stitched together and they all stand in his mind as a compilation of a kind of Dhamma. That compilation or congregation is now quite obvious to see with his mind-eye. The congregation of these feeling is actually not of him, thus he realizes. That aggregation is not of him, thus he realizes. It is just non-self. The Buddha preached in His second Discourse as '' Vedana Bhikkhave Anatta...''. '' Feeling is not self ''. Vedana is feeling. Feeling here is not of an ordinary English word. This word 'feeling' has to expand to cover the meaning of ' Vedana '. There are 5 different kind of feeling or Vedana. 2 bad and 2 good from the view point of ordinary people and the 5th is not good not bad and it stays as equanimous feeling. 2 bad are bodily unpleasant feeling and mentally unpleasant feeling. They are both Dukkha in terms of Anubhavana or sense-feeling. Bodily unpleasant feeling is known as Dukkha Vedana or pain at body and mentally unpleasant feeling is known as Domanassa Vedana that is pain in mind. 2 good are bodily pleasant feeling and mentally pleasant feeling. They are both Sukha in terms of Anubhavana or just feeling kind. Bodily pleasant feeling is known as Sukha Vedana and mentally pleasant feeling is known as Somanassa Vedana. There two are desirable in beings and the former 2 are undesirable from the view point of ordinary people. The 5th feeling is not of both pairs above in terms of Indriya or faculty of feeling. Or it is the 3rd in term of Anubhavana and this 5th or 3th feeling is Upekkha Vedana or equanimous feeling. Upekkha is not apparent and not obvious to recognize. But if there is penetrative and analytical wisdom then Upekkha Vedana or equanimous feeling can thoroughly be seen as a feeling through mind-eye. Everyone knows pain and there is no one who never felt pain in their life. There are different kinds of pain. All these physical pain are bodily feeling and they are Dukkha Vedana. If not all, most people know mental pain or displeasure. Once in a life, most people experience anger, fury, jealousy, stinginess, repentence, hatred, etc etc. When these happen, there is a mental pain or displeasure. Most people at least experienced physical pleasure. Inside womb, they all felt tight and unease and tries to kick out the womb. In this way baby in womb rotates upside down and came out with head normally. Cold outside. He cried. Wrapped, he stopped crying and breast fed, he joyfully fed and then physical pleasure starts. Here nothing to expand physical pleasure or sensual pleasure as all know this. Most people at least experienced mental pleasure. Whenever they obtain what they want they feel happy and joyous. There is a mental pleasure and this is Somanassa Vedana or pleasure in mind. This feeling Somanassa Vedana is apparent in consciousness when we are laughing out loud or even when just smile and even it arises inside without external appearences. There is another feeling that is mostly ignored because of its inconspicuousness. In the morning when we change our dressing, we know that we are touching our new dress and it is soft or rough or cold or warm etc etc. But soon after we do not notice any more that we are touching with our garment. Moreover, most mind states are associated with this 5th feeling called Upekkha Vedana. The meditator is delibrately and consciously looking at each feeling when it arises. He knows when it arises and when it vanishes. He knows where it arises and also knows where it vanishes. As he clearly sees this phenomena, there is nothing for him to attach and all are in real term not desirable and all are Dukkha. Isn't that the first Noble Truth Dukkha Sacca. May all beings practise contemplating on feelings wherever it arises and whenever it arises. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 29437 From: Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 0:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi, Andrew & Ken - I'm about to make a lengthy post longer by inserting comments of my own. If we continue in the wake of this post of mine, I'll try to comment only on parts, and do a lot of snipping. I think that one approach, which some may agree with and others disagree with, may serve to clarify this matter, and that is to accept the following proposition: Just as visual forms, sounds, tastes, odors, and tactile sensations are eye-door, ear-door, tongue-door, nose-door, and body-door objects, concepts/ideas/thoughts are (mentally constructed) mind-objects. However, there are at least the following differences: 1) A concept/idea/thought seems to point to something beyond itself, whereas a sight, for example, does not, and 2) a concept/idea/thought is a mental phenomenon that is created by sankharic operations, whereas a sight, for example, is not. Thus, concepts/ideas/thoughts are paramatthic, mind-door objects, just as are feelings, intentions, emotions, etc, but they have sankharic constructive operations among the phenomena conditioning their arising, and, most importantly, when it is a thought that is mind-object, there *seems* to be something else *pointed to* by that thought that is the object instead of the thought being the object. So, for example: When we think we see a tree, we do not see a tree, but, via a concept, possibly wordless, we *think* we see a tree. There is, instead, a sequence of mental operations which, based on numerous visual discernments, sa~n~nic operations, and sankharic construction of ideas, culminate in the thought [a mind-door object] of a very specific, seemingly "seen" tree. It is the thought that is mind-door object, but it *seems*, instead, that there is a specific tree that is eye-door object. With this perspective in mind, I go on to add comments below. In a message dated 1/28/04 12:53:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, athel60@t... writes: > > Hi KenH > > >You wrote: > >------------------- > >A: >I hope I am reading this correctly, but IMHO just seeing > >paramattha dhammas is in the end pointless. After his > enlightenment, > >Buddha was prompted by Brahma Sahampati and "out of compassion for > >beings", Buddha surveyed the world and decided to teach the Dhamma. > >Compassion for what? Beings. > >-------------------------------- > > > >KH: True, but there's more to the story than that. :-) > > I agree. That's why we can't put a full stop after "absolute > reality" and think we have covered the whole of the Dhamma. > > You wrote: > >I'm no expert on the Paccaya but I can take a guess at what this > >means: In a way, a concept can condition dhammas. The concept of a > >person overwhealmed by suffering can condition compassion (adosa). > >Actually, the conditioning is done by the dhammas that contributed > >to the concept's being formed. There would be a huge number and a > >wide variety of them and, as such, they could only be made > >intelligible, or describable, by our referring to them as the > >concept itself. (Thus it is said that concepts can condition > >dhammas.) > > > How can this happen if there is only the present moment which cannot > contain the "huge number and wide variety" of paramattha dhammas > needed? > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: As I see it, what directly conditions the compassion (in a worldling at least) is the *thought* of a suffering being. That thought is an actually cognized phenomenon even though its intended referent, the "suffering being", is not. (Of course, transitively, all those phenomena that led to that thought indirectly condition that compassion.) ----------------------------------------------------- > > You wrote: > >A: >It is absurd to think of feeling compassion for the rising and > >falling of the waves in the ocean. Similarly, if we look at our > >plane of existence and all we see is the arising and passing away > of > >paramattha dhammas, what is there to feel compassion for or about? > >--------------------------- > > > >Nothing. But there can be adosa. When the object of adosa is a > >paramattha dhamma, it is not called compassion (karuna), it is > >just `adosa.' > > > >We might ask, "How can there be adosa [or any > >apparent `interestedness'], for a mere, fleeting, nama or rupa?" > But > >our confusion is due to ignorance of paramattha dhammas -- they are > >different from concepts. > > Haven't you just conceded that there is no place for karuna in a > wholly paramattha dhamma worldview? You can only see a place for > adosa. Why then did the Buddha teach about karuna? Surely you > cannot sustain your position until this question is answered. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I think this is an important point, Andrew. While the Buddha knew that where there seems to worldlings to be a "person", there is not, did he not also know that included in that stream of phenomena we take for a person is much repeated suffering, and doesn't that knowledge elicit compassion? The question, it seems to me, is that of what is the nature of that knowledge? Is it conceptual, or is it a kind of direct knowing/vijja not shared by worldlings? I think the latter. But even if it has a conceptual basis, why should we assume that there is no true information encoded in those concepts. As I see it, concepts serve as abbreviational shorthands. They encode/encapsulate a complex body of information that should not be dismissed as necessarily false. ------------------------------------------------- > > You wrote: > >A: >Like all of the Dhamma, the conventional/absolute realities > >distinction is a useful tool that will become redundant when direct > >knowledge is attained. It is a raft to be left on the far shore. > >------------------------- > > > >I'm not sure what you mean here but I wouldn't put it like that. I > >don't believe namas and rupas are part of a story made up by the > >Buddha. They remain real – just as he described them -- whether or > >not there is a Buddha in the world. > > Are the teachings of the Buddha as contained in the Pali canon > conventional or absolute reality? What meaning do you ascribe to the > simile of the Raft if you maintain that the teachings "remain real"? > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: As I see it, the distinction between what is known by five-sensory discernment and what is known via concept lies in directness versus indirectness. But, for worldlings, with our defilements, directness is insufficient. For us, conceptual knowledge reveals, in encoded form, relations among paramattha dhammas. I suspect that an arahant has other, non-conceptual means for the apprehending of relations, but certainly for worldlings concepts are essential for this, and without this ability, we would be cut off from a essential aspect of reality, the relational aspect. An arahant sees all aspects of reality, with nothing lacking, and I have no doubt that "the view from nibbana" is radically different from anything we can imagine. But for us, the obliteration of concepts would fatally destroy even our very limited grasping of the the way things are. Without concepts, we would be like mindless lumps. -------------------------------------------------- > > You wrote: > >A: >Conventional reality IS reality and as such, the Buddha taught > >it. > >How can you possibly say he didn't? There ARE beings [see > definition > >of "sattavasa"] even if we must remind ourselves intellectually > that > >they are not permanently abiding entities but more like patterned > >streams of namarupa always in flux. > > > >--------------------------- > > > >Again, I wouldn't put it like that. The past and future are non- > >existent: Outside the present moment, there is no stream. > > The past and future are non-existent but how do you see the arising > of cittas in consistent patterns of 17 mind-moments? Is this just a > strange coincidence? Or should it tell us to be cautious about > believing we have unraveled the workings of the universe when we get > a glimpse of anatta? > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: All these schemes of 17 mind moments, of past, present, and future, of the four noble truths, of namas and rupas, of dependent arising - all of these, are conceptual pointings. They are "Zen fingers" pointing at the moon, but are not the moon. But they are what we have here and now. "Now we see as through a glass, darkly, but then we will see face to face." ------------------------------------------------------- > > You wrote: > >As I tried to explain above – with my uneducated guess – when > >disparate dhammas act together to condition other dhammas, they may > >be acting as some kind of `conventional reality.' (Ugh! A > >contradiction-in-terms by my reckoning! :-) ) But that's as far as > >I'm prepared to concede for now. :-) > > > Fair enough. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: They don't *act* as a conventional reality, but we abbreviationally substitute a conceptual construct for them that seems to point to a "conventional reality". ----------------------------------------------- > > You wrote: > >A: >Your "absolute reality only" view is going way too far and > >leaves you just standing and watching the rising and falling of the > >waves in the ocean. What's the point? > >------------------------------ > > > >I think, ultimately, that is how we will see the world. Then, a > >[wholesome] kind of aversion will engulf us, we will renounce the > >world and we will experience Nibbana. > > > KenH, we're both guessing on the long-distance view but I'm not > confident that an Ariyan's outlook will necessarily be anything like > my present intellectual ability to analyse conventional matters in > terms of paramattha dhammas. Are you saying that "yes, the universe > IS pointless" and direct knowledge of this will condition the > dispassion and turning-away that we often read about in the Dhamma? > > Metta > 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) 29438 From: Andy Wilson Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:18am Subject: new member hello, i am a new member, andy, introducing myself. my background is as a non-academic interested in spiritual, psychological and philosophical matters. i do not consider myself a buddhist or a follower of any particular system or doctrine. i have worked in the armed forces, as a political organiser for a UK leftist group, and now work as a manager of computer programmers in a company i established. i am also an musician and music lover, drawn to modernist art and music, jazz, avant garde performance (i'm not sure why i mention that, maybe to make the point that i am not attracted to traditionalism and historical authority per se). i have BA & MPhil degrees in philosophy, specialising in western marxism and hegelianism. i am also particularly interested in epistemology, ontology and especially the nature of time. several years ago i had a health crisis and believed i might be seriously ill. as a reaction i decided to try to broaden my point of view (actually, trying to 'break' it on the grounds that it seemed even to me to be obviously inadequate to my experience.) i began reading many works of spirituality and religion, from the epic of gilgamesh to ouspenskii. i found myself especially drawn to gnostic traditions like that of early christianity and sufism, but also to the vedic tradition in general. my girlfriend took her degree in comparative religion and is interested in theravada buddhism, having studied it during her degree at manchester university. she practices yoga extensively. for a long time she encouraged me to find out more about both buddhism and yoga, but with little or no success. more recently however i began to practice some yoga exercises to help with a slight injury and was impressed by it's effect on me from the outset (i've only been practising for the last month or so). at the same time, i happened to start reading her copy of naradas Abhidhammattha Sangaha. i had browsed it before without it attracting me. this time however i began to read it closely and have been drawn to it, though i have not yet finished my first reading. i think i am attracted not only to it's rigour, but it's 'plausibility' based on my own experience, including some slight experience of meditation. through my reading many of the concepts i found in buddhism that i found wooly and indeterminate have begun to come into focus as ideas and experiences i am maybe already somehow familiar with in different ways. for whatever reason, much has at least begun to make sense to me and i would like to find out more. i am interested in this list to see if it can help me gain a clearer understanding of buddhist philosophy / dhamma. i am especially interested in how i can best deepen my understanding 'around the edge of the text' by expanding my experience of meditation and yoga. i am also casting around looking for opportunities to meet others in person who might help me develop my understanding in a more focussed way. as i am new to this tradition and culture, i apologise in advance for my inevitable misunderstandings. regards -- [][][] Andy Wilson | Mob: +44 (0)7739 908 253 [][] Managing Director | Tel: +44 (0)20 7729 7060 [] [] LShift Ltd | Web: http://www.lshift.net 29439 From: Michael Beisert Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hello RobM, RobM: I don't beleive that the Buddha ever taught about ultimate realities; my understanding is that paramattha dhammas are a feature of the Abhidhamma, not of the Suttas. Michael: I agree with you that the Buddha did not teach about ultimate realities. But if I understand right what you are saying your view is that the Abhidhamma was not taught by the Buddha? RobM: I agree that the teachings of the Suttas are close to phenomenology in style, but the focus is different. As per your definition above, phenomenology is about what makes up reality. The Buddha explicitly stated that his focus was on things conducive to the holy life and supporting the attainment of Nibbana. Michael: I don’t view phenomenology as a definition of reality but as an approach or method to understand reality, the definition clearly states that phenomenology is a method of inquiry. RobM: Here is an area where the two diverge. Phenomenology denies the existence of objects outside the realm of human consciousness. There is a Sutta (can't remember which) where the Buddha said that all rupas, seen and unseen, have the three characteristics (ti-lakkhana) of anicca, dukkha and anatta. If rupas that are unseen have the three characteristics, then they must exist. Though they exist, they are not important to support the teaching of the Buddha because of the stated focus of the Buddha's teaching. Michael: This is a highly speculative view. Of course there is no way of confirming that objects which are not cognized exist. This has to be accepted on faith, and faith as mentioned in Canki Sutta (MN 95) can be right or wrong. On the other hand the Buddha defined the world as the five aggregates, everything and anything relevant and important, in his teachings, is to be found within those five aggregates. External objects play a role in the sense that they trigger the whole cognition process but the teachings are not concerned in identifying the true nature of those external objects. Objects that do not trigger a cognition process are absolutely irrelevant. And from that perspective, again, there is great similarity between what the Buddha teaches and phenomenology. Metta Michael 29440 From: Michael Beisert Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:58am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Hello Victor, Let me butt in here : Victor: we see that there are various collections/classifications of objects for desire & passion. Does concept belong to any of those collections/classifications of objects for desire & passion? Michael: You will not find in the suttas the word ‘paññatti’ with the meaning of concept as used in the Abhidhamma commentaries. Now how would you classify pañãatti as used in the Abhidhamma using the criteria of the suttas? Metta Michael 29441 From: robmoult Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:00am Subject: Re: new member Hi Andy, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Wilson" wrote: > i am a new member, andy, introducing myself. ===== Welcome! ===== > > my background is as a non-academic interested in spiritual, > psychological and philosophical matters. i do not consider myself a > buddhist or a follower of any particular system or doctrine. i have > worked in the armed forces, as a political organiser for a UK leftist > group, and now work as a manager of computer programmers in a company i > established. i am also an musician and music lover, drawn to modernist > art and music, jazz, avant garde performance (i'm not sure why i mention > that, maybe to make the point that i am not attracted to traditionalism > and historical authority per se). i have BA & MPhil degrees in > philosophy, specialising in western marxism and hegelianism. i am also > particularly interested in epistemology, ontology and especially the > nature of time. ===== Wow, sounds as though you will have some insteresting insights and non-traditional perspectives! Great! ===== > > several years ago i had a health crisis and believed i might be > seriously ill. as a reaction i decided to try to broaden my point of > view (actually, trying to 'break' it on the grounds that it seemed even > to me to be obviously inadequate to my experience.) i began reading many > works of spirituality and religion, from the epic of gilgamesh to > ouspenskii. i found myself especially drawn to gnostic traditions like > that of early christianity and sufism, but also to the vedic tradition > in general. my girlfriend took her degree in comparative religion and is > interested in theravada buddhism, having studied it during her degree at > manchester university. she practices yoga extensively. for a long time > she encouraged me to find out more about both buddhism and yoga, but > with little or no success. > > more recently however i began to practice some yoga exercises to help > with a slight injury and was impressed by it's effect on me from the > outset (i've only been practising for the last month or so). at the same > time, i happened to start reading her copy of naradas Abhidhammattha > Sangaha. i had browsed it before without it attracting me. this time > however i began to read it closely and have been drawn to it, though i > have not yet finished my first reading. i think i am attracted not only > to it's rigour, but it's 'plausibility' based on my own experience, > including some slight experience of meditation. through my reading many > of the concepts i found in buddhism that i found wooly and indeterminate > have begun to come into focus as ideas and experiences i am maybe > already somehow familiar with in different ways. for whatever reason, > much has at least begun to make sense to me and i would like to find out > more. ===== Narada's translation of the Abhidhammatthasangaha was the classic English-language text for many years. If you can get your hands on Bhikkhu Bodhi's more recent translation, I think that you will enjoy the text even more. Bhikkhu Bodhi is American and took a PhD in Philosophy in New York before becoming a monk, so his inclinations may be somewhat similar to yours. Unfortunately, this translation is not available on-line. You might want to check out Zolag and download some books by Nina vanGorkom. Buddhism in Daily Life and Abhidhamma in Daily Life are recommended as starters. Often, one of the most difficult concepts for non-Buddhists to accept is rebirth. However, a Buddhist would completely understand your feeling of prior familiarity and affliation because it is likely that you studied (perhaps even practiced) Buddhism in a previous life. ===== > > i am interested in this list to see if it can help me gain a clearer > understanding of buddhist philosophy / dhamma. i am especially > interested in how i can best deepen my understanding 'around the edge of > the text' by expanding my experience of meditation and yoga. i am also > casting around looking for opportunities to meet others in person who > might help me develop my understanding in a more focussed way. > > as i am new to this tradition and culture, i apologise in advance for my > inevitable misunderstandings. ===== Yoga and some forms of meditation have a focus on enhancing the physical aspect of life. Buddhism has a focus on enhancing the mental aspect. Studying Buddhism probably won't help you understand yoga any better. My advice is to start with a couple of questions. Perhaps a section of Narada's text that you would like to have expanded upon. Metta, Rob M :-) PS: The moderators, Jon and Sarah, are on vacation in Thailand. 29442 From: Michael Beisert Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 8:27am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hello James, James: Now, K. Sujin is saying, in an indirect way, that `entities' should not be viewed as entitites; entities should be viewed as concepts that are really nothing more than a collection of `realities'. In short, there are no entities, only realities. Did the Buddha teach this? No. Notice the very important part where the Buddha `directly knows beings as beings'. He doesn't know beings as `realities'. He doesn't say that beings are concept only and that only `dhammas' are real. Also notice that he lists `the cognized as the cognized' separately. This is why I say that purple elephants are a concept (cognized) but entities are real. Michael: I just want to say that I felt in a similar way when I read K Sujin’s writings. The dichotomy between ultimate reality vs. conventional reality, or paramatha vs. paññatti, or trully existent vs. non-existent, which by the way is also found in Nina’s writings, is completely alien when compared with the teachings of the suttas. Metta Michael 29443 From: Michael Beisert Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 9:13am Subject: Sotaapanno Hello All, I have recently read a sutta which reminded me of a recent thread on the sotaapanno magga and phala consciousness. It was argued, based on the Vsm, that both magga and phala consciousness occur in succession while I said, based on what I heard from a bhikkhu, that those are separate events, that magga happens with the elimination of one of the 3 lower fetters, and phala with the elimination of all 3 lower fetters. The Visudhimagga states that: Vism XX11, 15 "Immediately next to that knowledge (stream-entry path consciousness), however, there arise either two or three fruition consciousnesses, which are its result. The Abhidhammattha Sangaha states that: Cittasangahavibhaga, 26 & 27 Each path consciousness issues automatically in its respective fruition in the same cognitive series, in immediate succession to the path. The sutta in question is the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta (MN 142). The sutta says: 5. "There are fourteen kinds of personal offerings, Ananda. One gives a gift to the Tathagata, accomplished and fully enlightened; this is the first kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to a paccekabuddha; this is the second kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to an arahant disciple of the Tathagata; this is the third kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of arahantship; this is the fourth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to a non-returner; this is the fifth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of non-returner; this is the sixth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to a once-returner; this is the seventh kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of once-return; this is the eighth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to a stream-enterer; this is the ninth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of stream-entry. It is quite clear that the stream enterer and the one practicing for the realization of stream entry fruition are two distinct individuals with two corresponding consciousnesses which leads to the conclusion that magga consciousness and phala consciousness do not occur in succession, in the same cognitive series, as described in the Visudhimagga and the Abhidhammattha Sangaha. Therefore, to me, this is another instance of suspicion about the Visudhimagga. Or could someone be creative enough to present a different interpretation that would justify the discrepancy between the Vsm and the sutta? Metta Michael 29444 From: Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi, Michael and James and all - In a message dated 1/28/04 11:43:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, mbeisert@h... writes: > > Hello James, > > James: > Now, K. Sujin is saying, in an indirect way, that `entities' should > not be viewed as entitites; entities should be viewed as concepts > that are really nothing more than a collection of `realities'. In > short, there are no entities, only realities. Did the Buddha teach > this? No. > > Notice the very important part where the Buddha `directly knows > beings as beings'. He doesn't know beings as `realities'. He > doesn't say that beings are concept only and that only `dhammas' are > real. Also notice that he lists `the cognized as the cognized' > separately. This is why I say that purple elephants are a concept > (cognized) but entities are real. > > Michael: > I just want to say that I felt in a similar way when I read K Sujin’s > writings. The dichotomy between ultimate reality vs. conventional reality, > or paramatha vs. paññatti, or trully existent vs. non-existent, which by > the way is also found in Nina’s writings, is completely alien when compared > with the teachings of the suttas. > > Metta > Michael ============================ The Buddha has taught that everything, whether mental (nama) or physical (rupa), arises with consciousness among the conditions for its arising, and, never arises otherwise. In that sense alone, *nothing* is mind-independent! In addition, among the objects of consciousness that arise, they appear to vary in the degree of sankharic construction involved in their creation. If there are any that depend on *no* sankharic construction, they might appropriately be called "paramattha," in the sense that they are the ultimate/basic phenomena upon which sankharic construction operates. The claim made by Abhidhammikas, it seems to me, is that there are, indeed, such sankharically unprocessed phenomena, and they are exactly the elements of the so-called aggregates. What would it mean for there to be no such phenomena? It seems to me that it would mean that there can be no beginning to sankharic construction. Now, is that problematical? Well, to some it may be. But those may be the same folks who would be troubled by the idea of there being no beginning to samsara. We humans seem to have a psychological craving for "beginnings", but that shouldn't be a basis for what is or is not truth. The bottom line, though, as I see it, is that the matter of importance is not that of whether or not there are sankharically unprocessed dhammas, but rather the matter of whether or not there are dhammas that are mind-independent. I maintain the the Buddha unequivocally stated that there are not, and it is alleged mind-independent objects that are the true pa~n~natti - that is, that are concept-ONLY, and which are only imagined. 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) 29445 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 9:48am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Michael, Michael: I just want to say that I felt in a similar way when I read K Sujin's writings. The dichotomy between ultimate reality vs. conventional reality, or paramatha vs. paññatti, or trully existent vs. non-existent, which by the way is also found in Nina's writings, is completely alien when compared with the teachings of the suttas. James: Thank you for the vote of confidence. But I don't want to appear to be placing blame or rubbing anyone's nose in it. I feel that Nina van Gorkom is a good person worthy of respect and admiration (I don't know K. Sujin well enough to decide; but I have heard nothing but good things). The Dhamma Umbrella is large enough to cover and protect us all! ;-) Metta, James Ps. However, I think that both Buddhaghosa and the Visuddhimagga are definitely questionable and should be questioned both often and hard! Let's get to the root of the problem rather than cutting what has grown! ;-)) 29446 From: Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sotaapanno Hi, Michael - In a message dated 1/28/04 12:50:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, mbeisert@h... writes: > > Hello All, > > I have recently read a sutta which reminded me of a recent thread on the > sotaapanno magga and phala consciousness. It was argued, based on the Vsm, > that both magga and phala consciousness occur in succession while I said, > based on what I heard from a bhikkhu, that those are separate events, that > magga happens with the elimination of one of the 3 lower fetters, and phala > with the elimination of all 3 lower fetters. > > The Visudhimagga states that: > Vism XX11, 15 > "Immediately next to that knowledge (stream-entry path consciousness), > however, there arise either two or three fruition consciousnesses, which > are its result. > > The Abhidhammattha Sangaha states that: > Cittasangahavibhaga, 26 &27 > Each path consciousness issues automatically in its respective fruition in > the same cognitive series, in immediate succession to the path. > > > The sutta in question is the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta (MN 142). The sutta > says: > > 5. "There are fourteen kinds of personal offerings, Ananda. One gives a gift > > to the Tathagata, accomplished and fully enlightened; this is the first kind > > of personal offering. One gives a gift to a paccekabuddha; this is the > second kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to an arahant disciple of > > the Tathagata; this is the third kind of personal offering. One gives a gift > > to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of > arahantship; this is the fourth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift > to a non-returner; this is the fifth kind of personal offering. One gives a > gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of > non-returner; this is the sixth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift > to a once-returner; this is the seventh kind of personal offering. One gives > > a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit > of once-return; this is the eighth kind of personal offering. One gives a > gift to a stream-enterer; this is the ninth kind of personal offering. One > gives a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the > fruit of stream-entry. > > > It is quite clear that the stream enterer and the one practicing for the > realization of stream entry fruition are two distinct individuals with two > corresponding consciousnesses which leads to the conclusion that magga > consciousness and phala consciousness do not occur in succession, in the > same cognitive series, as described in the Visudhimagga and the > Abhidhammattha Sangaha. > > Therefore, to me, this is another instance of suspicion about the > Visudhimagga. Or could someone be creative enough to present a different > interpretation that would justify the discrepancy between the Vsm and the > sutta? > > Metta > Michael > ================================ I think your analysis is perfect, Michael. Under the assumption of fruition consciousness immediately following the corresponding path consciousness, the gift giver in this sutta would have to be, like Superman, faster than a speeding bullet! ;-) 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) 29447 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 11:43am Subject: Re: thinking of realities or concepts Hi Michael, I would like to echo your sentiment regarding the dichotomy between ultimat= e reality vs. conventional reality, or paramatha vs. paññatti, or trully existent vs. non-existent. As I see it, given the disc= ourses in the Pali Canon as the record of the what the Buddha taught in his fourty-five years of teaching, this dichotomy is a view that = is not in accord to the Dhamma the Buddha taught: the teaching itself is not about this dichotomy and Buddha did not phrase what = he taught in terms of it. I am not an Abhidhamma Pitaka expert. However, from what I read in the mes= sages written by people who study or agree with the Abhidhamma Pitaka, it seems to me that discussions are often deeply involve= d in the dichotomy between ultimate reality vs. conventional reality, or paramatha vs. paññatti, or trully existent vs. non= -existent. So I take that this dichotomy has its textual source in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. I've rejected this dichotomy because I see that = it is not what the Buddha taught as presented in the discourses in the Pali Canon. Now, to ask how I would classify paññatti as used in the Abhidhamma using = the criteria of the suttas is a bit like asking me start with a faulty premise to reach a conclusion. Even though the logic is correct, = because the starting premise is faulty, the conclusion will be faulty. The term "paññatti" is often translated as "concept". Without the trapping= of the dichotomy of paramatha vs. paññatti, a concept is a simply an idea, a mental representation, inconstant, dukkha, not self..... Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" = wrote: > Hello Victor, > > Let me butt in here : > > Victor: > we see that there are various collections/classifications of objects > for desire & passion. Does concept belong to any of those > collections/classifications of objects for desire & passion? > > Michael: > You will not find in the suttas the word `paññatti' with the meaning of > concept as used in the Abhidhamma commentaries. > Now how would you classify pañãatti as used in the Abhidhamma using the = > criteria of the suttas? > > Metta > Michael 29448 From: robmoult Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Michael, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > RobM: > I don't beleive that the Buddha ever taught about ultimate realities; > my understanding is that paramattha dhammas are a feature of the > Abhidhamma, not of the Suttas. > > Michael: > I agree with you that the Buddha did not teach about ultimate realities. But > if I understand right what you are saying your view is that the Abhidhamma > was not taught by the Buddha? ===== According to the Atthasalini, in the fourth week after enlightenment, the Buddha sat in the Jewel house and contemplated on the Abhidhamma. When the Buddha started contemplating on the most complicated part of the Abhidhamma, Conditional Relations, His body emanated rays of six colours. The Buddha's mother died seven days after giving birth. She was reborn as a male Deva in Tusita heaven. In gratitude to His mother, the Buddha went to Tavatisma heaven to teach the Abhidhamma to his former mother and many other Devas (He chose Tavatisma heaven as this place is accessible to the lower heaven, Catummaharajika, as well as the higher heavens, thereby allowing the maximum number of Devas to listen. This was during the seventh rainy season retreat. It took three months of human time (the entire rainy retreat) for the Buddha to complete this task; equivalent to 3.6 minutes of Deva time in Tavatisma heaven (time works differently for them). I beleive that it says in one of the commentaries that one of the responsibilities of any Buddha is to teach the Abhidhamma in Tavitisma heaven. Each day, when it was time for His alms-round, the Buddha created a Buddha after His own image and willed that the created Buddha stay in Tavitisma heaven and teach the Dhamma so much during His absence. After alms-round, the Buddha met Sariputta and told him that so much of the Dhamma had been taught during the interval. In other words, the Buddha gave a daily synopsis to Sariputta. Sariputta then filled in the middle parts and taught the 500 monks who were his students. In brief, there are three versions of Abhidhamma: - Taught by Buddha in Tavatimsa Heaven (long; takes three months of continuous teacing to recite) - Taught by Buddha to Sariputta (short; almost like a table of contents) - Taught by Sariputta to 500 monks (medium length; this is what has been passed to us) Six of the seven Abhidhamma texts are said to come from Sariputta, but since the Buddha was also around, there is an implicit sanctioning of the Abhidhamma by the Buddha. According to tradition, the six books of the Abhidhamma were recited at the first council three months after the Buddha's death. The fifth book of the Abhidhamma, the Points of Controversy (Kathavatthu), is attributed to the Elder Moggalipputa Tissa during the reign of Emperor Asoka (traditionalists maintain that the Buddha also laid out the structure for this text as well, but it was left to the Elder Moggalipputa Tissa to fill in the details). So based on this, can we say that the Abhidhamma is the word of the Buddha? Yes and no. There should be no conflicts between the content of the Abhidhamma and the Suttas. However, the Abhidhamma and the Suttas have a completely different style. ===== > ...the Buddha defined the world as the five aggregates, everything > and anything relevant and important, in his teachings, is to be found within > those five aggregates. External objects play a role in the sense that they > trigger the whole cognition process but the teachings are not concerned in > identifying the true nature of those external objects. Objects that do not > trigger a cognition process are absolutely irrelevant. And from that > perspective, again, there is great similarity between what the Buddha > teaches and phenomenology. ===== I think that we are 100% aligned. Metta, Rob M :-) 29449 From: robmoult Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:07pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Michael, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Michael: I just want to say that I felt in a similar way when I read > K Sujin's writings. The dichotomy between ultimate reality vs. > conventional reality, or paramatha vs. paññatti, or trully existent > vs. non-existent, which by the way is also found in Nina's writings, > is completely alien when compared with the teachings of the suttas. > > James: Thank you for the vote of confidence. But I don't want to > appear to be placing blame or rubbing anyone's nose in it. I feel > that Nina van Gorkom is a good person worthy of respect and > admiration (I don't know K. Sujin well enough to decide; but I have > heard nothing but good things). The Dhamma Umbrella is large enough > to cover and protect us all! ;-) > > Metta, James > Ps. However, I think that both Buddhaghosa and the Visuddhimagga are > definitely questionable and should be questioned both often and > hard! Let's get to the root of the problem rather than cutting what > has grown! ;-)) The Suttas have a certain style. The Vinaya has a certain style. The Abhidhamma has a certain style. Buddhaghosa has a certain style. Nina & K. Sujin have a certain style. You and I have our own styles :-) Different styles come from different accumulations and appeal to different people because of their accumulations. I think multiple styles is a good thing. On the other hand, there should be complete alignment of substance. Based on one's style, there may be more or less focus on a particular part of the substance, but there should never be conflict. If there is a conflict, my instinct points me to the Suttas as having priority (even though I teach Abhidhamma). Metta, Rob M :-) 29450 From: robmoult Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:33pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Rob M, > > Rob M: According to the Paccaya, concepts can be conditioning states > in > three ways: … Hope this helps. > > James: Hmmm…could help. Is there a Cliffs Notes version?? ;-)) I > don't know what Paccaya you are describing (Abhidhamma?) but it > doesn't appear to be the one taught by Lord Buddha. ===== That was the Cliffs Notes version!!! The Paccaya is the most complex part of the Abhidhamma. It is said in the Atthasalini that when the Buddha started contemplating on this subject, His omniscence finally found a subject worthy of His intellect and He started emitting rays of six colours. It is also said that when the Dhamma starts to decay, this will be the first part to go because it is the most complex. ===== > Rather than > quote the entire Paccaya Sutta, I will quote the last part, the part > that I find relevant to what I am saying: > > ""When a disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right > discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen > phenomena as they are actually present, it is not possible that he > would run after the past, thinking, 'Was I in the past? Was I not in > the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been > what, what was I in the past?' or that he would run after the future, > thinking, 'Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? > What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having > been what, what shall I be in the future?' or that he would be > inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I > not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it > bound?' Such a thing is not possible. Why is that? Because the > disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this > dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they > are actually present." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-020.html > > So, again, at the end, mountains are mountains, beings are beings, > dhammas are dhammas, and there is no perplexity about it. ===== My interpretation of this portion of the Sutta is that once one realizes that everything arises naturally because of conditions (paccaya), there is no place for the concept of an "I". Metta, Rob M :-) 29451 From: robmoult Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:36pm Subject: Re: Sotaapanno Hi Michael --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > I have recently read a sutta which reminded me of a recent thread on the > sotaapanno magga and phala consciousness. It was argued, based on the Vsm, > that both magga and phala consciousness occur in succession while I said, > based on what I heard from a bhikkhu, that those are separate events, that > magga happens with the elimination of one of the 3 lower fetters, and phala > with the elimination of all 3 lower fetters. > > The Visudhimagga states that: > Vism XX11, 15 > "Immediately next to that knowledge (stream-entry path consciousness), > however, there arise either two or three fruition consciousnesses, which > are its result. > > The Abhidhammattha Sangaha states that: > Cittasangahavibhaga, 26 & 27 > Each path consciousness issues automatically in its respective fruition in > the same cognitive series, in immediate succession to the path. > > > The sutta in question is the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta (MN 142). The sutta > says: > > 5. "There are fourteen kinds of personal offerings, Ananda. One gives a gift > to the Tathagata, accomplished and fully enlightened; this is the first kind > of personal offering. One gives a gift to a paccekabuddha; this is the > second kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to an arahant disciple of > the Tathagata; this is the third kind of personal offering. One gives a gift > to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of > arahantship; this is the fourth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift > to a non-returner; this is the fifth kind of personal offering. One gives a > gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of > non-returner; this is the sixth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift > to a once-returner; this is the seventh kind of personal offering. One gives > a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit > of once-return; this is the eighth kind of personal offering. One gives a > gift to a stream-enterer; this is the ninth kind of personal offering. One > gives a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the > fruit of stream-entry. > > > It is quite clear that the stream enterer and the one practicing for the > realization of stream entry fruition are two distinct individuals with two > corresponding consciousnesses which leads to the conclusion that magga > consciousness and phala consciousness do not occur in succession, in the > same cognitive series, as described in the Visudhimagga and the > Abhidhammattha Sangaha. > > Therefore, to me, this is another instance of suspicion about the > Visudhimagga. Or could someone be creative enough to present a different > interpretation that would justify the discrepancy between the Vsm and the > sutta? Here is my interpretation. What stage am I at now (I am not yet a sotapanna)? I could be described as a worldling or I could be described as one approaching sotapanna. Both are technically accurate. From an Abhidhamma perspective, both describe a person with the same set of defilements. However, as it explains in the Sutta, giving a gift to somebody who has committed their lives to attaining a Sotapanna stage and leads their lives accordingly would be of more value than giving a gift to somebody who despised the Dhamma and lived their lives accordingly. By extension, giving a gift to a Sotapanna who is content to stay at that stage of development would be of less value than giving a gift to a Sotapanna who had committed themselves to attaining Sakadagami stage and were almost there. From an Abhidhamma perspective, both have the same set of defilements, it is a matter of degree. Comments? Metta, Rob M :-) 29452 From: Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:01pm Subject: A Test to Distinguish What Arises From What Seems to Arise Hi, all - From the Sabba Sutta: "The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas." So, every positive phenomenon is either a visual form, a sound, an aroma, a flavor, a tactile sensation, or an idea (by which is presumably meant any mind object). Whatever is not one one of these is nothing at all. Now, let us consider a sizzling steak just put on your plate. It is seen, it is smelled, it is tasted, it is touched, and it is heard - or so it seems. What category does it fall into then? Is it a sight? No. A sound? No. An aroma? No. A flavor? No. A tactile sensation? No. An idea? No, not that either. What is it then? Why, in fact it is nothing at all - mere pa~n~natti, mere imagined referent of a mental construct. What is neither sight nor sound nor taste nor smell nor tactile sensation nor mind object, but, instead seems to "partake" of several of these, is a figment, a part of the mind-produced magic show we call "our 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 phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 29453 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 0:01am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Rob M, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Michael, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" > wrote: > > RobM: > > I don't beleive that the Buddha ever taught about ultimate > realities; > > my understanding is that paramattha dhammas are a feature of the > > Abhidhamma, not of the Suttas. > > > > Michael: > > I agree with you that the Buddha did not teach about ultimate > realities. But > > if I understand right what you are saying your view is that the > Abhidhamma > > was not taught by the Buddha? > > ===== > > According to the Atthasalini, in the fourth week after enlightenment, > the Buddha sat in the Jewel house and contemplated on the Abhidhamma. > When the Buddha started contemplating on the most complicated part of > the Abhidhamma, Conditional Relations, His body emanated rays of six > colours. > > The Buddha's mother died seven days after giving birth. She was > reborn as a male Deva in Tusita heaven. In gratitude to His mother, > the Buddha went to Tavatisma heaven to teach the Abhidhamma to his > former mother and many other Devas Honestly, I don't believe this story. It just rings false to me. However, I do have a few questions and they don't necessarily spring from my doubt in the story, but my genuine curiosity: 1.Why would the Buddha go to Tusita heaven to teach the Abhidhamma to his former mother when he must have had countless former mothers? (There is a Tibetan Buddhist saying, which I like very much, which states that you should treat all living beings as if they were at one time your mother, because they probably were.) 2.Didn't the Buddha lose all attachments to his past, present, and future? Why would he want to encourage past attachments? 3.If there are only dhammas, no beings, why would the Buddha care to teach specially to his former mother, who is now a male deva? If there is really no Buddha, no male deva, no me, no you, no anything… who was teaching who what? Metta, James 29454 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 0:07am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Rob M, Rob: My interpretation of this portion of the Sutta is that once one realizes that everything arises naturally because of conditions (paccaya), there is no place for the concept of an "I". James: I believe that this is only part of the meaning. The other part of the meaning is that anatta doesn't mean no existence, it means conditional existence. Metta, James 29455 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:05am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Rob M, Rob: That was the Cliffs Notes version!!! James: Okay, since this is the Cliffs Notes version, I will trudge through it.;-)) I have inserted my comments on areas I want to address: Rob: A fundamental principle of Buddhism is that everything arises because of conditions; there is no God and no self to "decide" things. James: Conditionality doesn't suppose or disprove the existence of a `God' and the Buddha never spoke to such a matter. The ultimate existence or non-existence of a universal God is beyond the realm of Buddhism. Also, even though the Buddha taught anatta, he didn't say that there wasn't a self to `decide' things. This supposition is also a contradiction in some later comments you make about `vows'. Rob: The Patthana, the seventh book of the Abhidhamma, explains conditional relations; ways in which one thing can be a condition for another. James: In conditionality, there can never be a time when ONE thing is a condition for ONE other thing. The ties and the connections are so vast and complex that it would be mind boggling to try to unravel them, and I believe impossible. Imagine it as like a bowl of fish hooks, pick one up and a whole mass of others come along with it. Rob: - Sense-door adverting: this citta controls the flow of the citta process and "decides" that a certain rupa will become the object of a citta process. Each of the senses is constantly bombarded with information; it is natural decisive support condition that "decides" which data will be processed. - Determining / mind door adverting: this citta controls the flow of the citta process and "decides" which type of javana (kamma producing) cittas will follow. Natural decisive support condition "decides" if our thoughts will be kusala or akusala. - Javana: these cittas create kamma. The weightiness of the kamma produced depends on the strength of the volition (cetana). It is natural decisive support that "decides" how strong the cetana will be and therefore the weightiness of the resulting kamma. - Jhana: The arising of the jhana citta depend on natural decisive support condition. It is this condition that "decides" when we should enter jhana. - Path: The arising of the supramundane cittas depend on natural decisive support condition. It is this condition that "decides" when we are ready to become a Sotapanna (or higher). James: Nice and maybe helpful for some, but this isn't nearly the entire picture. We can catalogue and describe all of the various clouds in the sky, and how each one of them affects various weather patterns, and when we are done we can feel really proud of how clever and intelligent we are; but we really haven't done a thing. The complexity of conditions is beyond our understanding. Might as well do a rain dance and hope for rain! ;-) Rob: The popular saying that "people are creatures of habit" is true. If we do metta meditation each morning, our mind naturally reacts with metta throughout the day. If we feel drawn to the Dhamma, it is probably because we studied the Dhamma in a past life and have accumulations to study the Dhamma in this life as well. If we are attracted to a person, it is probably because we have been associated with them in a past life (Yasodhara was the wife of the Buddha in a previous existence). If we have a "talent" in music or art, it is probably because of experience in past lives. James: True. The influences of kamma are both vast and subtle. Do you believe in serendipity? I do. Rob: At the time of the Dipankara Buddha, Sumedha the Hermit made a solemn vow that he would become a future Buddha. This solemn vow influenced the Bodhisatta for countless lifetimes. Sariputta and Moggallana were chief disciples of the Buddha and Ananda was the attendant of the Buddha because they had made solemn vows in previous lives that this was the role that they wanted to play. James: How could they make such vows if they have no self to decide? You already said that there is no self that makes decisions; everything is a result of conditioning, so it would no be possible for each of these entities to make their various vows. This is a contradiction. Rob: We should look for opportunities to perform wholesome deeds. This searching for and planning a wholesome deed is, in itself, a wholesome deed. We should ensure that all wholesome deeds are done with strong volition, mindfulness and clear intention. We should review and rejoice in wholesome deeds performed and share the merits of our actions. Each of these activities creates good kamma and good accumulations; a condition to support the performing of more good deeds in the future. James: Yes, performing wholesome deeds will condition the performing of more wholesome deeds in the future. But, it seems to me that some `decisions' have to be made somewhere in this process. Rob: We should understand the potential power of a solemn vow. To increase the potency of the vow, it should be made when the mind is clear and not troubled by restlessness. James: Wow! Now you are asking for a lot of decisions and control. We have to understand the potential power of a vow, know when the mind is not troubled, and then make the vow then. Who is making this vow since there is no self to decide things? Rob: We are often deluded into believing in a "self that has control". James: Hmmm, I wonder why? ;-)) You have just stated that I can control when I make or not make a solemn vow and you have also said that I can choose wholesome actions. Just what are you saying? Rob: Imagine a pile of rough gravel with a ball placed at the top. Gravity will cause the ball to fall and the laws of physics will determine the path that the ball takes as it rolls down. The path that the ball takes will be determined by many factors including the most recent bounce and any gullies that there may be in the gravel (i.e. accumulations). From this analogy, we can see: - It is almost impossible to predict, with accuracy how the mind will react (i.e. don't know for sure the path the ball may take) - There is no self in control (i.e. the natural laws of physics / natural decisive support condition is "in control") James: So people are just like balls rolling down a hill? No control or ability to influence their course and at the complete mercy of natural laws? Hmmm…I will ponder this next time I go bowling. Let's hope someone doesn't throw me down the lane!! ;-)) Metta, James 29456 From: gazita2002 Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:48am Subject: Re: Hey Azita! /Chris In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Azita, > > You will be proud of me! - six days and nights of clothes, books, > accessories and toiletries in ONE international size carry- on!!!!!!!! > + one handbag. Dear Chris, I am impressed! You can do it -see!!! And probably the concierge couldn't give a .....! Hope all goes well, and don't be eatin' any chooks!! or loiter around any chook farms :( May all beings be happy [including the chooks]. Azita "Just as the waves roll endlessly on and on, so to the myriad lives of beings roll endlessly on and are no more lasting than a line drawn on water". 29457 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 4:03am Subject: Today's discussion in Bangkok Hi, All Just a quick note to mention briefly that we had some lively discussion today, with Ken O leading the way this morning and Ven Yanattharo doing the same this afternoon. Ven Y was intrigued by the fact that there was no Buddha image (statue) at the Foundation, and he questioned Aj Sujin closely on this (however, I'm still not sure what his concern was!). Also there were Christine, Betty, Sukin, Manu (from Laos), Pinna, Nina and Lodewijk, and Ivan and Ell (and Sarah and me). Jon 29458 From: Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 2:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, James (and Rob) - In a message dated 1/29/04 3:10:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > >The Buddha's mother died seven days after giving birth. She was > >reborn as a male Deva in Tusita heaven. In gratitude to His mother, > >the Buddha went to Tavatisma heaven to teach the Abhidhamma to his > >former mother and many other Devas > > Honestly, I don't believe this story. It just rings false to me. > However, I do have a few questions and they don't necessarily spring > from my doubt in the story, but my genuine curiosity: > 1.Why would the Buddha go to Tusita heaven to teach the Abhidhamma to > his former mother when he must have had countless former mothers? > (There is a Tibetan Buddhist saying, which I like very much, which > states that you should treat all living beings as if they were at one > time your mother, because they probably were.) > --------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, putting aside the question of whether this is mere legend and teaching story, or a relating of facts, there was something special about *this* mother: She is the one who gave up a life as a human being that a Buddha-to-be come into this world to become a buddha and reintroduce the Dhamma. Allegorically, she is like "Mary, mother of God," to make a comparative-religion observation. Also, as long as one is looking for symbolism, Gotama's mother, Queen Maya, had to die in order that the Buddha be born, because the death of illusion (maya) is required for the birth of wisdom (bodhi). ----------------------------------------------------------- > 2.Didn't the Buddha lose all attachments to his past, present, and > future? Why would he want to encourage past attachments? > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, it isn't attachment that is given here as motivation, but gratitude. To express gratitude by compassionate action is to act rightly. ------------------------------------------------------------ > 3.If there are only dhammas, no beings, why would the Buddha care to > teach specially to his former mother, who is now a male deva? If > there is really no Buddha, no male deva, no me, no you, no anything… > who was teaching who what? > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, that fits in with the whole recently discussed question of the point of compassion etc for sentient beings when, in reality, there are none. There are none as entities, but there are streams of interconnected experience within which suffering and a sense of self occur, and it isn't error to be aware of such. It is only error to think of these processes as actual entities. Conventional truth is a shorthand truth, not a literal truth, but it still is a form of truth. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > 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) 29459 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 8:51am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Howard, Howard: there was something special about *this* mother: She is the one who gave up a life as a human being that a Buddha-to-be come into this world to become a buddha and reintroduce the Dhamma. Allegorically, she is like "Mary, mother of God," to make a comparative-religion observation. Also, as long as one is looking for symbolism, Gotama's mother, Queen Maya, had to die in order that the Buddha be born, because the death of illusion (maya) is required for the birth of wisdom (bodhi). James: Wow, these are some pretty grandiose ideas! I didn't know you were so allegorical! ;-)) But, anyway, I am not terribly impressed that the Buddha's mother died in childbirth; many, many women die in childbirth. Studies in 1996 showed that 585,000 women die per year during childbirth (and this is in the modern era!): http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=649 I can't find statistics for ancient India but I did find statistics for Early America, and nearly one in every eight women would die during childbirth!: http://216.239.57.104/search? q=cache:bwFmtDn9twMJ:teachers.hlpusd.k12.ca.us/~dschmus/coursefiles/Ar ticles/Unit%2520I% 2520Articles/earlypregnancy.doc+history+of+childbirth+fatalities&hl=en &ie=UTF-8 Anne Backstreet during this early colonial period, in a poem entitled "Before the Birth of One of Her Children," wrote How soon, my Dear, death may my steps attend, How soon't may be thy lot to lose thy friend. In short, dying while giving birth is not a significant or unusual event; now or then. Howard: Well, it isn't attachment that is given here as motivation, but gratitude. To express gratitude by compassionate action is to act rightly. James: True, but again, gratitude to whom? The Buddha had been born countless times, and more than likely countless mothers died in the process as well (considering statistics), and then on top of that his last mother had become a male deva! Could you imagine a deva appearing before you and saying, "Howard, I want to express my gratitude to you because you died giving birth to me in a deva realm in your previous life."? How would you react? As for me I would say, "Okay, thanks, but the past is the past; get over it. You don't owe me any gratitude." Howard: Conventional truth is a shorthand truth, not a literal truth, but it still is a form of truth. James: Okay, I see how you are! Want your cake and eat it too!! Hehehe… Anyway, until a self-proclaimed enlightened one appears before me and tells me what is what, I am not going to listen to anyone in this regard. I know I keep quoting Ajahn Lee recently, but I really love his deep, practical wisdom: "Don't believe everything you hear. If they say you're a dog, check to see for yourself if you've got a tail. If you don't, then they're wrong." Metta, James 29460 From: Michael Beisert Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 9:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hello Howard, Howard: The Buddha has taught that everything, whether mental (nama) or physical (rupa), arises with consciousness among the conditions for its arising, and, never arises otherwise. In that sense alone, *nothing* is mind-independent! Michael: I see it differently. The focus of the teachings is what happens within the five aggregates. External objects that impinge on the senses are relevant but other objects that do not impinge, whether they exist or not, are irrelevant. Their existence or not may provide some interesting food for intellectual speculation but my view is that such a speculation is beyond the Buddha’s sotereologic objective. So, could there be rupa arising independent of consciousness? I think this is a question that does not deserve to be answered, it is better to be left aside. Howard: In addition, among the objects of consciousness that arise, they appear to vary in the degree of sankharic construction involved in their creation. Michael: In relation to the objects of consciousness that arise, they will vary first because the mind only apprehends some signs (nimitta) of that object, second they will vary because of the sensation caused by those signs, and the sensation is determined by kamma, third there is perception which will be determined by the sensation, by the particular signs apprehended and the conditioning of perception in that mind, and lastly you have papanca which would correspond to your sankharic construction. But I don’t think this process describes the ‘creation’ of that object but really how the cognition of something that is ‘out there’ happens. In my view there is something out there (the external object) but because of how the cognition process works the apprehension of that external object can vary considerably. Howard: If there are any (objects of consciousness) that depend on *no* sankharic construction, they might appropriately be called "paramattha," in the sense that they are the ultimate/basic phenomena upon which sankharic construction operates. The claim made by Abhidhammikas, it seems to me, is that there are, indeed, such sankharically unprocessed phenomena, and they are exactly the elements of the so-called aggregates. What would it mean for there to be no such phenomena? It seems to me that it would mean that there can be no beginning to sankharic construction. Now, is that problematical? Well, to some it may be. But those may be the same folks who would be troubled by the idea of there being no beginning to samsara. We humans seem to have a psychological craving for "beginnings", but that shouldn't be a basis for what is or is not truth. Michael: The absence of ‘sankharic construction’ or papanca, does not depend on the object but on the mind which perceives the object. An arahant does not conceive, his mind is completely free of conceiving, free of papanca, irrespective of the object. Worldlings will always conceive irrespective of the object. In a worldling or in a sekha conceiving is temporarily suspended only in jhana. Metta Michael _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 29461 From: Michael Beisert Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 10:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hello RobM, RobM: So based on this, can we say that the Abhidhamma is the word of the Buddha? Yes and no. There should be no conflicts between the content of the Abhidhamma and the Suttas. However, the Abhidhamma and the Suttas have a completely different style. Michael: I have enjoyed reading again about the origins of the Abhidhamma. I like this story. But your arguments do not help to clarify your original affirmation which was: “I don't believe that the Buddha ever taught about ultimate realities; my understanding is that paramattha dhammas are a feature of the Abhidhamma, not of the Suttas.” If the paramatha dhammas, i.e., ultimate realities, have not been taught by the Buddha, and those are features of the Abhidhamma, ergo, the Abhidhamma was not taught by the Buddha. Metta Michael 29462 From: Michael Beisert Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 10:34am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hello RobM, RobM: I could be described as a worldling or I could be described as one approaching sotapanna. Both are technically accurate. From an Abhidhamma perspective, both describe a person with the same set of defilements. Michael: From the point of view of the suttas there is no distinction between a worldling and someone approaching sotapanna. There is a difference though, as evidenced by the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta between a sotapanna magga and a sotapanna phala. What is a sotapanna magga? According to the explanation I heard from a well respected and educated bhikkhu, with magga, one of the three defilements is eliminated. When the three defilements are eliminated that is phala. The Vsm states that magga and phala happen one after the other, in immediate succession, and that is clearly not correct based on the evidence from the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta. Metta Michael 29463 From: Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 7:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, James - In a message dated 1/29/04 2:16:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Howard: Conventional truth is a shorthand truth, not a literal truth, > but it still is a form of truth. > > James: Okay, I see how you are! Want your cake and eat it too!! > ======================= Of course! (Especially when I am correct!! ;-)) With metta - you old bag of khandhas (!), 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) 29464 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:51pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James - > > In a message dated 1/29/04 2:16:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, > buddhatrue@y... writes: > > > Howard: Conventional truth is a shorthand truth, not a literal truth, > > but it still is a form of truth. > > > > James: Okay, I see how you are! Want your cake and eat it too!! > > > ======================= > Of course! (Especially when I am correct!! ;-)) James: Hehehe…could be, could be. I never claim to be correct; I am always wrong. Until ignorance has been eradicated and `it' has been released, I don't really know a thing. Honestly though, I am not sure what you mean by `shorthand truth' and `non-literal truth'. To me, truth is truth. > > With metta - you old bag of khandhas (!), James: Old?? Who you calling old?? ;-)) From a perusal of the member's photos, I may just be the youngest (non-lurking) bag of khandhas on this list! ;-)) > Howard Metta, James 29465 From: Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 4:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Michael, RobM, & all, Regarding whether "ultimate dhammas" are taught in the suttas, it might be an interesting exercise to draw up some criteria to make a test. Certainly all the suttas an be interpreted abhidhammiclly; that is basically what the ancient commentaries do. However, there is actually very little discussion of the "concept/reality" distinction in Vism. or the canonical abhidhamma texts (I think). Perhaps this ultimate/conventional distinction is sort of a philosophical inevitability. It is certainly discussed extensively in the mahayana. There, a sutta is deemed "ultimate" if emptiness and/or the middle way between eternalism and nihilism is discussed. I don't think this is what we in this group mean by "ultimate", but we could discuss this. I think this group is actually doing original work on this distinction which is only lightly touched-on in Vism. So the question is, what do we mean by "ultimate reality" and how would we recognize it in the suttas? Or would it be better to ask what do we mean by "concept"? Larry 29466 From: Michael Beisert Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 5:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hello Larry, Larry: So the question is, what do we mean by "ultimate reality" and how would we recognize it in the suttas? Or would it be better to ask what do we mean by "concept"? Michael: From the various discussions I was involved in this list in relation to paramatha/paññatti, ultimate/conventional reality, and own nature (sabhava), my conclusion so far is that ultimate reality is something that truly and actually exists because it is a phenomena or an object that has its own and unique characteristics. Maybe another feature is that those phenomena or objects cannot be further reduced, like in the case of a being that can be reduced into khandhas, or we could say a being is made up of khandhas, but in the case of ultimate realities those are not subject to further reduction. If there are other qualities that would make a phenomena qualify as ultimate reality, I am not aware of. In contrast, conventional reality is something that really does not exist. It exists only in our imagination. And own nature has been explained as a synonym for own characteristic. That is as far as my recollection goes. Now before starting to analyze those definitions it would be good to know if the ‘abhidhamikas’ do agree with them. Metta Michael 29467 From: Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 5:13pm Subject: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Michael: "my conclusion so far is that ultimate reality is something that truly and actually exists because it is a phenomena or an object that has its own and unique characteristics. Maybe another feature is that those phenomena or objects cannot be further reduced, like in the case of a being that can be reduced into khandhas, or we could say a being is made up of khandhas, but in the case of ultimate realities those are not subject to further reduction." Hi Michael, Would you say that any sutta that talks about a khandha or describes a khandha is talking about ultimate realties in the sense you have described? Michael: "In contrast, conventional reality is something that really does not exist. It exists only in our imagination." L: Does talk of anatta qualify as "concept"? Larry 29468 From: Tom Westheimer Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 5:46pm Subject: Off topic but worth reading re Yahoo Groups Privacy "Yahoo is now using something called "Web Beacons" to track Yahoo Group users around the net and see what you're doing and where you are going - similar to cookies. Take a look at their updated privacy statement http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us/pixels/details.html About half-way down the page, in the section "Outside the Yahoo! Network", you'll see a little "click here" link that will let you "opt-out" of their new method of snooping. I strongly recommend that you do this. Once you have clicked that link, you are opted out. Notice the "Success" message the top the next page. Be careful because on that page there is a "Cancel Opt-out" button that, if clicked, will *undo** the opt-out. Feel free to forward this to other groups. Of course, if you don't mind Yahoo recording every website and every group you visit you should ignore this message. -- Tom Westheimer I use Spamarrest to stop SPAM so please follow the short instructions in the confirmation email one time only to let the "good guys/gals through" :-) 29469 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 5:59pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Andrew, You were saying: ---------------------- A: > . . . . we can't put a full stop after "absolute reality" and think we have covered the whole of the Dhamma. ------------ That, admittedly, is what I have been doing. It seems to be working and I haven't walked in front of a bus or anything like that. Concepts are created whether I accept them as real or not. On the ways in which concepts seem to condition reality, you wrote: ---------------- A: > How can this happen if there is only the present moment which cannot contain the "huge number and wide variety" of paramattha dhammas needed? ------------------------- You'll have noticed Rob M has summarised all that material. It's over my head but I would add that it's not the concepts themselves that do the conditioning. For example, in the case of object condition; citta is conditioned by virtue of its having an object, not by the object (whether dhamma or pannatti) itself. As for the sheer mass of information: Every dhamma that arises owes its nature (in various ways) to the dhammas that conditioned it; they, in turn, owed their natures to the dhammas that conditioned them, and so on ad infinitum. So a complete record of the entire history of the universe is, potentially, readable from the dhammas of the present moment. (All you need is the omniscience of a Tathagata.) ------------- A: > Haven't you just conceded that there is no place for karuna in a wholly paramattha dhamma worldview? You can only see a place for adosa. Why then did the Buddha teach about karuna? Surely you cannot sustain your position until this question is answered. ------------ Karuna is real; it is not a Path factor but the Buddha did teach it and he did have it, at times. When there is karuna (compassion for suffering, living beings) there is no hint of "Oh dear, this is terrible – those poor people!" In its purest form, karuna is a `boundless state' or `divine abode', which, I think, is a type of jhana absorption – the highest bliss outside the Eightfold Path. At that moment, there is the concept of another living being but there is no concept of oneself as a living being. So karuna is never accompanied by the thought, "I have compassion." That sort of thinking arises after the fact. After a moment of karuna, a worldling, not being used to kusala states, would be inclined to think; "Wow, what was that? This Buddhism business has done wonders for my personality! What a kind and helpful person I've become!" (As Nina has said; `we dwell, on and on, on the pleasant object.') Sorry for wandering off there :-) ----------------------------- A: > What meaning do you ascribe to the simile of the Raft if you maintain that the teachings "remain real"? ----------- Namas and rupas remain real; they depend only on the laws of conditionality, which, I think, include two of the Four Noble Truths. Perhaps the `raft that has to be put down' is the dhammas (cetasikas) of Eightfold Path; in so far as the arahant, at parinibbana, has no further use for them. -------------- A: > The past and future are non-existent but how do you see the arising of cittas in consistent patterns of 17 mind-moments? Is this just a strange coincidence? ----------------------- I may be missing your point here. In any case, it would be better to speak of a `process' of cittas rather than a `pattern': There is only ever one citta at a time; each citta contains the conditions for the arising of the citta that follows it. ---------------------- A: > Are you saying that "yes, the universe IS pointless" and direct knowledge of this will condition the dispassion and turning-away that we often read about in the Dhamma? ------------ Yes, although I think that would be approaching it from the wrong direction. Whenever we find ourselves thinking; "I do not exist! The universe is pointless!" we are verging on wrong view. However, if we study conditioned reality and see that it is anicca, dukkha and anatta, then the realisation of `selflessness' and `pointlessness' is a natural, wholesome one. I think it is only for countering the view, "there is a self," that we ever need to say, "there is no self." Kind regards, Ken H 29470 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 6:18pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Rob M, We were saying: ---------------------------- >>> RM: Certainly the Satipatthana Sutta describes both approaches. >>> >> KH: I disagree, Rob (which won't surprise you :-) ): It describes >> only one approach – satipatthana in daily life. >> ------------------ Your response was: ------------------ RM: > The initial section of the Sutta starts out "And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself? --------------- If I may briefly interrupt: This means the sutta is going to tell us how satipatthana (as mindfulness of rupa) arises in daily life. ---------------- RM (quoting S-sutta): > "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 ---------------------------- Interrupting again: This means the sutta is going to tell us how satipatthana arises in daily life `in the case of' a monk who is practising the method known as `jhana and vipassana in tandem.' This is the most difficult of all (four) methods. The monk so described is one who has gone to the wilderness where he spends his daily life sitting with legs crossed, back straight, and so on. In other words, he has devoted his entire life to his practice (that is how jhana is developed). He is not like the office worker who takes a couple of days off to attend a meditation retreat. ------------------------- RM (still quoting): > and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. RM: > I take this section as a description of formal meditation not "daily life". --------------- `Mistakenly,' if I may say so :-) As I have said; that first part of the sutta describes how satipatthana can be developed in the case of a monk who is following the method known as `the development of jhana and vipassana in tandem.' I'm sure you know much more about anapanasati than I do. Nina has set it all out (from the suttas and commentaries) in a series of posts. I still haven't grasped the basics but they include the ability to enter, and exit, jhana at will. ------------------------------- RM: > It is true that the next section talks about walking, standing, sitting and lying down. I take this section as "daily life". -------------------------------- Having dealt with satipatthana in the daily life of a monk who is practising the `jhana-and-vipassana-in-tandem' method, the sutta goes on to describe satipatthana in the daily life of a monk who is practising one of the other methods. Obviously those methods include the `vipassana-followed-by-jhana' and the `bare-vipassana' methods, however, I am not sure if, strictly speaking, `jhana-followed-by-vipassana' is included. As you know, jhana (with the exception of anapanasati (as above)), has concept as its object and so, there cannot be satipatthana at such times. (I have asked this question before and promptly forgotten the answers – apologies to all concerned) Anyway, none of these methods is any more formal than the monk's normal life (eating, sitting, walking and so on), which includes spending some time hearing the Dhamma, contemplating it and discussing it with friends. The cases (instances) described in the Satipatthana Sutta, are those in which theoretical knowledge (pariyatti) becomes direct knowledge (patipatti). So Rob, this brings our discussion back to where you were saying in your previous post: ---------------- RM: >> Because of my accumulations, it is easier for me to be aware of the current moment when I am sitting in meditation. However, that does not preclude the possibility that others may have accumulations that support them being aware of the current moment in daily life >> ------------------- To which I objected: ----------------- KH: > Satipatthana does not require easy, or convenient, circumstances. > Provided the conditions have been accumulated, it will accept any dhamma, any where, any time. > ---------------- So my point is, the Buddha did not teach a method whereby a monk can contrive the right circumstances for satipatthana. It arises at any time, in any place, during normal, daily life and it takes any dhamma as its object. If you are seeing, then satipatthana might take the rupa, visible object, as its object, or, if seeing is accompanied by dosa, then satipatthana might take dosa as its object (or any other dhamma that has arisen). Someone might ask; "So, what does it matter? If I can't help, then I can't hinder! What does it matter if I practise formal vipassana meditation in the mistaken belief that it was taught by the Buddha?" Do you have any thoughts on that question? Kind regards, Ken H 29471 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 6:26pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi James, --------------------------- J: > You are absolutely right and I apologize if I have ever hurt your feelings in this regard. --------------------------- On behalf of bookworms everywhere, I thank you for your apology; no hurt feelings :-) -------------------------- J: > I think we all need to just follow our hearts when it comes to the practice of the dhamma. Sometimes we may need to read/write, sometimes we may need to meditate…sometimes we may just need to vegetate! ;-)) ----------------------- Yes; generosity, compassion and wisdom (like all qualities), are accumulated, they don't need our conscious control. When the opportunity for sila, dana or bhavana arises (like now), our reaction will not depend on whether we happen to be reciting a creed at the time. Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Ken H, > > Ken: We bookworms have feelings too, we are just as attached to, and > conceited about, our practices as you are! :-) > > 29472 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 1:55am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Ken H, Hi Ken, Ken: If I may briefly interrupt: This means the sutta is going to tell us how satipatthana (as mindfulness of rupa) arises in daily life. James: (Ken's subtext: This is just a description of something that happens, not instructions to make it happen.) James' response: Consider this sutta reference: ""So, monks, I have taught you new & old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. Whatever a teacher should do -- seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them -- that have I done for you. Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monks. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn35-145.html Ken: Interrupting again: This means the sutta is going to tell us how satipatthana arises in daily life `in the case of' a monk who is practising the method known as `jhana and vipassana in tandem.' This is the most difficult of all (four) methods. James: (Ken's subtext: This is so difficult that no one should even try! [Ken's sub-subtext: This is too difficult for me and/or I don't want to try and fail, so I convince myself and others that no one should try.] James' response: The Buddha never described one method of concentration more difficult than any other (Previously I asked Nina this direct question and she refused to answer me directly); I suppose it would depend on a person's accumulations as to which is the most difficult method. Obviously the practitioner should choose the method most suitable, not the most difficult, after some experimentation. The four methods are described in this sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an04-041.html Ken: The monk so described is one who has gone to the wilderness where he spends his daily life sitting with legs crossed, back straight, and so on. In other words, he has devoted his entire life to his practice (that is how jhana is developed). He is not like the office worker who takes a couple of days off to attend a meditation retreat. James: (Ken's subtext: Only monks should meditate or try to develop jhana, anyone else Is fooling themselves.) James' response: Being a monk is most definitely helpful to the practice (if one can find the right temple that is) but it isn't a requirement. There are certain conditions that should be met for anyone who wants to achieve jhana (and they can be met by a householder with some adjustments in living situation): The following is based on Vism.126-35; PP.132-40, from "The First Jhana and It's Factors": "To develop his practice several important measures are recommended. [8] The meditator should live in a suitable dwelling, rely upon a suitable alms resort, avoid profitless talk, associate only with spiritually-minded companions, make use only of suitable food, live in a congenial climate, and maintain his practice in a suitable posture. He should also cultivate the ten kinds of skill in absorption. He should clean his lodging and his physical body so that they conduce to clear meditation, balance his spiritual faculties by seeing that faith is balanced with wisdom and energy with concentration, and he must be skilful in producing and developing the sign of concentration (1-3). He should exert the mind when it is slack, restrain it when it is agitated, encourage it when it is restless or dejected, and look at the mind with equanimity when all is proceeding well (4-7). The meditator should avoid distracting persons, should approach people experienced in concentration, and should be firm in his resolution to attain jhána (8-10)." Personally, I have begun to change my meditation practice from vipassana to jhana. I have found that my accumulations are simply not appropriate for vipassana practice. Therefore, I have become practically a hermit (living in a foreign country helps in this regard). I only associate with one spiritually-minded person I know here, and rarely go out anywhere (and participate in DSG of course! ;- )). Ken: Anyway, none of these methods is any more formal than the monk's normal life (eating, sitting, walking and so on), which includes spending some time hearing the Dhamma, contemplating it and discussing it with friends. The cases (instances) described in the Satipatthana Sutta, are those in which theoretical knowledge (pariyatti) becomes direct knowledge (patipatti). James: (Ken's subtext: I am going to convince myself and others that Right Concentration can be practiced at anytime, anywhere, without formal meditation, because I just don't want to do it! If I listen to K.Sujin and filter some obscure meaning out of about three different levels of commentaries, I can feel confident about this decision.) James' response: Jhana requires absorption concentration (appaná-samádhi) which cannot be accomplished if there are any distractions. The single object of concentration and the mind must become one. Many on this list seem to hold the mistaken notion that momentary concentration (khanika-samádhi) can be practiced during everyday activities, but this is also incorrect. Momentary concentration doesn't mean concentration for just a `moment', like a mini-meditation, it means to have single-pointed concentration on passing moments, the flow of phenomena of the five khandas. (Nárada, A Manual of Abhidhamma, 4th ed. (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1980), pp. 389, 395-96.) Ken: Someone might ask; "So, what does it matter? If I can't help, then I can't hinder! What does it matter if I practise formal vipassana meditation in the mistaken belief that it was taught by the Buddha?" Do you have any thoughts on that question? James: I do. I think it is a leading question. Metta, James 29473 From: robmoult Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 1:58am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > According to the Atthasalini, in the fourth week after > enlightenment, > > the Buddha sat in the Jewel house and contemplated on the > Abhidhamma. > > When the Buddha started contemplating on the most complicated part > of > > the Abhidhamma, Conditional Relations, His body emanated rays of > six > > colours. > > > > The Buddha's mother died seven days after giving birth. She was > > reborn as a male Deva in Tusita heaven. In gratitude to His mother, > > the Buddha went to Tavatisma heaven to teach the Abhidhamma to his > > former mother and many other Devas > > Honestly, I don't believe this story. It just rings false to me. ===== You don't believe it!?! But it is included in the Atthasalini which was written by the eminent scholar Buddhaghosa :-) . I guess this is one more black mark against Buddhaghosa's name in your book, eh? I believe that Buddhaghosa was reporting on a legend (kind of like a colour commentary). Michael asked if the Abhiadhamma was the word of the Buddha and I needed to explain how, though it is not technically the word of the Buddha, the orthodox consider it to be inspired by and accepted by the Buddha. ===== > However, I do have a few questions and they don't necessarily spring > from my doubt in the story, but my genuine curiosity: > 1.Why would the Buddha go to Tusita heaven to teach the Abhidhamma to > his former mother when he must have had countless former mothers? > (There is a Tibetan Buddhist saying, which I like very much, which > states that you should treat all living beings as if they were at one > time your mother, because they probably were.) ===== I understand your question and have no answer (I really like your quote - I will likely use it in one of my classes). ===== > 2.Didn't the Buddha lose all attachments to his past, present, and > future? Why would he want to encourage past attachments? ===== My understanding is that the Buddha did not go to heaven because of attachments, but out of compassion to allow the Devas to hear the Dhamma; the same compassion, called Mahakarunasamapatti-nana, that is unique to Buddhas, which causes Buddhas to preach the Dhamma. I beleive that one of the commentaries states that going to heaven to teach Abhidhamma is something that all Buddhas must do; part of the job description? :-) ===== > 3.If there are only dhammas, no beings, why would the Buddha care to > teach specially to his former mother, who is now a male deva? If > there is really no Buddha, no male deva, no me, no you, no anything… > who was teaching who what? ===== There was teaching but no teacher in an ultimate sense. There was listening, by no listener in an ultimate sense. The concept called "Buddha", "Deva", "you" and "I" is a collection of aggregates. See my next posting on Anatta (I'm sure it will generate some discussion :-) . Metta, RobM :-) 29474 From: robmoult Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 2:13am Subject: Anatta Hi All, After attaining Enlightenment, the Buddha rejoined the five ascetics with whom He had been practicing and delivered His first sermon, The Great Discourse on the Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion (Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, SN LVI.11). One of the ascetics became a Stream Enterer (Sotapanna, the first stage of sainthood) after hearing this Sutta. Over the next few days, the Buddha instructed the remaining four ascetics until they had all become Sotapanna. After this, the Buddha's delivered His second Sutta, the Great Discourse on Not Self (Anattalakkha¼a Sutta, SN XXII.59): I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Varanasi in the Game Refuge at Isipatana. There he addressed the group of five monks: "Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to disease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, `Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to disease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, `Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' "Feeling is not self... "Perception is not self... "[Mental] fabrications are not self... "Consciousness is not self... "What do you think, monks, is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord" "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: `This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." "... is feeling constant or inconstant?..." "... is perception constant or inconstant?..." "... are mental fabrications constant or inconstant?..." "... is consciousness constant or inconstant?..." "Thus, monks, any body whatsoever that is past, future or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every body is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: `This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' "Any feeling whatsoever... "Any perception whatsoever..., "Any mental fabrications whatsoever... "Any consciousness whatsoever... "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with mental fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, `Fully released.' He discerns that `Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' " That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the group of five monks delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being given, the hearts of the group of five monks, through not clinging (not being sustained), were fully released from fermentation/effluents. The Buddha said that none of the five aggregates (the components of a "being") are to be taken as self. He then shows that each of the aggregates has the characteristics of impermanence (anicca) and suffering (dukkha, here translated as stress) and are not to be clung to by thinking, "this is mine", "this is myself" or "this is what I am". Self-view (sakkaya-ditthi) is the first of the ten fetters (sammyojana). Sotapanna have uprooted all twenty aspects of self-view: - View that form (body) is self - View that self has form (body) - View that form (body) is in the self - View that self is in the form (body) - View that feeling is self... - View that perception is self... - View that mental fabrications are self... - View that consciousness is self... Though the five ascetics had given up self-view, they were still clinging to the aggregates; through this Sutta, the Buddha uprooted this clinging and the five ascetics became Arahants. Metta, RobM :-) 29475 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 2:12am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Rob M, Rob: There was teaching but no teacher in an ultimate sense. There was listening, by no listener in an ultimate sense. The concept called "Buddha", "Deva", "you" and "I" is a collection of aggregates. See my next posting on Anatta (I'm sure it will generate some discussion :-). James: Good answer! My question was a leading one and this is the answer I was looking for! I can accept `collection of aggregates', I just can't accept `concept'. Purple elephants are concepts, people/entities are real (because the aggregates are real). I look forward to your posting on Anatta (like this group hasn't had enough about that! ;-)). Metta, James 29476 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:42am Subject: More discussion (and food) Another day of discussion and Thai hospitality (today's lunch courtesy of Betty and Sukin, many thanks to both). Today we were joined by Vince (and old friend from early Bangkok days) and Nancy, who happened to have planned a short stopover here on their way to a 3-month meditation retreat in Myanmar. Having learnt this just before we left Hong Kong, Sarah and I had arranged to get in touch here, and fortunately they were able to join us at the Foundation. Lively discussion ensued, mainly on the connection between formal sitting practice and the development of understanding. General agreement was reached in principle on the fact that understanding/useful reflection may occur regardless of the present activity, although some felt that one's working environment was an exception to this general rule. Christine will no doubt want to say something on this when she gets back on line ;-)) Tomorrow morning some are joining Sarah and I at our hotel, with discussion at the Foundation again in the afternoon. Jon 29477 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 4:01am Subject: Re: Anatta Hi Rob M, The Buddha did not teach that the five aggregates are the components of a being. Regarding to what extent is one said to be a 'being', you might want to refer to Samyutta Nikaya XXIII.2 Satta Sutta A Being http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn23-002.html "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to be 'a being (satta).' "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications... "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' Note that the Buddha did not say that a being is made up of the five aggregate. The idea that you are composed of the five aggregates, that you are this composition is the very self-identity view to be abandoned. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi All, [snip] > > The Buddha said that none of the five aggregates (the components of > a "being") are to be taken as self. He then shows that each of the > aggregates has the characteristics of impermanence (anicca) and > suffering (dukkha, here translated as stress) and are not to be clung > to by thinking, "this is mine", "this is myself" or "this is what I > am". > > Self-view (sakkaya-ditthi) is the first of the ten fetters > (sammyojana). Sotapanna have uprooted all twenty aspects of self- view: > - View that form (body) is self > - View that self has form (body) > - View that form (body) is in the self > - View that self is in the form (body) > > - View that feeling is self... > - View that perception is self... > - View that mental fabrications are self... > - View that consciousness is self... > > Though the five ascetics had given up self-view, they were still > clinging to the aggregates; through this Sutta, the Buddha uprooted > this clinging and the five ascetics became Arahants. > > Metta, > RobM :-) 29478 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 4:14am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Rob M and all, For those who assert that there is no being, whether in "ultimate sense" or not, you might want to consider if the Buddha ever made that assertion, and how that assertion is in accord to the Dhamma that the Buddha taught as in the following passage: At Savatthi... "There are these four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born. Which four? Physical food, gross or refined; contact as the second, intellectual intention the third, and consciousness the fourth. These are the four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi James, [snip] > > > 3.If there are only dhammas, no beings, why would the Buddha care > to > > teach specially to his former mother, who is now a male deva? If > > there is really no Buddha, no male deva, no me, no you, no anything… > > who was teaching who what? > > ===== > > There was teaching but no teacher in an ultimate sense. There was > listening, by no listener in an ultimate sense. The concept > called "Buddha", "Deva", "you" and "I" is a collection of aggregates. > See my next posting on Anatta (I'm sure it will generate some > discussion :-) . > > Metta, > RobM :-) 29479 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 4:18am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi all, The passage in my previous message is from Samyutta Nikaya XII.63 Puttamansa Sutta A Son's Flesh http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-063.html Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Rob M and all, > > For those who assert that there is no being, whether in "ultimate > sense" or not, you might want to consider if the Buddha ever made > that assertion, and how that assertion is in accord to the Dhamma > that the Buddha taught as in the following passage: > > > At Savatthi... "There are these four nutriments for the maintenance > of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in > search of a place to be born. Which four? Physical food, gross or > refined; contact as the second, intellectual intention the third, > and consciousness the fourth. These are the four nutriments for the > maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of > those in search of a place to be born. > > > Metta, > Victor 29480 From: Michael Beisert Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 7:29am Subject: RE: [dsg] concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Larry, See below >From: LBIDD@w... >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [dsg] concept and ultimate realty in the suttas >Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:13:56 -0700 (MST) > >Michael: "my conclusion so far is that ultimate reality is something >that truly and actually exists because it is a phenomena or an object >that has its own and unique characteristics. Maybe another feature is >that those phenomena or objects cannot be further reduced, like in the >case of a being that can be reduced into khandhas, or we could say a >being is made up of khandhas, but in the case of ultimate realities >those are not subject to further reduction." > >Hi Michael, > >Would you say that any sutta that talks about a khandha or describes a >khandha is talking about ultimate realties in the sense you have >described? I am not saying that I subscribe to those views but before analyzing them I would like to hear from the abhidhamikas in the list if the definition I gave is comprehensive enough. After that I can give you my views. > >Michael: "In contrast, conventional reality is something that really >does not exist. It exists only in our imagination." > >L: Does talk of anatta qualify as "concept"? Dito Metta Michael > >Larry > > > 29481 From: Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 2:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, James - In a message dated 1/29/04 11:27:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Honestly though, I am not sure > what you mean by `shorthand truth' and `non-literal truth'. To me, > truth is truth. > ======================= Actually, the thing that is literal or non-literal isn't the truth, per se, of the sentence involved, but the meaning. When we say "A person is coming for dinner," it sounds like we mean that some actual thing that we can pin down (a "person") is engaging in a well delineable activity (the "coming") that involves some other actual thing we can pin down ("dinner"). Taking it that way is to provide a literal understanding for a conventional utterance. From the Buddhist perspective, and from my perspective, the conventional meaning of the statement is a "manner-of-speaking" meaning, and it only very indirectly corresponds to the facts; and if the statement is understood quite literally, then is quite false (even when somebody IS coming to dinner ;-). However, the statement, makes perfectly good conventional sense, and it is, when understood that way, quite possibly true. Now, there is a literal meaning that the conventional formulation abbreviates - and there are levels and levels of more and more complex formulation that more and more closely express the literal meaning, but that literal meaning is pragmatically inexpressible in a direct manner, requiring a (near-)infinite complexity. Thus, to communicate, we *must* use conventional formulation. The trouble is that we are in the habit of taking our conventional formulations as bearing literal meaning. The Buddha used conventional formulations all the time, because he communicated, and they are needed to communicate, but he directly saw what is literally the case and was not taken in by convention. 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) 29482 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:49am Subject: Mr. Potato Head ;-)) (was Re: The Origin of Namarupa: ) Hi Howard and All, Howard: From the Buddhist perspective, and from my perspective, the conventional meaning of the statement is a "manner-of-speaking" meaning, and it only very indirectly corresponds to the facts; James: It appears to me that you are coming from the `people are concepts' camp. First, you say that this is Buddhism but I really don't think it is. The Buddha never said this. Please give me a quote where he said that people are only concepts and then I will believe that it is Buddhism. Please see the recent quotes by Victor; you will see that the Buddha believed that beings are real. The mistake that beings make is that they cling to the five aggregates and that continues their suffering. The five aggregates are a burden, suffering, and dukkha. I think the problem here lies in a very superficial and incorrect understanding of the five aggregates and how the Buddha explained them. It seems to me that many people on this list are viewing people like Mr. Potato Heads and the Five Aggregates are like the parts that make up Mr. Potato Head! LOL! As Mr. Potato Head goes through different lifetimes the parts change, new eyes, new ears, new body, new feet, etc, and Mr. Potato Head can then become Mrs. Potato Head or Mr. Pumpkin Head, or whatever. Then, when Mr. Potato Head reaches enlightenment all the parts fall away, never to reassemble, and then there is no more Mr. Potato Head. Mr. Potato Head isn't really a Potato Head, he is just an assembly of parts. Mr. Potato Head is a concept of a entity, but he isn't really. If he was wise he would know that there is no lasting core piece to Mr. Potato Head and he would then know that he isn't Mr. Potato Head. And other Potato Heads who have this knowledge also know that he isn't Mr. Potato Head, he is an assembly of parts and `Mr. Potato Head' is a concept. Is this what the five aggregates are like? Not to my understanding. The five aggregates are not parts, they are processes: Processes that never cease. The body is a process; Feeling is a process; Perception is a process; mental fabrication is a process, and consciousness is a process. The mistake that people make is when they look at someone and they don't see a process, they see an entity which is constant and unchanging. Does this mean that the person is a concept and doesn't exist? No. The person exists but he exists as a process. The mistake that the person makes is that he looks at himself and sees an entity which is constant and unchanging, but this is the wrong view because he is a process. When he realizes this, ignorance ceases, clinging ceases, and the process ceases. Does that prove he never really existed? No, he existed as a process. What about after that? I believe that the Buddha spoke about unbound consciousness but I won't go into that. I don't know what happens after that. But I do know that I am not, and you are not, a Mr. Potato Head! ;-)) Metta, James 29483 From: Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 4:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mr. Potato Head ;-)) (was Re: The Origin of Namarupa: ) Hi, James - In a message dated 1/30/04 11:58:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Hi Howard and All, > > Howard: From the Buddhist perspective, and from my perspective, the > conventional meaning of the statement is a "manner-of-speaking" > meaning, and it only very indirectly corresponds to the facts; > > James: It appears to me that you are coming from the `people are > concepts' camp. First, you say that this is Buddhism but I really > don't think it is. The Buddha never said this. Please give me a > quote where he said that people are only concepts and then I will > believe that it is Buddhism. Please see the recent quotes by Victor; > you will see that the Buddha believed that beings are real. The > mistake that beings make is that they cling to the five aggregates > and that continues their suffering. The five aggregates are a > burden, suffering, and dukkha. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: No, I completely disagree. See the chariot simile, for example. ----------------------------------------- > > I think the problem here lies in a very superficial and incorrect > understanding of the five aggregates and how the Buddha explained > them. It seems to me that many people on this list are viewing > people like Mr. Potato Heads and the Five Aggregates are like the > parts that make up Mr. Potato Head! LOL! As Mr. Potato Head goes > through different lifetimes the parts change, new eyes, new ears, new > body, new feet, etc, and Mr. Potato Head can then become Mrs. Potato > Head or Mr. Pumpkin Head, or whatever. Then, when Mr. Potato Head > reaches enlightenment all the parts fall away, never to reassemble, > and then there is no more Mr. Potato Head. Mr. Potato Head isn't > really a Potato Head, he is just an assembly of parts. Mr. Potato > Head is a concept of a entity, but he isn't really. If he was wise > he would know that there is no lasting core piece to Mr. Potato Head > and he would then know that he isn't Mr. Potato Head. And other > Potato Heads who have this knowledge also know that he isn't Mr. > Potato Head, he is an assembly of parts and `Mr. Potato Head' is a > concept. > > Is this what the five aggregates are like? Not to my understanding. > The five aggregates are not parts, they are processes: Processes that > never cease. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Each dhamma, of any aggregate, is an event. An aggregate is not a process - it is a mind-conceived collection or category of events/phenomena. -------------------------------------------------- The body is a process; Feeling is a process; Perception > is a process; > mental fabrication is a process, and consciousness is a > process. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Not my take. -------------------------------------------------- The mistake that people make is when they look at someone > and they don't > see a process, they see an entity which is constant > and unchanging. Does this mean that the person is a concept and > doesn't exist? No. The person exists but he exists as a process. > The mistake that the person makes is that he looks at himself and > sees an entity which is constant and unchanging, but this is the > wrong view because he is a process. When he realizes this, ignorance > ceases, clinging ceases, and the process ceases. Does that prove he > never really existed? No, he existed as a process. What about after > that? I believe that the Buddha spoke about unbound consciousness > but I won't go into that. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Unbound consciousness is the mere presence of phenomena/events without projecting a knowing self or known entities. There is no subject-object duality in it. -------------------------------------------------- I don't know what happens after that. But > > I do know that I am not, and you are not, a Mr. Potato Head! ;-)) -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think you might re-consider the chariot simile. It is not found only in the Milindapanha - there is also the following (provided by Nanavira Thera and findable at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/paramsac.htm): ______________________________________________ In Bhikkhuní Samyutta 10 we find these verses. Mára the Evil One: By whom is this creature formed? Who is the creature's maker? Who is the arisen creature? Who is the creature that ceases? 1 2 Vajirá the nun: Why do you refer to 'the creature', Mára, are you involved in (wrong) view? This is a pile of pure determinations; there is, here, no creature to be found. Just as for an assemblage of parts there is the term 'a chariot', So, when there are the aggregates, convention says 'a creature'. It is merely suffering that comes into being, suffering that stands and disappears, Nothing apart from suffering comes into being, nothing other than suffering ceases. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > 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) 29484 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 11:25am Subject: [dsg] Mr. Potato Head ;-)) (was Re: The Origin of Namarupa: ) Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James - > > In a message dated 1/30/04 11:58:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, > buddhatrue@y... writes: > > > Hi Howard and All, > > > > Howard: From the Buddhist perspective, and from my perspective, the > > conventional meaning of the statement is a "manner-of-speaking" > > meaning, and it only very indirectly corresponds to the facts; > > > > James: It appears to me that you are coming from the `people are > > concepts' camp. First, you say that this is Buddhism but I really > > don't think it is. The Buddha never said this. Please give me a > > quote where he said that people are only concepts and then I will > > believe that it is Buddhism. Please see the recent quotes by Victor; Howard: I think you might re-consider the chariot simile. It is not found only in the Milindapanha - there is also the following (provided by Nanavira Thera and findable at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/paramsac.htm): James: I think you might do what I asked and provide me a quote from the Buddha that is specific and not a metaphor! (hehehe…just thought I would match your tone ;-)) Metta, James 29485 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 0:05pm Subject: Sensing feeling where it arises and where it vanishes ( 04 ) Dear Dhamm Friends, The Samsara has been very very long and it is endless if a special wisdom cannot arise and stop creating more and more potential fuel, Kamma that drive Bhava ( life ) vehicle. The Samsara, life after life, wheel of life, circle of life needs to be broken if we do not want to suffer any more. But if want to suffer more, let it be. The Dhamma practitioner, meditator has been striving to get through the Samsara. He is training his mind contemplating on his own body and then he is trying to contemplate on feeling where it arises and when it arises. He is sitting comfortably leaving all Palivodha or minor hindrances behind and concentrating his mind enthusiastically and delibrately on feeling wherever it arises and whenever it arises. His object of attention becomes feeling that arises at each moment. He is sitting and concentrating on his breath. It touches. There is a feeling that arises with cold incoming breath touching at his nostrils. And he notes that feeling arises. There is a feeling that arises along with touching of warm outgoing breath air and he notes that feeling. He also notes that there are gaps in between breaths and he notices that he is noting that gap while equanimous feeling arises and sometimes joyous feeling arises. At each time a feeling arises, he notes that feeling arises. He also notes when that feeling falls away as falling away. In this way feeling are arising and falling away all the time. There are just feeling and no self in them. He notes that he cannot control the feeling not to fall away and he cannot afford to prevent feeling not to arise. Vedana are Anatta. Feeling cannot be controlled. Feeling are impermanent. Feeling are Anicca. Feeling are unsatisfactory as all feeling are impermanent. Feeling are suffering. Feeling are Dukkha. As feeling are arising and falling away on their own under influence of no one, feeling are non-self. Feeling are Anatta. So said '' Vedana Bhikkhave Anatta '' by The Buddha. May all beings contemplate on feeling wherever it arises and whenever it arises. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing JourneyToNibbana 29486 From: Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 7:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mr. Potato Head ;-)) (was Re: The Origin of Namarupa: ) Hi, James - In a message dated 1/30/04 2:37:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > James: I think you might do what I asked and provide me a quote from > the Buddha that is specific and not a metaphor! (hehehe…just thought > I would match your tone ;-)) > > ======================== Okay - match point! ;-)) With matchless 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) 29487 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:46pm Subject: Re: Sotaapanno Hi Michael, Some time ago, dsg was discussing dhammas with regard to their inherent superiority and inferiority. (Another aspect of sabhava, if I remember correctly.) Perhaps this sutta, you have found, is addressing that same topic. (Just my guess.) A supramundane stream-entry citta, (that has nibbana as its object), would be inherently superior to a mundane satipatthana citta (that has conditioned dhamma as its object). And it would be inherently inferior to a stream-entry fruition citta, (that has the first three fetters destroyed). A Once-returner path citta would be superior to that -- and so on up to the citta of a Tathagata. I would assume that the wholesomeness (merit-worthiness) of gift would depend on the knowledge and intention of the giver and the inherent worthiness of the recipient. A Buddha, and perhaps other ariyans, would know those things; we worldlings would be only guessing. The way in which the Buddha has explained the relative merits of gift giving and the inherent superiority/inferiority of the recipients can only be confusing to anyone who doesn't know about dhammas and sabhava. It would be especially confusing to anyone who thought people, rather than cittas, were real. But the Buddha's audience did know. I don't think they would have been worried by the difficulties of giving a gift (in the conventional sense of people and objects) to a Sotapanna-at-path-consciousness before he could become a Sotapanna-at-fruition-consciousness. (You would have to whip in there very, very quickly:-)) Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > > The sutta in question is the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta (MN 142). The sutta > says: > > 5. "There are fourteen kinds of personal offerings, Ananda. One gives a gift > to the Tathagata, accomplished and fully enlightened; this is the first kind > of personal offering. One gives a gift to a paccekabuddha; this is the > second kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to an arahant disciple of > the Tathagata; this is the third kind of personal offering. One gives a gift > to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of > arahantship; this is the fourth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift > to a non-returner; this is the fifth kind of personal offering. One gives a > gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of > non-returner; this is the sixth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift > to a once-returner; this is the seventh kind of personal offering. One gives > a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit > of once-return; this is the eighth kind of personal offering. One gives a > gift to a stream-enterer; this is the ninth kind of personal offering. One > gives a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the > fruit of stream-entry. > > 29488 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 5:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Larry and All, > Regarding whether "ultimate dhammas" are taught in the suttas, it might > be an interesting exercise to draw up some criteria to make a test. > Certainly all the suttas an be interpreted abhidhammiclly; that is > basically what the ancient commentaries do. However, there is actually > very little discussion of the "concept/reality" distinction in Vism. or > the canonical abhidhamma texts (I think). > > Perhaps this ultimate/conventional distinction is sort of a > philosophical inevitability. ........ I am glad you wrote this, because I had come to a similar conclusion, though I purely speculate. As I have said before, I believe that the philosophical and religious environment of India during the Buddha's time consisted of many individuals who had very highly developed panna. Contrasting with us now, those people were very much in touch with reality. They understood the primary elements and mind intimately, limited by only the lack of knowledge about Anatta. The moment we hear about the earth element or water element for example, our minds proliferate into conceivings that is quite far from the truth. Those people knew exactly what is being refered to from direct experience. Their main limitation was that they still had "self" and so were incapable of apprehending the Tilakhana, and this is why they would never also understand conditionality as the Buddha did. In other words, today we live in the world of conceptually constructed reality, reinforced by sceitific and western philosophical outlook, whereas those people then lived in a world where they understood mind and matter quite well based on direct experience. This is the basis for why the Buddha could every day, survey the world to see and fish out potential candidates for enlightenment. And I believe that then, householders who were interested in understanding the truth with very highly developed panna was also in great abundance. So when the Buddha talked to these people, he never had a need to say or stress about the distinction between concept and reality, because they basically knew it! They mostly needed only to be taught about anatta. K. Sujin is in a position today, where she is faced with what I believe to be false interpretation of the Buddha's teachings. Especially when this business about 'formal meditation' is such a hit. When people suggest that one is to be aware of 'sitting posture', 'standing posture' and so on, she feels a need to remind them that there is no such *reality* as 'sitting posture' etc. That the only dhammas that can be experienced directly through the six doorways are the "Paramattha Dhammas" which we on the list talk so much about. And this fact being more easily appreciated when studying Abhidhamma, is the reason why she stresses so much on its study. The suttas were for those who could understand that Dhammas and Abhidhammas are one and the same thing. For us ignorant folks who easily get caught in stories and personal interpretations, reminders about concept/reality distinction is very important. This of course does not mean that we solidify such reminders into a 'philosophical position'. Personally, especially since the recent discussions on Rupas, life faculty, sexuality and space for example, I have developed a more relaxed attitude towards 'conventional reality'. Though I don't believe that they can be objects of insight knowledge, I think we can experience manifestations and intimations of those realities as also given as examples to in the commentaries. I don't believe that I can know 'feminity rupa' for example, no matter how much I observe for how many lifetimes the different conventional manifestations of the same. But I do believe that to observe with understanding can accumulate as Sankhara such that when the time comes, the paramattha dhamma can one day be the object of insight. This leads me to another topic, 'theoretical knowledge'. There have been discussion about how much knowledge of *what* is needed for ultimate realization. I persoanlly don't think that I can decide. I believe that the way pariyatti conditions patipatti and this conditioning pativedha, is not something I can know with any certainty. However, I do believe that nothing in the Tipitaka should be judged as being irrelavent. And I do believe for example that to insist upon only those objects within the scope of the six doorways as being worthy of 'knowledge', is to risk being caught in subjective interpretation of reality and an accounting for which would be quite off the mark. As I said above about conditioning as sankhara, even though many realities are not experienced and seemingly experiencable, the way pariyatti works to condition patipatti may be quite different from what seems to us at this level of understanding. Sorry fo the abrupt ending, got to go for a breakfast appointment with Sarah, Jon, Nina and others. ;-) Metta, Sukin. 29489 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 5:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Michael, RobM, & all, > > Regarding whether "ultimate dhammas" are taught in the suttas, it might > be an interesting exercise to draw up some criteria to make a test. > Certainly all the suttas an be interpreted abhidhammiclly; that is > basically what the ancient commentaries do. However, there is actually > very little discussion of the "concept/reality" distinction in Vism. or > the canonical abhidhamma texts (I think). > > I think this group is actually doing original work on this > distinction which is only lightly touched-on in Vism. > > ========= Dear Larry, I think it depends what we have studied. I see a great deal about pannatti and paramttha in the texts - and nothing original on dsg. I give a quote from Kurunadasa because this is availble on teh web http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm III. Pannatti and the Two Truths """What may be described as the first formal definition of pannatti occurs in the Dhammasangani.107 Here the three terms, pannatti, nirutti, and adhivacana are used synonymously and each term is defined by lumping together a number of appropriate equivalents. In Mrs. Rhys Davids' translation: "That which is an enumeration, that which is a designation, an expression (pannatti), a current term, a name, a denomination, the assigning of a name, an interpretation, a distinctive mark of discourse on this or that dhamma." 108 Immediately after this definition, a "predication of equipollent terms," 109 it is observed that all the dhammas constitute the pathway of pannattis (sabbe dhamma pannatti-patha).110 As shown by this definition, designation is the pannatti; what is designated thereby is the pannatti-patha. Whether the term pannatti, as used here, denotes the individual names given to each and every dhamma only, or whether it also denotes names assigned to various combinations of the dhammas, is not explicitly stated. According to the Abhidhamma, it may be noted, every combination of the objectively real dhammas represents a nominal reality, not an objective reality. The fact that the term pannatti includes names of both categories, the objective and the nominal, is suggested not only by what is stated elsewhere in the Abhidhamma Pitaka,111 but also by the later exegesis.112 We may conclude then that according to the Dhammasangani definition, pannatti denotes all names, terms, and symbols that are expressive of the real existents as well as of their combinations in different forms. Another important fact that should not be overlooked here is that according to the later exegesis pannatti includes not only names (nama) but also ideas corresponding to them (attha).113 Since the assignment of a designation creates an idea corresponding to it, we may interpret the above definition to include both. It is true, of course, that the dhammas do not exist in dependence on the operation of the mind, on their being designated by a term and conceptualized by mind. Nevertheless the assignment of names to the dhammas involves a process of conceptualization. Hence pannatti includes not only the names of things, whether they are real or nominal, but also all the concepts corresponding to them. This theory of pannatti, presented as ancillary to the doctrine of dhammas, is not a complete innovation on the part of the Abhidhamma. Such a theory is clearly implied in the early Buddhist analysis of empirical existence into the aggregates, sense bases, and elements, and the only really new feature in the pannatti theory is its systematic formulation. Accordingly the term "person" becomes a common designation (sammuti) given to a congeries of dependently originated psycho-physical factors: "Just as there arises the name `chariot' when there is a set of appropriate constituents, even so there comes to be this convention `living being' when the five aggregates are present." 114 """ This is just one example. So many references in Abhidhamma commentaries to pannatti and paramattha. robk 29490 From: Michael Beisert Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 6:19pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hello Ken, KenH: Some time ago, dsg was discussing dhammas with regard to their inherent superiority and inferiority. (Another aspect of sabhava, if I remember correctly.) Michael: Dictionary.com defines ‘inherent’ as: Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic. Permanently existing in something; inseparably attached or connected; naturally pertaining to; innate; inalienable. Is this the meaning you attribute to ‘inherent’ in your statement? KenH: The way in which the Buddha has explained the relative merits of gift giving and the inherent superiority/inferiority of the recipients can only be confusing to anyone who doesn't know about dhammas and sabhava. It would be especially confusing to anyone who thought people, rather than cittas, were real. Michael: Dictionary.com for ‘real’: Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence. Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language. Is that how you understand ‘real’ in your statement? Can you define ‘sabhava’? Metta Michael 29491 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 6:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Michael, RobM, & all, > > Regarding whether "ultimate dhammas" are taught in the suttas, it might > be an interesting exercise to draw up some criteria to make a test. > Certainly all the suttas an be interpreted abhidhammiclly; that is > basically what the ancient commentaries do. However, there is actually > very little discussion of the "concept/reality" distinction in Vism. or > the canonical abhidhamma texts (I think). > =========== Dear Larry, There are different versions of the Visuddhimagga about. In the one I have there is on page 780-781 (VIII n11) it gives a great deal of commentarial notes based on the Puggalapannatti- one the books of the Abhidhamma. So: "24 kinds [of pannatti]are dealt with in the commentary to the Puggalapannatti........." If you have the Puggalapannatti you can read about these matters too. It is the 4th book of the Abhidhamma and translated by PTS as 'A Designation of Human Types' Buddha net gives a succint summary of it: http://www.buddhanet.net/puggala.htm RobertK 29492 From: Michael Beisert Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 6:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hello RobertK, RobertK: This theory of pannatti, presented as ancillary to the doctrine of dhammas, is not a complete innovation on the part of the Abhidhamma. Such a theory is clearly implied in the early Buddhist analysis of empirical existence into the aggregates, sense bases, and elements, and the only really new feature in the pannatti theory is its systematic formulation. Accordingly the term "person" becomes a common designation (sammuti) given to a congeries of dependently originated psycho-physical factors: "Just as there arises the name `chariot' when there is a set of appropriate constituents, even so there comes to be this convention `living being' when the five aggregates are present." Michael: The important word here is ‘implied’. The conclusion drawn depends very much on the logic employed by who is doing the ‘implication’. And that logic could be flawed. I don’t read anything in the suttas that would lead one to imply that paññatti is meant. Maybe you want to elaborate on that logic to convince me and others otherwise? Metta Michael 29493 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 7:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Dear Michael, Robert Eddison, whoc recently ordained as a monk, wrote this a whiole back: "Are you perhaps referring to paramattha sacca (truth in the highest sense)? If so, I would agree that this term is absent in the Suttas, though I would suggest that the notion is present. That is to say, the idea that something may be true conventionally but not ultimately is inferrable from the Suttas, even though it is expressed in different terms. What the Commentaries call conventional truth (sammuti-sacca), the Suttas call 'worldly consensus' (lokasamañña), 'worldly language' (lokanirutti), 'worldly usage' (lokavohaara), or 'worldly convention' (lokapaññatti). What the Commentaries call truth in the highest sense (paramattha- sacca) is indicated in several ways in the Suttas, but most unambiguously when the Buddha prefaces a statement with "In truth and reality..." (saccato thetato). E.g. "....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what belongs to self...." (Alagadduupama Sutta ) "In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be found [i.e. in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]." (Yamaka Sutta)" ***** Robertk In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > Hello RobertK, > > RobertK: > This theory of pannatti, presented as ancillary to the doctrine of > dhammas, is not a complete innovation on the part of the Abhidhamma. > Such a theory is clearly implied in the early Buddhist analysis of > empirical existence into the aggregates, sense bases, and elements, > and the only really new feature in the pannatti theory is its > systematic formulation. Accordingly the term "person" becomes a > common designation (sammuti) given to a congeries of dependently > originated psycho-physical factors: "Just as there arises the > name `chariot' when there is a set of appropriate constituents, even > so there comes to be this convention `living being' when the five > aggregates are present." > > Michael: > The important word here is `implied'. The conclusion drawn depends very much > on the logic employed by who is doing the `implication'. And that logic > could be flawed. I don't read anything in the suttas that would lead one to > imply that paññatti is meant. Maybe you want to elaborate on that logic to > convince me and others otherwise? > > Metta > Michael > 29494 From: Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 7:27pm Subject: RE: [dsg] concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Michael: "I am not saying that I subscribe to those views but before analyzing them I would like to hear from the abhidhamikas in the list if the definition I gave is comprehensive enough. After that I can give you my views." Hi Michael, As far as I am concerned what you wrote is a good beginning. Go for it. Everyone else is either out of town or not interested. Subscribing to these views isn't exactly the issue. The question is, do these views accurately represent the concept/reality distinction, and, are they found in any suttas? IMO, as per this distinction in this group, ultimate reality is the 5 khandhas and nibbana as they may arise one at a time as an object of consciousness. Concept is a mental formation (synthesis) of realities, whether objects of consciousness or not, sometimes encoded as an "idea". Concept could also be just a name. I could easily not be aware of everything that goes into a mental formation. Given this working definition, I would say only those very highly skilled in concentration would have access to ultimate realities and consequently only they would be capable of being attached to them. [I don't see this point being made in the suttas.] All others are presumably only attached to mental formations and names. The practice seems to be to experientially break down mental formations into individually arising realities. I don't know of a sutta that talks about individually arising realities but there is a lot of discussion on breaking down an object of desire into parts which are seen as undesirable because of impermanence, foulness, etc. Furthermore, concept is said to be unconditioned, presumably because of being nonexistent. Except for the notoriously nonexistent carriage I don't know of any other discussions on nonexistence, but there is discussion of a reality being empty of a particular characteristic, in other words being without that characteristic. I think "anatta" falls into this category in the sense of a reality being without permanence or some other characteristic regarded as desirable. [Nibbana is a special case] There is also a bit of pointing out of errors. An error could be said to be a nonexistence but the Buddha doesn't make that point, to my knowledge. So, on the whole, I would say the concept/reality distinction isn't found in the suttas, but elements of it are found, i.e., 5 khandhas and nibbana as basic elements of reality, mental formations, analysis, experiential mindfulness, and emptiness and error. One other point, it seems that analysis is for the purpose of disenchantment. Abhidhamma is extensive analysis and whether or not it serves that purpose is an individual matter, imo. Larry ------------------------- Michael: ...my conclusion so far is that ultimate reality is something that truly and actually exists because it is a phenomena or an object that has its own and unique characteristics. Maybe another feature is that those phenomena or objects cannot be further reduced, like in the case of a being that can be reduced into khandhas, or we could say a being is made up of khandhas, but in the case of ultimate realities those are not subject to further reduction... Larry: Would you say that any sutta that talks about a khandha or describes a khandha is talking about ultimate realties in the sense you have described? Michael: "In contrast, conventional reality is something that really does not exist. It exists only in our imagination." Larry: Does talk of anatta qualify as "concept"? 29495 From: Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Robert, Thanks for all this info on pannatti. Very interesting. I wasn't too clear on my point in the original post. What I'm interested in is the concept/reality distinction as a tool of analysis. Particularly as it involves mental formations. It seems that most of the time mental formations are not language based, but I could be wrong about this. Anyway, this is what I consider to be "new ground". As regards the scarcity of discussion on this distinction in Vism., I meant to say that Buddhaghosa himself didn't have much to say about it. However, as you say, there was a little more discussion by later commentators. Larry 29496 From: Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Sukin: "When people suggest that one is to be aware of 'sitting posture', 'standing posture' and so on, she feels a need to remind them that there is no such *reality* as 'sitting posture' etc." Hi Sukin, Good to see you again. When you are sitting do you think there is no such reality as this sitting, or do you think the reality of this sitting is tangible data, or do you just experience tangible data, or do you look at the experience of tangible data? If you look at the experience of tangible data, what happens? Larry 29497 From: Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, Robert - In a message dated 1/30/04 10:12:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > > "....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what > belongs > to self...." > (Alagadduupama Sutta ) > ============================== Could you please indicate exactly where in the Alagadduupama Sutta this quoted material occurs. I've looked through the sutta as translated in the Middle Length Discourses, but I miss it. I'm interested in this because it would seem to be a rare case in which the Buddha, in a sutta, not only says that form, feelings, etc are not self, but explicitly that there exists neither self or what pertains to self. Such an explicit statement, if actually there, is relevant to the "no self" versus "not self" debate. 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) 29498 From: robmoult Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 9:49pm Subject: Re: Anatta Hi Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > The Buddha did not teach that the five aggregates are the components > of a being. Regarding to what extent is one said to be a 'being', > you might want to refer to > > Samyutta Nikaya XXIII.2 > Satta Sutta > A Being > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn23-002.html > > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one > is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to > be 'a being (satta).' > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... > perception... fabrications... > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: > when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a > being.' > > > Note that the Buddha did not say that a being is made up of the five > aggregate. > > The idea that you are composed of the five aggregates, that you are > this composition is the very self-identity view to be abandoned. I read the Sutta a few times at Access to Insight and still felt that it could be interpreted that a being is a concept referring to a collection of five aggregates. Nevertheless, the quotation, "when one is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to be 'a being (satta)" did seem a little strange. I then referred to Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation (hard cover only, not available on line) of the Samyutta Nikaya and found the following footnote against this quotation: This reply hinges upon a pun between satta as the Pali equivalent as Skt Sattva, "a being" and as the past participle of sajjati (= Skt sakta), "attached". In other words, I suggest that you may have misinterpreted this Sutta. Do you know of any examples where the Buddha says that a being is anything other than a collection of the five aggregates? Metta, Rob M :-) 29499 From: robmoult Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 9:57pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Rob: My interpretation of this portion of the Sutta is that once one > realizes that everything arises naturally because of conditions > (paccaya), there is no place for the concept of an "I". > > James: I believe that this is only part of the meaning. The other > part of the meaning is that anatta doesn't mean no existence, it > means conditional existence. Yup! I think you're right. Metta, Rob M :-) 29500 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 10:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 1/30/04 10:12:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, > rjkjp1@y... writes: > > > > > "....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what > > belongs > > to self...." > > (Alagadduupama Sutta ) > > > ============================== > Could you please indicate exactly where in the Alagadduupama Sutta > this quoted material occurs. =============================================== Dear Howard, I think Rob. Eddison probably used the PTS edition . In Bhikkhu Bodhi's edition the same verse is translated "since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established........would it not be an utterly and completely foolish teaching" p232, first paragraph. RobertK 29501 From: robmoult Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 10:25pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Rob: That was the Cliffs Notes version!!! > > James: Okay, since this is the Cliffs Notes version, I will trudge > through it.;-)) I have inserted my comments on areas I want to > address: > > Rob: A fundamental principle of Buddhism is that everything arises > because of conditions; there is no God and no self to "decide" things. > > James: Conditionality doesn't suppose or disprove the existence of > a `God' and the Buddha never spoke to such a matter. The ultimate > existence or non-existence of a universal God is beyond the realm of > Buddhism. Also, even though the Buddha taught anatta, he didn't say > that there wasn't a self to `decide' things. This supposition is > also a contradiction in some later comments you make about `vows'. ===== You are correct that Buddhism does not deny the existence of Gods. The Buddha often referred to Devas (Gods) in the Suttas. The grammar of my sentence makes my point not clear. I am saying that decisions are not made by a "self" or by a "God"; decisions arise naturally because of conditions. After this, I will insert a new post on the subject of Free Will that will certainly stir things up a bit. ===== > > Rob: The Patthana, the seventh book of the Abhidhamma, explains > conditional relations; ways in which one thing can be a condition for > another. > > James: In conditionality, there can never be a time when ONE thing is > a condition for ONE other thing. The ties and the connections are so > vast and complex that it would be mind boggling to try to unravel > them, and I believe impossible. Imagine it as like a bowl of fish > hooks, pick one up and a whole mass of others come along with it. ===== You are correct that nothing is conditioned by one single thing. What the Patthana describes are the ways in which one thing can be a condition for another thing. In other words, the modes of conditioning. There may be hundreds of conditions arising to support the arising of something, but the ways in which these hundreds of condtions work is limited to 24 (according to the text). ===== > > Rob: - Sense-door adverting: this citta controls the flow of the citta > process and "decides" that a certain rupa will become the object of a > citta process. Each of the senses is constantly bombarded with > information; it is natural decisive support condition that "decides" > which data will be processed. > - Determining / mind door adverting: this citta controls the flow of > the citta process and "decides" which type of javana (kamma > producing) cittas will follow. Natural decisive support > condition "decides" if our thoughts will be kusala or akusala. > - Javana: these cittas create kamma. The weightiness of the kamma > produced depends on the strength of the volition (cetana). It is > natural decisive support that "decides" how strong the cetana will be > and therefore the weightiness of the resulting kamma. > - Jhana: The arising of the jhana citta depend on natural decisive > support condition. It is this condition that "decides" when we should > enter jhana. > - Path: The arising of the supramundane cittas depend on natural > decisive support condition. It is this condition that "decides" when > we are ready to become a Sotapanna (or higher). > > James: Nice and maybe helpful for some, but this isn't nearly the > entire picture. We can catalogue and describe all of the various > clouds in the sky, and how each one of them affects various weather > patterns, and when we are done we can feel really proud of how clever > and intelligent we are; but we really haven't done a thing. The > complexity of conditions is beyond our understanding. Might as well > do a rain dance and hope for rain! ;-) ===== You are absolutely correct. There could be a dozen or more modes of conditioning operating on hundreds of conditioned states. The purpose of the Patthana is not to try and unravel this, but to show that all the conditioning is arising naturally to help us appreciate intellectually that there is no "self" directing things. On a parallel note, in AN IV.77, the Buddha said that the precise workings of kamma were unknowable and would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Nevertheless, the Buddha still talked about kamma to illustrate that it was a natural force. ===== > > Rob: The popular saying that "people are creatures of habit" is true. > If we do metta meditation each morning, our mind naturally reacts with > metta throughout the day. If we feel drawn to the Dhamma, it is > probably because we studied the Dhamma in a past life and have > accumulations to study the Dhamma in this life as well. If we are > attracted to a person, it is probably because we have been associated > with them in a past life (Yasodhara was the wife of the Buddha in a > previous existence). If we have a "talent" in music or art, it is > probably because of experience in past lives. > > James: True. The influences of kamma are both vast and subtle. Do > you believe in serendipity? I do. ===== My dictionary defines serendipity as "the faculty of making happy and unexpected discoveries by accident". I don't believe in accidents; everything arises because of conditions. However, in accordance with AN IV.77 quoted above, I don't believe that such things are knowable. Therefore to the partially blind eye (such as mine), things can arise which are conventionally described as "accidents". ===== > > Rob: At the time of the Dipankara Buddha, Sumedha the Hermit made a > solemn vow that he would become a future Buddha. This solemn vow > influenced the Bodhisatta for countless lifetimes. Sariputta and > Moggallana were chief disciples of the Buddha and Ananda was the > attendant of the Buddha because they had made solemn vows in previous > lives that this was the role that they wanted to play. > > James: How could they make such vows if they have no self to decide? > You already said that there is no self that makes decisions; > everything is a result of conditioning, so it would no be possible > for each of these entities to make their various vows. This is a > contradiction. ===== There are vows without "vowers"; actions without actors; doing without "doers". Vowing, acting and doing are all conditions, either through natural decisive support mode of conditioning or asynchronous kamma mode of conditioning. My "Free Will" post will expand on this further. ===== > > Rob: We should look for opportunities to perform wholesome deeds. This > searching for and planning a wholesome deed is, in itself, a > wholesome deed. We should ensure that all wholesome deeds are done > with strong volition, mindfulness and clear intention. We should > review and rejoice in wholesome deeds performed and share the merits > of our actions. Each of these activities creates good kamma and good > accumulations; a condition to support the performing of more good > deeds in the future. > > James: Yes, performing wholesome deeds will condition the performing > of more wholesome deeds in the future. But, it seems to me that > some `decisions' have to be made somewhere in this process. ===== Lots of decisions... but no "decider". ===== > > Rob: We should understand the potential power of a solemn vow. To > increase the potency of the vow, it should be made when the mind is > clear and not troubled by restlessness. > > James: Wow! Now you are asking for a lot of decisions and control. > We have to understand the potential power of a vow, know when the > mind is not troubled, and then make the vow then. Who is making this > vow since there is no self to decide things? ===== I a suggesting a "law of nature"; that the vow will have more potency if the recent states of minds are calm and collected. ===== > > Rob: We are often deluded into believing in a "self that has control". > > James: Hmmm, I wonder why? ;-)) You have just stated that I can > control when I make or not make a solemn vow and you have also said > that I can choose wholesome actions. Just what are you saying? > > Rob: Imagine a pile of rough gravel with a ball placed at the top. > Gravity will cause the ball to fall and the laws of physics will > determine the path that the ball takes as it rolls down. The path > that the ball takes will be determined by many factors including the > most recent bounce and any gullies that there may be in the gravel > (i.e. accumulations). From this analogy, we can see: > - It is almost impossible to predict, with accuracy how the mind will > react (i.e. don't know for sure the path the ball may take) > - There is no self in control (i.e. the natural laws of physics / > natural decisive support condition is "in control") > > James: So people are just like balls rolling down a hill? No control > or ability to influence their course and at the complete mercy of > natural laws? Hmmm…I will ponder this next time I go bowling. Let's > hope someone doesn't throw me down the lane!! ;-)) ===== Imagine the perspective of an ant living on that ball as it rolls down the pile of gravel. From the ant's perspective, the motion of his world seems to be without meaning. In reality, from the ant's perspective, the motion of his world is an unknowable. The ant may create the concept of a God controlling the motion of his world. In reality, the motion of his world works according to impersonal laws of physics. Metta, Rob M :-) 29502 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 10:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: Dear Larry, It becomes clearer by seeing it in the present moment. What is present right at this instant? There is color - rupa, and seeing- nama. Then there is thinking about what was seen. It is so direct to comprehend this and then all our doubts become resolved. No need for language or thinking in words to have this occur. So I think no new ground here, larry. Robertk Hi Robert, > > Thanks for all this info on pannatti. Very interesting. I wasn't too > clear on my point in the original post. What I'm interested in is the > concept/reality distinction as a tool of analysis. Particularly as it > involves mental formations. It seems that most of the time mental > formations are not language based, but I could be wrong about this. > Anyway, this is what I consider to be "new ground". > > As regards the scarcity of discussion on this distinction in Vism., I > meant to say that Buddhaghosa himself didn't have much to say about it. > However, as you say, there was a little more discussion by later > commentators. > > Larry 29503 From: robmoult Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 10:34pm Subject: Free Will or Not Hi All, Our ancestors did not understand the world around them. Because they did not understand, they created external "Gods" that controlled the weather. These "Gods" could control the weather according to their whims and fancies. Today, we look back and smile at the naivete of our ancestors. Today, we understand that the weather operates according to impersonal laws of nature. Modern man does not understand the world within himself. Because we do not understand, we create an internal "God" called the "self" that controls the flow of our thoughts. We believe that this self can control the flow of our thoughts according to its whim and fancy. Perhaps some day, our descendants will look back and smile at our naivete because they understand that the internal world, the world of the mind, also operates according to impersonal laws of nature (If our descendants are able to rid themselves of self-view, then they will be quite close to enlightenment). The concept of self is deeply rooted within us. A recent book, "Why God Won't Go Away" by Dr. Andrew Newberg and Dr. Eugene Aquili, reported research on how the brain functions. According to this book, information from the senses is routed to a portion of the brain called the "Orientation Association Area" (OAA). The function of the OAA is to put the incoming sensory data into context by overlaying an artificial sense of self. Brain scans show that the OAA is normally a very active part of the brain; there is lots of blood flow in this area of the brain. Experiments were done with a Franciscan nun and a Buddhist meditator of the Tibetan tradition. When the subjects reached deep stages of concentration, the blood flow to this portion of the brain was dramatically reduced. When interviewed later, the subjects indicated that at the times that the blood flow to the OAA was dramatically reduced, they were experiencing a "higher reality". The illusion of self may be hardwired, but we can overcome this hardwiring through correct practice. Belief in freewill is a belief in self The doctrine of non-self (anatta) is central to Buddhism. The Visuddhi Magga (XVI, 90) says, "For there is suffering, but none who suffers; doing exists although there is no doer; extinction (death) is but no extinguished person; although there is a path, there is no goer." Expanding on this concept from the Visuddhi Magga, "There is choice, but there is no chooser". If there is no chooser (self), how can there be freewill? The concept of freewill assumes a supervisory self that monitors the mind's activities chooses a response. Why freewill does not make sense Think of the last time that you were confused about something (reading this article, perhaps?). Does it make sense that there was a "choice born of freewill" to be confused at that moment? What about the last time you were restless... was there a "choice born of freewill" working at that moment? We all know that anger is one letter away from danger. Knowing that anger is bad and dangerous, does it make sense that there was a "choice born of freewill" every time anger arises? Does it make sense that "choice born of freewill" only operates when there is a choice to do something good, but "freewill takes a vacation" whenever there is a choice to do something bad? How does choice work without freewill? According to Buddhism, all things except Nibbana are conditioned. This means that our actions arise because of conditions (not because of a self or freewill). What are the factors that direct choices? There are two: our current situation and our habits (our accumulations or mental tendencies). An idea or a sensory input arises in our mind and our mind reacts naturally according to it's habits. A mind that has a habit of metta will naturally react to situations with loving kindness. A mind that has a habit of greed will naturally react to situations with craving and clinging. What does this mean in daily life? The flow of our thoughts is directed by our habits; not by a supervisory self. If we can develop and nurture "good habits" in our daily life, our thoughts will be directed accordingly. Habits are developed and nurtured through concentrated repetition. Another word for "concentrated repetition" is "practice". In his article, "Questions on Kamma", Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote about the psychological effect of kamma, "When a willed action is performed it leaves a track in the mind, an imprint which can mark the beginning of a new mental tendency. It has a tendency to repeat itself, to reproduce itself, somewhat like a protozoan, like an amoeba. As these actions multiply, they form our character. Our personality is nothing but a sum of all our willed actions, a cross-section of all our accumulated kamma. So by yielding first in simple ways to the unwholesome impulses of the mind, we build up little by little a greedy character, a hostile character, an aggressive character or a deluded character. On the other hand, by resisting these unwholesome desires we replace them with their opposites, the wholesome qualities. Then we develop a generous character, a loving and a compassionate personality, or we can become wise and enlightened beings. As we change our habits gradually, we change our character, and as we change our character we change our total being, our whole world. That is why the Buddha emphasizes, so strongly the need to be mindful of every action, of every choice. For every choice of ours has a tremendous potential for the future." Formal meditation is one form of "concentrated repetition". Sitting each morning and radiating metta, develops a habit of metta in the mind. When a mind that has a habit of metta encounters a difficult situation, the habit of metta directs the mind to a positive response. Vipasanna meditation develops a habit of seeing things as they truly are; impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self. Vipassana meditation develops the habit or perspective of right view, the first step on the Noble Eightfold Path. Imagine that you are driving along and somebody cuts you off. You start to get angry, but then you remember the Dhamma and calm your mind. Was this freewill at work? No. Your past experience of studying the Dhamma created a mental tendency or habit in your mind. When the situation arose, your mental tendency caused the memory of the Dhamma to arise and this calmed your mind. Everything occurred because of an impersonal law of nature, without the need for a self and without the need for freewill. Does the denial of freewill mean that Buddhism is fatalistic or deterministic? In 1927, Werner Heisenberg wrote, "The 'path' comes into existence only when we observe it." Heisenberg was one of the founders of modern physics and he was referring to the path of atomic particles such as electrons. Heisenberg was making the point that the classical view of an "objective observer" was wrong. We can say that the 'path of our life' does not exist until it is observed. The concepts of "fatalism" or "determinism" are rooted in the self-view that there is an objective observer. If our "subjective observer" perspective makes it impossible for us to determine the future, how can we say that the future is predetermined? Conclusion Belief in freewill is a belief in a self. The doctrine of anatta is incompatible with freewill. Understanding that choices arise naturally because of our habits is an important lesson. The Buddha stressed in the Bhumija Sutta (Mn126) that results are obtained through proper practice, not through aspiration. Strong aspiration without proper practice will never yield results. Proper practice, with or without strong aspiration, will always yield results. Metta, Rob M :-) PS: I have posted this article before, but decided to post it again as it was relevant to some current threads. 29504 From: robmoult Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 10:54pm Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Michael, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > RobM: > So based on this, can we say that the Abhidhamma is the word of the > Buddha? Yes and no. There should be no conflicts between the content > of the Abhidhamma and the Suttas. However, the Abhidhamma and the > Suttas have a completely different style. > > Michael: > I have enjoyed reading again about the origins of the Abhidhamma. I like > this story. But your arguments do not help to clarify your original > affirmation which was: "I don't believe that the Buddha ever taught about > ultimate realities; my understanding is that paramattha dhammas are a > feature of the Abhidhamma, not of the Suttas." > > If the paramatha dhammas, i.e., ultimate realities, have not been taught by > the Buddha, and those are features of the Abhidhamma, ergo, the Abhidhamma > was not taught by the Buddha. I agree that the Abhidhamma texts that we have were not taught by the Buddha. In line with the story, they were inspired by the Buddha and accepted by the Buddha. According to the story, the Buddha did teach the Abhidhamma (in Tavitisma heaven) and this is what led to the creation of the texts that we have. You might be interested in knowing that the concept of ultimate realities is not explicity included as part of the original Abhidhamma texts. The explicit focus on paramattha dhammas came at a later stage. In other words, "ultimate realities" is not explicitly discussed in the Suttas or the Abhidhamma. By anybody's definition, it is not the word of the Buddha. You can read more about this fascinating topic in Ven. Karunadasa's article, "The Dhamma Theory - The Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma". http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm Metta, Rob M :-) 29505 From: robmoult Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 11:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Larry and All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Regarding whether "ultimate dhammas" are taught in the suttas, it might > be an interesting exercise to draw up some criteria to make a test. > Certainly all the suttas an be interpreted abhidhammiclly; that is > basically what the ancient commentaries do. However, there is actually > very little discussion of the "concept/reality" distinction in Vism. or > the canonical abhidhamma texts (I think). > > Perhaps this ultimate/conventional distinction is sort of a > philosophical inevitability. It is certainly discussed extensively in > the mahayana. There, a sutta is deemed "ultimate" if emptiness and/or > the middle way between eternalism and nihilism is discussed. I don't > think this is what we in this group mean by "ultimate", but we could > discuss this. I think this group is actually doing original work on this > distinction which is only lightly touched-on in Vism. > > So the question is, what do we mean by "ultimate reality" and how would > we recognize it in the suttas? Or would it be better to ask what do we > mean by "concept"? Interested in your comment on Ven. Karunadasa's article, "The Dhamma Theory - Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma". http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm Metta, Rob M :-) 29506 From: robmoult Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 0:00am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > So my point is, the Buddha did not teach a method whereby a monk can > contrive the right circumstances for satipatthana. It arises at any > time, in any place, during normal, daily life and it takes any > dhamma as its object. If you are seeing, then satipatthana might > take the rupa, visible object, as its object, or, if seeing is > accompanied by dosa, then satipatthana might take dosa as its object > (or any other dhamma that has arisen). ===== I agree that satipatthana can arise at any time and that it takes whatever dhamma arises as its object. I understand samatha meditation as an exercise wherein satipatthana is used to focus concentration on an object (kasina, breath, cemetary, etc.). If followed ardently, samatha meditation can lead to jhana (if one has three roots and other conditions are present). Even if samatha does not lead to jhana, then samatha is a way of "taming the wild monkey" that is the mind. I understand vipassana meditation as an exercise wherein satipatthana is used to penetrate the true characteristics (anicca, dukkha, anatta) of whatever object arises. If followed ardently, vipassana meditation can lead to magga citta (sainthood); again if one has three roots and other conditions are present. In order to use the mind as an effective tool to penetrate the object, the mind must be tamed first and that is why many meditators start with samatha and/or alternate between samatha and vipassana practice. You mentioned many different approaches (bare vipassana, samatha then vipassana, etc.) and within the samatha approach, there are many different possible objects. It is true that the Buddha did not say that one approach was the easiest for EVERYBODY, but the Buddha did often assign specific meditation objects to monks based on His ability to penetrate their past lives. The Buddha based His decisions on the monks' accumulations and since everybody has different accumulations, there is no one easiest object for EVERYBODY. I have not yet had the time to carefully study the Abhidhamma or Sutta theory behind the various types of meditation (you give me too much credit). I hope to be able to do that analysis some day. Metta, Rob M :-) 29507 From: robmoult Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 0:09am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi James (and Howard), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > With metta - you old bag of khandhas (!), > > James: Old?? Who you calling old?? ;-)) From a perusal of the > member's photos, I may just be the youngest (non-lurking) bag of > khandhas on this list! ;-)) Only if you limit your counting to this existence! :-) 29508 From: robmoult Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 0:31am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > For those who assert that there is no being, whether in "ultimate > sense" or not, you might want to consider if the Buddha ever made > that assertion, and how that assertion is in accord to the Dhamma > that the Buddha taught as in the following passage: > > > At Savatthi... "There are these four nutriments for the maintenance > of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in > search of a place to be born. Which four? Physical food, gross or > refined; contact as the second, intellectual intention the third, > and consciousness the fourth. These are the four nutriments for the > maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of > those in search of a place to be born. > Nice quote. Which sutta is it from? Here is my interpretation. I see a being as a collection of five aggregages; the aggregates are ultimate realities, but even ultimate realities depend on other things to arise. - Rupa aggregate: according to the Abhidhamma, the rupa aggregate arises based on kamma (intellectual intention), citta (consciousness), temperature (not mentioned above) and nutrition. - Feeling aggregate: according to paticcasamuppada, feeling arises based on contact - Perception aggregate: according to the paccaya, contact supports all cetasikas (including sanna) through nutriment condition. Perception is also dependent on consciousness through conascence condition (among others). - Sankhara aggregate: same as perception - Vinnana aggregate: according to the paticcasamuppada, consciousness arises dependent on kammic formation, which according to Abhidhamma analysis is intellectual intention (cetana cetasika). Metta, Rob M :-) 29509 From: robmoult Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 0:36am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > The passage in my previous message is from > > Samyutta Nikaya XII.63 > Puttamansa Sutta > A Son's Flesh > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-063.html > Thanks, Rob M :-) 29510 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 3:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Rob M, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Larry and All, > Interested in your comment on Ven. Karunadasa's article, "The Dhamma > Theory - Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma". > > http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.ht Okay, now its official, Ven. Karunadasa is now my guru!! ;-)) I would travel to Thailand or anywhere to meet and study with this bhikkhu!! The main points which I think are important: 1.Dhammas are not `things' with self-same characteristics which persist over time (and the Abhidhamma doesn't present them as such. Blame the Sarvastivadins for that one!). 2.Ultimate Truth and Conventional Truth are both valid and true and one is not superior to the other. 3.Beings are not `concept-ONLY', they do exist as the SUM TOTAL of the five clinging aggregates. I recommend that everyone read this artile. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Metta, James 29511 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 3:27am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Rob M, Rob: Therefore to the partially blind eye (such as mine), things can arise which are conventionally described as "accidents". James: This is of course what I mean. The dictionary doesn't have a Buddhist slant, there are no accidents-only kamma, but I do believe in the value of serendipity if one pays careful attention to life's events and acts on those events from the heart. Rob: There are vows without "vowers"; actions without actors; doing without "doers". Vowing, acting and doing are all conditions, either through natural decisive support mode of conditioning or asynchronous kamma mode of conditioning. James: This is fine; no disagreements from me. Honestly, I don't think you or I really know what we are talking about when we make such statements…but it sure is effective to shut other people up!! ;- )) Rob: My "Free Will" post will expand on this further. James: I will take a look and maybe respond later. Officially, I don't believe in `free will', all decisions are made in the context of conditions. Conversely, I don't believe in `no control' either. I guess what I believe in can be described as `influence'. One cannot make wisdom occur spontaneously, but one can set up the conditions to `influence' it to occur. I liken it to growing a plant: one cannot force a seed to grow into a plant, at will, but one can set up the proper conditions to make it grow: good soil, water, sunlight, fertilizer, etc. Wisdom is the same way. This is why the Buddha said that proper companions are the whole of the holy life, because they are the right conditions. But a person can choose who to associate with and who not to associate with…that isn't beyond control. Rob: Imagine the perspective of an ant living on that ball as it rolls down the pile of gravel. From the ant's perspective, the motion of his world seems to be without meaning. In reality, from the ant's perspective, the motion of his world is an unknowable. The ant may create the concept of a God controlling the motion of his world. In reality, the motion of his world works according to impersonal laws of physics. James: Huh?? Now there is an ant on the ball! Is the ball still a person or is the ant now a person? You are mixing your metaphors and confusing me! ;-)) Metta, James Ps. What do you make of: Manomayiddhi: the ability to use the mind to influence events. ?? ;-)) 29512 From: Htoo Naing Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 3:38am Subject: Sensing feeling where it arises and where it vanishes ( 05 ) Dear Dhamm Friends, When the meditator is dealing with feeling of different kinds, he is very attentive and fully conscious to any feeling and the practice is not that easy as in this writing but if being thoroughly taught and well trained it is a florishing possibility in Dhamma practice. The meditator has been practising for a long time and his concentration is not the same as it was because of his diligent effort in the practice and the concentration becomes more and more stabilized and well concentrated to the degree that any other unnecessary things cannot disturb him. With unperturbable concentration, the meditator is striving his meditation practice on feeling. He knows that he knows a feeling whenever it arises and he also knows its falling away whenever it disappears. Feeling are arising and falling away and this phenomena is quite apparent to him and to his mind-eye or wisdom. He knows when a pleasurable sense arises and he notes that it is a pleasurable sense and there is a feeling of pleasure. He also knows where the pleasurable sense arises and notes that the pleasure arises at that particular door as its source and also notes that the feeling passes away at the same sense-door. He well knows whenever a feeling arises and wherever it arises and he also knows whenever it vanishes and wherever it vanishes. The practitioner is also making a mental note on that he knows when a sense with unpleasant feeling arises as its arising and also notices when it vanishes. He has a good mental note on where the sense with unpleasant feeling arises and where it vanishes. He notes ' sense with unpleasant feeling arises' at this particular sense-door and when it vanishes he notes ' the sense with unpleasant feeling falls away' at that sense-door. The meditator is striving his practising of contemplating on feeling. There are feelings that are not pleasant or not unpleasant and he notices them as well in his noting mind. He makes a mental note when a sense with neither pleasant nor unpleasant feeling arises and also notes when it vanishes. He is conscious to that sense with neither pleasant nor unpleasant feeling where it arises and where it vanishes that is at a particular sense-door. May all beings be able to contemplate on feeling whenever it arises and vanishes and wherever it arises and vanishes. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo naing JourneyToNibbana htootintnaing@y... JourneyToNibbana@yahoogroups.com 29513 From: icarofranca Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 3:55am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Dear Rob " Here is my interpretation. I see a being as a collection of five > aggregages; the aggregates are ultimate realities, but even ultimate > realities depend on other things to arise. > - Rupa aggregate: according to the Abhidhamma, the rupa aggregate > arises based on kamma (intellectual intention), citta > (consciousness), temperature (not mentioned above) and nutrition." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- When at my first Abhidhamma readings, I´ve always asked myself the question: "IS Rupa matter ? Either as a separate external existence, out of our sense-doors, or a Dhamma itself ( Dhamma = Mano + Rupa as object of mind)inside our brains,May we take Rupa as meaning matter ?" Later on, with more readings an the chatting here at DSG with you, Nina, Mike and others, I´ve reached the conclusion above mentioned, that if Rupa aggregates are arisen by Kamma, Citta, Temperature and Nutrition, so inside a certain extension on these reasonings, Rupa and Matter could be taken as having out an equally foot. ------------------------------------------------------------------ " - Feeling aggregate: according to paticcasamuppada, feeling arises > based on contact > - Perception aggregate: according to the paccaya, contact supports > all cetasikas (including sanna) through nutriment condition. > Perception is also dependent on consciousness through conascence > condition (among others). > - Sankhara aggregate: same as perception > - Vinnana aggregate: according to the paticcasamuppada, consciousness > arises dependent on kammic formation, which according to Abhidhamma > analysis is intellectual intention (cetana cetasika)." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Right to the bone, Rob! I didn´t forgot my promise to you to give alms for charity under our names... my family for many years used to do it for certain charity organization (I won´t mention its name anyway...), but when I talked with my grandma about do it for such organization, she replied "Not that Wankers!!!" Don´t worry, Rob... I will do it for another one! I´ve read also your VERY GOOD essay about free will ... I have got some comments about it I intend to post here later on! Mettaya, Ícaro 29514 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:13am Subject: Re: Sensing feeling where it arises and where it vanishes ( 04 ) Hi Htoo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Htoo Naing wrote: > Dear Dhamm Friends, He is sitting and concentrating on his breath. It touches. There is a feeling that arises with cold incoming breath touching at his nostrils. And he notes that feeling arises. There is a feeling that arises along with touching of warm outgoing breath air and he notes that feeling. He also notes that there are gaps in between breaths and he notices that he is noting that gap while equanimous feeling arises and sometimes joyous feeling arises. > I wanted to let you know that I am enjoying your series very much! And consider it to be of great benefit. You combine Pali and English in such a way as to make both intelligible and worthwhile. I wanted to share another writing, by Ajahn Lee, along the same lines of what you write about the importance of knowing the breath: "When your concentration has strength, it gives rise to discernment: the ability to see stress, its cause, its disbanding, and the Path to its disbanding, all clearly within the breath. We can explain this as follows: The in-and-out breath is stress -- the in-breath the stress of arising, the out-breath the stress of passing away. Not being aware of the breath as it goes in and out, not knowing the characteristics of the breath: This is the cause of stress. Knowing when the breath is coming in, knowing when it's going out, knowing its characteristics clearly -- i.e., keeping your views in line with the truth of the breath: This is Right View, part of the Noble Path. Knowing which ways of breathing are uncomfortable, knowing how to vary the breath; knowing, "That way of breathing is uncomfortable; we'll have to breathe like this in order to feel at ease": This is Right Consideration. The mental factors that think about and properly evaluate all aspects of the breath are Right Speech. Knowing various ways of improving the breath; breathing, for example, in long and out long, in short and out short, in short and out long, in long and out short, until you come across the breath that's most comfortable for you: This is Right Action. Knowing how to use the breath to purify the blood, how to let this purified blood nourish the heart muscles, how to adjust the breath so that it eases the body and soothes the mind, how to breathe so that you feel full and refreshed in body and mind: This is Right Livelihood. Trying to adjust the breath so that it comforts the body and mind, and to keep trying as long as you aren't fully at ease: This is Right Effort. Being mindful of the in- and-out breath at all times, knowing the various aspects of the breath -- the up-flowing breath, the down-flowing breath, the breath in the stomach, the breath in the intestines, the breath flowing along the muscles and out to every pore -- keeping track of these things with every in-and-out breath: This is Right Mindfulness. A mind intent only on matters of the breath, not pulling any other objects in to interfere, until the breath is refined, giving rise to fixed absorption and then liberating insight: This is Right Concentration. When all of these aspects of the Noble Path -- virtue, concentration, and discernment -- are brought together fully mature within the heart, you gain insight into all aspects of the breath, knowing that "Breathing this way gives rise to good mental states; breathing that way gives rise to bad mental states." You let go of the factors - - i.e., the breath in all its aspects -- that fashion the body, the factors that fashion speech, the factors that fashion the mind, whether good or bad, letting them be as they truly are, in line with their own inherent nature: This is the disbanding of stress." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/skillof.html Metta, James 29515 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:37am Subject: Re: Free Will or Not Hi Rob, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi All, > PS: I have posted this article before, but decided to post it again > as it was relevant to some current threads. I like this article very much! Add a few more ancedotes and maybe some Canon quotes and submit it to "Tricycle" or "Shambhala Sun" (you could probably spice up some of your Abhidhamma articles and submit those too ;-). Metta, James 29516 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:43am Subject: Re: Free Will or Not --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Rob, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > wrote: > > Hi All, > > PS: I have posted this article before, but decided to post > it again > > as it was relevant to some current threads. > > I like this article very much! Add a few more ancedotes and maybe > some Canon quotes and submit it to "Tricycle" or "Shambhala Sun" (you > could probably spice up some of your Abhidhamma articles and submit > those too ;-). > > Metta, James Oops typo...ancedotes is supposed to read 'anecdotes ('ancedotes' sounds kinda like antacids! ;-)) . 29517 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hello RobertK, RobertK: What the Commentaries call conventional truth (sammuti-sacca), the Suttas call 'worldly consensus' (lokasamañña), 'worldly language' (lokanirutti), 'worldly usage' (lokavohaara), or 'worldly convention' (lokapaññatti). Michael: Those are different things. One thing is truth, another is language. Language is always a matter of convention anyway. Conventional truth in the commentaries actually has to do with truths not with language, truth in the commentaries are the khandhas. When the suttas refer to language conventions used in the world they point that language can refer to truths or not. And the truth in the suttas is not referred to as the khandhas. Examples of how language is viewed in the suttas can be found in the Aranavibhanga Sutta (MN 139) and in the Madhura Sutta (MN 84). RobertK: What the Commentaries call truth in the highest sense (paramattha- sacca) is indicated in several ways in the Suttas, but most unambiguously when the Buddha prefaces a statement with "In truth and reality..." (saccato thetato). Michael: Yes, and in the examples you gave the Buddha is referring to anatta, so he is saying that in truth and reality khandhas are not the self, but can you infer from this that khandhas are ultimate realities? I don’t see how. Metta Michael _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 29518 From: nidive Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:55am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Howard, > I'm interested in this because it would seem to be a rare case in > which the Buddha, in a sutta, not only says that form, feelings, > etc are not self, but explicitly that there exists neither self > or what pertains to self. Such an explicit statement, if actually > there, is relevant to the "no self" versus "not self" debate. http://www.buddhadust.org/dhammatalk/dhamma_talk/snake_simile.htm "Bhikkhus, there being a self, would there be what belongs to my self? " "Yes, venerable sir." "Or there being what belongs to a self, would there be my self?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established, then this standpoint for views, namely, 'This is self, this the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity' . . . would it not be an utterly and completely foolish teaching?" "What else could it be, venerable sir? It would be an utterly and completely foolish teaching." Regards, Swee Boon 29519 From: nidive Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:21am Subject: The Arahat Thus Gone Is Untraceable. Hi Group, http://www.buddhadust.org/dhammatalk/dhamma_talk/snake_simile.htm Bhikkhus, when the gods with Indra, with Brahmaa and with Pajaapati seek a bhikkhu who is thus liberated in mind, they do not find [anything of which they could say:] 'The consciousness of one thus gone is supported by this.' Why is that? One thus gone, I say, is untraceable here and now. A deceased arahat is untraceable. Not even beings with the highest jhanic attainment could trace a deceased arahat. Even a living arahat could not trace a deceased arahat; if there were any, we would have suttas describing how the Buddha communicated with Sariputta and Mogollana right after their deaths; or Kassappa communicating with the deceased Buddha. Thus, anyone who says that he/she met or communicated with the Buddha while in meditation is in error. Regards, Swee Boon 29520 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:26am Subject: RE: [dsg] concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hello Larry, Larry: The question is, do these views accurately represent the concept/reality distinction, and, are they found in any suttas? Michael: I don’t think the concept/reality distinction is found in the suttas. My basis for this conclusion is the Kaccayanagotta Sutta where the Buddha says that worldlings view the world based on an existence/non-existence dichotomy. The Buddha views the world as dependent origination. If the world is made up of conditioned and compounded phenomena it is impossible to have any sort of ultimate reality, and if there is no ultimate reality there is no concept either. So, this distinction between ultimate/conventional is just pure mental fabrication. Larry: I don't know of a sutta that talks about individually arising realities but there is a lot of discussion on breaking down an object of desire into parts which are seen as undesirable because of impermanence, foulness, etc. Michael: I see the breaking down into parts just as a practical device, or a skilful mean, to dispel the idea of a single, compact truly existing entity. I don’t see the breaking up into parts as pointing to some underlying substratum of reality. Larry: Furthermore, concept is said to be unconditioned, presumably because of being nonexistent. Except for the notoriously nonexistent carriage I don't know of any other discussions on nonexistence, but there is discussion of a reality being empty of a particular characteristic, in other words being without that characteristic. Michael: I don’t subscribe to that view. Concept as a mental formation is certainly conditioned. The carriage is assumed to be non-existent because the underlying parts are assumed to be existent, now if the underlying parts are also viewed as compounded phenomena then it doesn’t make sense to make this distinction between the parts and the whole, because the whole will be just a composition of parts and the parts will be just a composition of other parts, and so on. The reason why the Buddha focused on the khandhas is because the khandhas are the object of clinging, and the khandhas can be experienced by human beings. And this is expressed in the Mahanidana Sutta (DN 15). Larry: So, on the whole, I would say the concept/reality distinction isn't found in the suttas, but elements of it are found, i.e., 5 khandhas and nibbana as basic elements of reality, mental formations, analysis, experiential mindfulness, and emptiness and error. Michael: The elements are there but they are inferred incorrectly. Larry: One other point, it seems that analysis is for the purpose of disenchantment. Abhidhamma is extensive analysis and whether or not it serves that purpose is an individual matter, imo. Michael: Fully agree, the Abhidhamma can be a skilful mean, but viewing paramatha/paññatti is not a skilful mean. But I also agree that it is up to each individual. Metta Michael 29521 From: Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, Robert (and Victor) - In a message dated 1/31/04 1:18:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > Dear Howard, > I think Rob. Eddison probably used the PTS edition . In Bhikkhu > Bodhi's edition the same verse is translated "since a self and what > belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and > established........would it not be an utterly and completely foolish > teaching" p232, first paragraph. > RobertK > ======================== Ahh, yes. I did see that, and I realized that it was close. However (and unfortunately, in my opinion), to say that "... a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established ..." is not to explicitly deny the existence of me and mine - it falls short of that in two ways: 1) to "not be established" is weaker than to be nonexistent, unless one is an ontological pragmatist/evidentialist, and 2) the statement only asserts that self and what belongs to self are not *apprehended* as true and established, which again is a pragmatic/evidentiary matter, as opposed to a matter of experience-independent "truth". Now, as far as I'm concerned, this is really quite good enough. I agree with those who say that the Buddha was, ontologically, a pragmatist/evidentialist. He rarely is reported as saying that something does not exist, but rather that it is not evident or not seen. However, for those who require the explicit words, and Victor comes to mind, this terminology doesn't suffice. (I wonder what the list's Pali experts have to say about 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) 29522 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:42am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hello RobM, RobM: You might be interested in knowing that the concept of ultimate realities is not explicity included as part of the original Abhidhamma texts. The explicit focus on paramattha dhammas came at a later stage. In other words, "ultimate realities" is not explicitly discussed in the Suttas or the Abhidhamma. By anybody's definition, it is not the word of the Buddha. Michael: Yes, I know that. I always said that my problem is with some of the commentaries, not with the Abhidhamma as such. Metta Michael 29523 From: nidive Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:42am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Howard, For the complete Alagagaddupama Suttam, why not see this page? http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/6774/mn22.htm "Bhikkhus, if there were a self, would there be what belongs to a self?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Or if there what belongs to a self, would there be a self?" "Yes, venerable sir." "But, bhikkhus, since a self or that which belongings to a self, in reality and truth, cannot be found, this fixed view, about the world and the self: 'That is the world, this is my self; I will be in the future, permanent, not changing, an eternal thing; that is me, I am that, that is my self.' - isn't it a completely foolish notion?" "What else could it be, venerable sir, it is a completely foolish notion." Regards, Swee Boon 29524 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:48am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hello RobM, RobM: I see a being as a collection of five aggregages; the aggregates are ultimate realities, but even ultimate realities depend on other things to arise Michael: In my understanding 'ultimate realities' point towards something that exist based on its own power, that has something intrinsic in it, some kind of essence. Is that what you mean? Metta Michael 29525 From: Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi, Ken (and Rob) - In a message dated 1/30/04 2:20:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: "So my point is, the Buddha did not teach a method whereby a monk can contrive the right circumstances for satipatthana. It arises at any time, in any place, during normal, daily life and it takes any dhamma as its object. If you are seeing, then satipatthana might take the rupa, visible object, as its object, or, if seeing is accompanied by dosa, then satipatthana might take dosa as its object (or any other dhamma that has arisen)." =========================== Ken, you write "So my point is, the Buddha did not teach a method whereby a monk can contrive the right circumstances for satipatthana. It arises at any time, in any place, during normal, daily life and it takes any dhamma as its object." This seems to be saying that there are no actions to be taken that will serve as conditions for the arising of insight. It seems that you are saying that insight arises or not independent of kamma (volition/action). Is that your meaning, Ken, that attempts at cultivation of sila and meditative cultivation, are, according to the teachings of the Buddha, irrelevant and futile, and have no bearing on the arising of wisdom? Do you maintain that the practice recommended by the Buddha consists of nothing but studying and thinking about what he taught? If your answer to this is "yes", and it is indeed your contention that studying is the whole of the practice, I ask where the Buddha suggested 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) 29526 From: Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 3:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Thanks, Swee Boon! With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/31/04 10:00:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > >I'm interested in this because it would seem to be a rare case in > >which the Buddha, in a sutta, not only says that form, feelings, > >etc are not self, but explicitly that there exists neither self > >or what pertains to self. Such an explicit statement, if actually > >there, is relevant to the "no self" versus "not self" debate. > > http://www.buddhadust.org/dhammatalk/dhamma_talk/snake_simile.htm > > "Bhikkhus, there being a self, would there be what belongs to my self? > " > "Yes, venerable sir." > "Or there being what belongs to a self, would there be my self?" > "Yes, venerable sir." > "Bhikkhus, since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended > as true and established, then this standpoint for views, namely, 'This > is self, this the world; after death I shall be permanent, > everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as > eternity' . . . would it not be an utterly and completely foolish > teaching?" > "What else could it be, venerable sir? It would be an utterly and > completely foolish teaching." > /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) 29527 From: Larry Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 8:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Robert, I'm not following you here. This all looks like concept to me. Color isn't just one color; it's millions of colors, all mentally formed into discrete groups. Nama isn't just consciousness; there is a committee of cetasikas working behind the scenes, not necessarily as objects of consciousness, but making a contribution nevertheless. Even the euphemism of "the present moment" is actually many moments (perhaps millions) all bunched together without a discernible "edge" of birth and death. This is one gigantic mental formation exploding into my living room. I agree language isn't necessary. That was my point: concept without language. Incidentally, one problem I didn't discuss: if we analytically separate the color from the cetasikas, is this color, by itself, an object of desire? If not, what happened to the upadanakkhandhas? Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Dear Larry, > It becomes clearer by seeing it in the present moment. What is > present right at this instant? There is color - rupa, and seeing- > nama. > Then there is thinking about what was seen. > It is so direct to comprehend this and then all our doubts become > resolved. No need for language or thinking in words to have this > occur. So I think no new ground here, larry. > Robertk > > Hi Robert, > > > > Thanks for all this info on pannatti. Very interesting. I wasn't > too > > clear on my point in the original post. What I'm interested in is > the > > concept/reality distinction as a tool of analysis. Particularly as > it > > involves mental formations. It seems that most of the time mental > > formations are not language based, but I could be wrong about this. > > Anyway, this is what I consider to be "new ground". > > > > As regards the scarcity of discussion on this distinction in > Vism., I > > meant to say that Buddhaghosa himself didn't have much to say > about it. > > However, as you say, there was a little more discussion by later > > commentators. > > > > Larry 29528 From: Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 3:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 1/31/04 10:45:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > For the complete Alagagaddupama Suttam, why not see this page? > > http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/6774/mn22.htm > > "Bhikkhus, if there were a self, would there be what belongs to a > self?" > > "Yes, venerable sir." > > "Or if there what belongs to a self, would there be a self?" > > "Yes, venerable sir." > > "But, bhikkhus, since a self or that which belongings to a self, in > reality and truth, cannot be found, this fixed view, about the world > and the self: 'That is the world, this is my self; I will be in the > future, permanent, not changing, an eternal thing; that is me, I am > that, that is my self.' - isn't it a completely foolish notion?" > > "What else could it be, venerable sir, it is a completely foolish > notion." > > Regards, > Swee Boon > ========================== Again, I thank you. I do have the Bhikkhu Bodhi translation. Now,this version differs slightly, but it also "suffers" from the same problem of terminology. The statement "But, bhikkhus, since a self or that which belongs to a self, in reality and truth, cannot be found ..." is a pragmatic/evidentiary one, because of having "cannot be found" instead of "does not exist", and will, thus, be unconvincing to some that the Buddha asserted a "no self" position. 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) 29529 From: Larry Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 1:02pm Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Interested in your comment on Ven. Karunadasa's article, "The Dhamma > Theory - Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma". > > http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm Hi Rob, I thought it was a good comprehensive article. I disagreed with a few points and I'm sure the officially designated "abhidhammikas" would disagree with others. I especially liked the term "voharabheda": "a breach of convention resulting in a breakdown of meaningful communication". In other words, "why aren't you agreeing to my conventions???" Also, I'm not so sure abhidhamma accepts the 2 truths as being equally true, especially when discussing supramundane realities. Larry 29530 From: Larry Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 1:16pm Subject: Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Michael, Thanks for your analysis. I mostly agreed. One sticking point however, which you didn't explicitly discuss, if everything is interdependent and there is no underlying reality, the interdependence has to be an interdependence of *something*, otherwise you get an infinite regress. How do you avoid that? Larry 29531 From: robmoult Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 1:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Okay, now its official, Ven. Karunadasa is now my guru!! ;-)) I would > travel to Thailand or anywhere to meet and study with this bhikkhu!! You might want to hold off on buying the airplane ticket... Ven. Karunadasa's major work is "Buddhist Analysis of Matter" (I think that it was his PhD thesis) and I know how much you love the subject of Rupa :-) If you are still interested, a few months ago, I met a Western monk who had studied under Ven. Karunadasa... I thought he said that it was in Sydney, but I believe that the Venerable is Sri Lankan. Metta, Rob M :-) 29532 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:16pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Larry, That is what the Buddha meant when he said that there is no beginning discernible in samsara. Metta Michael >From: "Larry" >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas >Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:16:37 -0000 > >Hi Michael, > >Thanks for your analysis. I mostly agreed. One sticking point >however, which you didn't explicitly discuss, if everything is >interdependent and there is no underlying reality, the >interdependence has to be an interdependence of *something*, >otherwise you get an infinite regress. How do you avoid that? > >Larry > > > 29533 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:46pm Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Rob, Rob: You might want to hold off on buying the airplane ticket... Ven. Karunadasa's major work is "Buddhist Analysis of Matter" (I think that it was his PhD thesis) and I know how much you love the subject of Rupa :-) James: Well, I have distaste for DSG Rupa but I could probably handle Buddhist Rupa as presented by Ven. Karunadasa just fine!! ;-)). Rob: If you are still interested, a few months ago, I met a Western monk who had studied under Ven. Karunadasa... I thought he said that it was in Sydney, but I believe that the Venerable is Sri Lankan. James: Thanks for the information! I have now contacted a Sri Lankan monk I know who is a publisher with the BPS to hopefully give me information on how to contact Ven. Karunadasa. The fact that a Western monk studied under him is encouraging news indeed! I will see what happens. Thanks again! :-) Metta, James 29534 From: Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 10:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/31/04 4:18:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Michael, > > Thanks for your analysis. I mostly agreed. One sticking point > however, which you didn't explicitly discuss, if everything is > interdependent and there is no underlying reality, the > interdependence has to be an interdependence of *something*, > otherwise you get an infinite regress. How do you avoid that? > > Larry > ============================= This sounds like the search for an anchor! But there is no anchor - nothing to hold onto - nothing that can be pinned down or held in place. So, the only thing to do is ... let go! And that is where freedom is, in the letting go. 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) 29535 From: Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:11pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Michael & Howard, Hmmm. I don't think beginningless time is the same as an infinite regress. An infinite regress is illogical and ultimately nihilistic. If you say reality is made of something then you have to say what that something is. If reality isn't made of anything, how is it real? Illusion is just the other side of the reality "coin". It takes reality to make an illusion (or delusion). You could say there is no reality, no illusion, nothing at all, minus-zero. Is that what you want to say? Larry 29536 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:36pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Howard, In a post to Andrew and me, you were explaining your understanding of concepts: ---------------- Thus, concepts/ideas/thoughts are paramatthic, mind-door objects, just as are feelings, intentions, emotions,etc, ------------------------------ (!!!) By "paramatthic" do you mean they are paramattha dhammas? -------------------------------- H: > but they have sankharic constructive operations among the phenomena conditioning their arising, and, most importantly, when it is a thought that is mind-object, there *seems* to be something else *pointed to* by that thought that is the object instead of the thought being the object. ------------------------------ So, you are saying; a certain type of paramattha dhamma is being experienced and, you are saying, the function of this paramattha dhamma is to point to something that isn't there. That is not the Abhidhamma model is it? According to the Abhidhamma, when citta has a concept as object, there is no actual object: citta is hallucinating (or, to put it more kindly; thinking, or imagining, there is an object). It is experiencing something that doesn't exist; it is not experiencing something that does exist and that appears to be something else. -------------------------------- H: > It is the thought that is mind-door object, but it *seems*, instead, that there is a specific tree that is eye-door object. ----------------------------------- Wait a minute, Howard; this is the same old `thought-dhamma' you trotted out twelve months ago! :-) I really couldn't see the need for it then, and I still can't. What authority is there for adding a new dhamma into the equation? What purpose is served by doing so? Kind regards, Ken H 29537 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:47pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not Hi Rob M, Thanks for your dissertation on free will. Unfortunately, most of my comments are on the bits I don't entirely agree with (so I'm going to sound negative -- again). Suffice it to say that I do like the rest of it. :-) ------------------ RM: > When interviewed later, the subjects indicated that at the times that the blood flow to the OAA was dramatically reduced, they were experiencing a "higher reality". The illusion of self may be hardwired, but we can overcome this hardwiring through correct practice. ---------------------- Back in the 1960's people like Timothy Leary and Baba Ram Das thought LSD could fix the same hardwiring problem. However, they agreed that the meditation practices of their Indian gurus did the same thing without drugs. I say, why bother with meditation? If it is a simple matter of re-wiring, then take the drugs and have done with it! I might add that right understanding can never be accomplished by either method. ------------------------ RM: > Belief in freewill is a belief in self ------------------------ I agree; and it is interesting to imagine what the world would be like if there were a self. It would be so different from the world we know. It is probably even harder to comprehend than anatta. (At least anatta is real.) ---------------- RM: > Habits are developed and nurtured through concentrated repetition. Another word for "concentrated repetition" is "practice". -------------------- I think the practice you proceed to describe is purely conventional (not ultimately real). As a boy, I was a keen surfer but I was not as `naturally good at it' as some other kids were. After considerable practice, in the intervening forty years (almost), I am reasonably good (although my knees aren't quite up to it). But what has changed in ultimate reality? What qualities have been accumulated through this practice? I suspect that, the next time I am born as a human being, I will be just as lacking in natural surfing ability as I was this time around. ----------- RM: > That is why the Buddha emphasizes, so strongly the need to be mindful of every action, of every choice. ------------ I would have thought it was of this `present' action (or choice). Am I being pedantic? ---------------- . . . RM: > Formal meditation is one form of "concentrated repetition". Sitting each morning and radiating metta, develops a habit of metta in the mind. ------------------ You bet it does! And I wish it were as simple as you make it sound. But where is the self, the free will, that can say, "Let there be metta?" When I sit down and `radiate metta,' there is pleasant feeling (usually) and lots of conceit, but is there any metta? No – because my actions are motivated by subtle wrong view (of a controlling self) and by attachment and by other, unwholesome, worldling-like, notions. As you say, this can create a habit; but I would say, not a good habit. ---------------- RM: > Vipasanna meditation develops a habit of seeing things as they truly are; impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self. --------------- By `vipassana meditation,' you don't mean satipatthana do you? You mean a practice that leads up to satipatthana. I would say; when there is a moment of kusala consciousness that hears Dhamma, considers Dhamma or speaks Dhamma then there is a practice that leads up to satipatthana (the practice of Dhamma). If we could decree, "Let there be vipassana practice," then there would be free will: there would be a `supervising self' and the world would be totally different from the way the Buddha described it. (And the way you described it; except for the bits I disagreed with:-) ) Kind regards, Ken H 29538 From: robmoult Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:25pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Rob: Imagine the perspective of an ant living on that ball as it rolls > down the pile of gravel. From the ant's perspective, the motion of > his world seems to be without meaning. In reality, from the ant's > perspective, the motion of his world is an unknowable. The ant may > create the concept of a God controlling the motion of his world. In > reality, the motion of his world works according to impersonal laws > of physics. > > James: Huh?? Now there is an ant on the ball! Is the ball still a > person or is the ant now a person? You are mixing your metaphors and > confusing me! ;-)) ===== Sorry for mixing metaphors! Whichever works for you is okay! ===== > What do you make of: Manomayiddhi: the ability to use the mind > to influence events. ?? ;-)) Don't know anything about it. Sounds interesting... Metta, Rob M :-) 29539 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:27pm Subject: Yet more discussion (and food) Dear All Today is our last day in Bangkok. Sarah and I are having a quiet morning, recovering from the abundances (but not excesses) of good company and discussion. Yesterday (Saturday) we caught up with another long-lost friend from early Bangkok days, Peter (Swan) and his wife Marasee. Peter was very interested in dhamma many years ago. He joined us and others at breakfast. It would be nice to see him back at the discussions or on the list here sometime. Yesterday afternoon's discussion was about the importance of right understanding and detachment from the outset (rather than as something to be aimed for), including at times of dana and sila. Sarah and I have very much enjoyed the discussion on the list while we have been away. In fact, so good is it that Sarah thinks we should go away more often! Our thanks to everyone (and keep it up!). Jon 29540 From: robmoult Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:39pm Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Icaro, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "icarofranca" wrote: > " Here is my interpretation. I see a being as a collection of five > > aggregages; the aggregates are ultimate realities, but even > ultimate > > realities depend on other things to arise. > > - Rupa aggregate: according to the Abhidhamma, the rupa aggregate > > arises based on kamma (intellectual intention), citta > > (consciousness), temperature (not mentioned above) and nutrition." > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > > When at my first Abhidhamma readings, I´ve always asked myself the > question: "IS Rupa matter ? Either as a separate external existence, > out of our sense-doors, or a Dhamma itself ( Dhamma = Mano + Rupa as > object of mind)inside our brains,May we take Rupa as meaning matter ?" > Later on, with more readings an the chatting here at DSG with you, > Nina, Mike and others, I´ve reached the conclusion above mentioned, > that if Rupa aggregates are arisen by Kamma, Citta, Temperature and > Nutrition, so inside a certain extension on these reasonings, Rupa > and Matter could be taken as having out an equally foot. ===== Rupa tends to be a somewhat controversial topic on DSG :-) We've now got ongoing threads on three other controversial topics; ultimate realities, free will and the value of meditation. Not sure that we are ready to start another topic :-) :-) ===== > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > " - Feeling aggregate: according to paticcasamuppada, feeling arises > > based on contact > > - Perception aggregate: according to the paccaya, contact supports > > all cetasikas (including sanna) through nutriment condition. > > Perception is also dependent on consciousness through conascence > > condition (among others). > > - Sankhara aggregate: same as perception > > - Vinnana aggregate: according to the paticcasamuppada, > consciousness > > arises dependent on kammic formation, which according to Abhidhamma > > analysis is intellectual intention (cetana cetasika)." > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > Right to the bone, Rob! > I didn´t forgot my promise to you to give alms for charity under > our names... my family for many years used to do it for certain > charity organization (I won´t mention its name anyway...), but when I > talked with my grandma about do it for such organization, she > replied "Not that Wankers!!!" > Don´t worry, Rob... I will do it for another one! ===== Which charity does not matter to me. Perhaps you could ask your grandma to recommend one (then we get the added bonus of making her happy). ===== > I´ve read also your VERY GOOD essay about free will ... I have got > some comments about it I intend to post here later on! ===== Looking forward to them! Metta, Rob M :-) 29541 From: Andrew Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 8:44pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not Dear RobM and KenH Thanks for your essay, Rob, and KenH for his comments. I personally don't think that any any work on Free Will is complete until it deals with the 3 mundane viratis defined by Nyanatiloka as "not simply ... the non-occurrence of the evil things in question, but the deliberate abstaining therefrom, whenever occasion arises ..." To people new to the Dhamma, these words carry a heavy connotation of choice and free will, both of which I agree are illusory. I often fall into the way of thinking that - okay, choice born of free will doesn't exist; conditionality rules. But there can be an intentional injection of a condition or conditions into the equation (by, for example, deliberate abstention from Wrong Livelihood) and this will influence what arises - although in a way that is completely unpredictable by the worldling. On the Abhidhamma view, it seems to me that a moment of mundane virati is likely to be surrounded by many moments of akusala (conceit etc) as I congratulate "myself" for having "chosen well" and "done the right thing" and maybe even expecting good things to flow therefrom and looking out for them and so on ad nauseum. Perhaps this is why it is often said that Right Understanding comes first? Things flow naturally from that. I hope these comments have been of assistance. Best wishes Andrew KenH: I agree; and it is interesting to imagine what the world would be > like if there were a self. It would be so different from the world > we know. It is probably even harder to comprehend than anatta. (At > least anatta is real.) A: Perhaps you would like to expand on this point, KenH. What would the world be like if there were a self? 29542 From: Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/31/04 8:13:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Michael &Howard, > > Hmmm. I don't think beginningless time is the same as an infinite > regress. An infinite regress is illogical and ultimately nihilistic. If > you say reality is made of something then you have to say what that > something is. If reality isn't made of anything, how is it real? > Illusion is just the other side of the reality "coin". It takes reality > to make an illusion (or delusion). You could say there is no reality, no > illusion, nothing at all, minus-zero. Is that what you want to say? > > Larry > ========================= I wasn't talking about beginningless time. I was talking about complete emptiness and ungroundedness, and that, as far as I'm concerned, *is* what "reality" is. I do *not* say that "reality is made of something". Anyway, I think that we can think and philosophize forever without getting even the slightest glimpse of what is actually what. I don't think it does us any good to "figure out" intellectually what is supposedly real. We have to *see* it, directly. Then we'll know - though we won't be able to talk about it adequately to anyone who hasn't also seen it directly. And illusion isn't a matter of saying the wrong things or accepting wrong positions - it is a fundamental miss-seeing of the way things are, a fundamental distortion of perception, and short of arahanthood, we are all under the sway of illusion. 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) 29543 From: Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi, Ken - In a message dated 1/31/04 9:37:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > In a post to Andrew and me, you were explaining your understanding > of concepts: > ---------------- > > Thus, concepts/ideas/thoughts are paramatthic, mind-door objects, > just as are feelings, intentions, emotions,etc, > ------------------------------ > > (!!!) By "paramatthic" do you mean they are paramattha dhammas? > > -------------------------------- > H: >but they have sankharic constructive operations among the > phenomena conditioning their arising, and, most importantly, when it > is a thought that is mind-object, there *seems* to be something else > *pointed to* by that thought that is the object instead of the > thought being the object. > ------------------------------ > > So, you are saying; a certain type of paramattha dhamma is being > experienced and, you are saying, the function of this paramattha > dhamma is to point to something that isn't there. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Basically, yes. Our ideas are elements of experience that seem to point to actually existent things, but, in fact, do not. When we seem to see a tree, the experience actually is of the occurrence a specific idea-event arisen in the mind and constructed from the general idea of "tree" and a number of visual perceptions by sankharic operations, and not of an actual tree, but it *seems* that we see a tree. It is actually the idea-event that is the phenomenon experienced, but it doesn't seem so. -------------------------------------------------------- > > That is not the Abhidhamma model is it? According to the > Abhidhamma, when citta has a concept as object, there is no actual > object: citta is hallucinating (or, to put it more kindly; thinking, > or imagining, there is an object). > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Since when is objectless consciousness countenanced by Abhidhamma? There is no experience that is not the experience of something. -------------------------------------------------- It is experiencing something > > that doesn't exist; it is not experiencing something that does exist > and that appears to be something else. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: No. There is no experiencing of something that does not exist. If "it" does not exist, there is no experiencing it. -------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------- > H: >It is the thought that is mind-door object, but it *seems*, > instead, that there is a specific tree that is eye-door object. > ----------------------------------- > > Wait a minute, Howard; this is the same old `thought-dhamma' you > trotted out twelve months ago! :-) > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Hah! An argument in favor of eternalism? ;-)) --------------------------------------------------- > > I really couldn't see the need for it then, and I still can't. > What authority is there for adding a new dhamma into the equation? > What purpose is served by doing so? > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Larry, you may believe that we don't experience ideas, but I find such a position silly. We experience ideas all the time. -------------------------------------------------------- > > 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) 29544 From: Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi, Ken - In a message dated 2/1/04 12:29:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, Upasaka writes: > Howard: > Larry, you may believe that we don't experience ideas, but I find such > a position silly. We experience ideas all the time. > ========================= Whoops! Sorry about that, Ken!! ;-)) With metta, Howard (er, I *think* I mean 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) 29545 From: Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 9:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Howard: "I wasn't talking about beginningless time. I was talking about complete emptiness and ungroundedness, and that, as far as I'm concerned, *is* what "reality" is. I do *not* say that "reality is made of something"." Hi Howard, Sorry for misrepresenting you. You are quite right. You were talking about nothing to hold on to; I was talking about an infinite regress, and Michael was talking about beginningless time. So what does "complete emptiness" mean? If reality is not "made of something" is it unconditioned? Larry 29546 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 10:13pm Subject: Re: Anatta Hi Rob M, I do not know of any examples where the Buddha says that a being is a collection of the five aggregates or anything other than it. I suggested you refer to the Satta Sutta regarding to what extent is one said to be a 'being' and noted that the Buddha did not say that a being is made up of the five aggregate. How did I misinterpreted the Satta Sutta, if I did interpret it in the first place? On the other hand, you felt that the discourse could be interpreted that a being is a concept referring to a collection of the five aggregates. Let me ask you the following: 1. In the Satta Sutta, did the Buddha say that a being is made up of the five aggregates? 2. Did the Buddha say in the discourse that a being is a concept, referring to a collection of five aggregates? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > The Buddha did not teach that the five aggregates are the > components > > of a being. Regarding to what extent is one said to be a 'being', > > you might want to refer to > > > > Samyutta Nikaya XXIII.2 > > Satta Sutta > > A Being > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn23-002.html > > > > > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one > > is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to > > be 'a being (satta).' > > > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... > > perception... fabrications... > > > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: > > when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a > > being.' > > > > > > Note that the Buddha did not say that a being is made up of the > five > > aggregate. > > > > The idea that you are composed of the five aggregates, that you are > > this composition is the very self-identity view to be abandoned. > > I read the Sutta a few times at Access to Insight and still felt that > it could be interpreted that a being is a concept referring to a > collection of five aggregates. Nevertheless, the quotation, "when one > is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to > be 'a being (satta)" did seem a little strange. > > I then referred to Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation (hard cover only, not > available on line) of the Samyutta Nikaya and found the following > footnote against this quotation: > > This reply hinges upon a pun between satta as the Pali equivalent as > Skt Sattva, "a being" and as the past participle of sajjati (= Skt > sakta), "attached". > > In other words, I suggest that you may have misinterpreted this > Sutta. Do you know of any examples where the Buddha says that a being > is anything other than a collection of the five aggregates? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 29547 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 10:21pm Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Rob M, I suggest you give up that interpretation. It is a result of your self-identity view that you are a collection of five aggregagates. Abandon that self-identity view. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > For those who assert that there is no being, whether in "ultimate > > sense" or not, you might want to consider if the Buddha ever made > > that assertion, and how that assertion is in accord to the Dhamma > > that the Buddha taught as in the following passage: > > > > > > At Savatthi... "There are these four nutriments for the maintenance > > of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in > > search of a place to be born. Which four? Physical food, gross or > > refined; contact as the second, intellectual intention the third, > > and consciousness the fourth. These are the four nutriments for the > > maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support > of > > those in search of a place to be born. > > > > Nice quote. Which sutta is it from? > > Here is my interpretation. I see a being as a collection of five > aggregages; the aggregates are ultimate realities, but even ultimate > realities depend on other things to arise. > - Rupa aggregate: according to the Abhidhamma, the rupa aggregate > arises based on kamma (intellectual intention), citta > (consciousness), temperature (not mentioned above) and nutrition. > - Feeling aggregate: according to paticcasamuppada, feeling arises > based on contact > - Perception aggregate: according to the paccaya, contact supports > all cetasikas (including sanna) through nutriment condition. > Perception is also dependent on consciousness through conascence > condition (among others). > - Sankhara aggregate: same as perception > - Vinnana aggregate: according to the paticcasamuppada, consciousness > arises dependent on kammic formation, which according to Abhidhamma > analysis is intellectual intention (cetana cetasika). > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 29548 From: Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/1/04 1:02:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Sorry for misrepresenting you. You are quite right. You were talking > about nothing to hold on to; I was talking about an infinite regress, > and Michael was talking about beginningless time. So what does "complete > emptiness" mean? If reality is not "made of something" is it > unconditioned? > > Larry > =========================== Honestly I'm not prepared to even attempt to express what reality might "be". I don't think it is even expressible. My words "complete emptiness and ungroundedness" are a completely inadequate pointing at something I've had at best the slightest glimpse of "through the corner of my eye", and I may well be mistaken in thinking that I really even had a glimpse! The Buddha never talked about what "reality" is, and he saw it fully and perfectly. Aren't we a bit silly to attempt to come up with conventional designations of what is beyond convention, and which we have never truly experienced? 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) 29549 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 0:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Dear Larry, Before trying to separate anything; what is present? These dhammas can be discerned (so the texts say)- but not by someone - by panna. Panna arises and passes away just as quickly as seeing - and so panna can come in and discern what is nama and what is rupa. Thinking about dhammas cannot remove doubt - but thinking (the process) can be known as it occurs. RobK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > Hi Robert, > > I'm not following you here. This all looks like concept to me. Color > isn't just one color; it's millions of colors, all mentally formed > into discrete groups. Nama isn't just consciousness; there is a > committee of cetasikas working behind the scenes, not necessarily as > objects of consciousness, but making a contribution nevertheless. > Even the euphemism of "the present moment" is actually many moments > (perhaps millions) all bunched together without a discernible "edge" > of birth and death. This is one gigantic mental formation exploding > into my living room. > > I agree language isn't necessary. That was my point: concept without > language. > > Incidentally, one problem I didn't discuss: if we analytically > separate the color from the cetasikas, is this color, by itself, an > object of desire? If not, what happened to the upadanakkhandhas? > > Larry > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Dear Larry, > > It becomes clearer by seeing it in the present moment. What is > > present right at this instant? There is color - rupa, and seeing- > > nama. > > Then there is thinking about what was seen. > > It is so direct to comprehend this and then all our doubts become > > resolved. No need for language or thinking in words to have this > > occur. So I think no new ground here, larry. > > Robertk > > > > Hi Robert, > > > > > > Thanks for all this info on pannatti. Very interesting. I wasn't > > too > > > clear on my point in the original post. What I'm interested in is > > the > > > concept/reality distinction as a tool of analysis. Particularly > as > > it > > > involves mental formations. It seems that most of the time mental > > > formations are not language based, but I could be wrong about > this. > > > Anyway, this is what I consider to be "new ground". > > > > > > As regards the scarcity of discussion on this distinction in > > Vism., I > > > meant to say that Buddhaghosa himself didn't have much to say > > about it. > > > However, as you say, there was a little more discussion by later > > > commentators. > > > > > > Larry 29550 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 2:49am Subject: Re: Yet more discussion (and food) Dear Jon and Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Dear All > Sarah and I have very much enjoyed the discussion on the list while > we have been away. In fact, so good is it that Sarah thinks we > should go away more often! Our thanks to everyone (and keep it up!). > > Jon Yes, I also believe it has been a very worthwhile discussion (at least for me). However, I think your being gone is just a coincidence! ;-)) There are also worthwhile discussions when you are here. Anyway, thanks for the updates on your trip. They have been interesting and very considerate of you. Have a safe journey home! Metta, James 29551 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 2:56am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Howard, You wrote: ------------------------------- H: > This seems to be saying that there are no actions to be taken that will serve as conditions for the arising of insight. It seems that you are saying that insight arises or not independent of kamma (volition/action). --------------------------------- There is no control over dhammas. As the sutta says, if dhammas were self, it would be possible to say, let my body be thus; let my feelings . . . perception . . volitions . . . consciousness be thus. But there is no self and so there is no control over dhammas. --------------------------------- H: > Is that your meaning, Ken, that attempts at cultivation of sila and meditative cultivation, are, according to the teachings of the Buddha, irrelevant and futile, and have no bearing on the arising of wisdom? -------------------------------- Attempts at control would be deliberate rejections of the Buddha's teaching, would they not? There can be no mental cultivation with wrong view. --------------------------------- H: > Do you maintain that the practice recommended by the Buddha consists of nothing but studying and thinking about what he taught? --------------------------------- No. According to the texts, there has to be studying, thinking, discussing AND directly understanding what has been learnt (that is, directly understanding that namas and rupas are anicca, dukkha and anatta). ------------------------------- H: > If your answer to this is "yes", and it is indeed your contention that studying is the whole of the practice, I ask where the Buddha suggested that. ------------------- N/a :-) Kind regards, Ken H 29552 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 3:01am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Rob M, Your concluding paragraph reads: ------------------------- I have not yet had the time to carefully study the Abhidhamma or Sutta theory behind the various types of meditation (you give me too much credit). I hope to be able to do that analysis some day. -------------------------- I didn't realise you hadn't studied this. I notice that you have some fairly definite ideas on meditation but I would have to agree that they don't coincide, exactly, with the Tipitaka versions. (I hope that doesn't sound rude.) -------------------------- RM: > I understand samatha meditation as an exercise wherein satipatthana is used to focus concentration on an object (kasina, breath, cemetary, etc.). ------------------------- This surprises me. Mind you, it could be me who has his terminology confused. I understand satipatthana to be the direct experience of a conditioned paramattha dhamma with right understanding, right thought, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration. It can never have anything to do with kasinas, cemeteries or any other concepts. (As you say, it can have breath as an object but even then, only if breath is directly known as a rupa (not a concept). ------------------------ RM: > Even if samatha does not lead to jhana, then samatha is a way of "taming the wild monkey" that is the mind. -------------- Maybe so, but the only kind of samatha meditation that can be beneficial on the Path is jhana. There is no mention (I am reliably informed) of any lesser forms of samatha training in the Tipitaka. -------------- RM: > I understand vipassana meditation as an exercise wherein satipatthana is used to penetrate the true characteristics (anicca, dukkha, anatta) of whatever object arises. If followed ardently, vipassana meditation can lead to magga citta (sainthood); ------------------------- Once again, this is not quite the way I am used to seeing those terms. I understand that satipatthana and vipassana are synonyms; except that the former term is not used for supramundane consciousness. I could be adding to the confusion here :-) Kind regards, Ken H 29553 From: gazita2002 Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 3:31am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Dear Ken and Rob, I'm tending to agree with Ken on this one, but don't think I could elaborate if asked, maybe just tired from a busy day in ED. And I am confused by your final statement Ken..... In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Rob M, > > Your concluding paragraph reads: > ------------------------- > I have not yet had the time to carefully study the Abhidhamma or > Sutta theory behind the various types of meditation (you give me too > much credit). I hope to be able to do that analysis some day. > -------------------------- > > I didn't realise you hadn't studied this. I notice that you have > some fairly definite ideas on meditation but I would have to agree > that they don't coincide, exactly, with the Tipitaka versions. (I > hope that doesn't sound rude.) > > -------------------------- > RM: > I understand samatha meditation as an exercise wherein > satipatthana is used to focus concentration on an object (kasina, > breath, cemetary, etc.). > ------------------------- > > This surprises me. Mind you, it could be me who has his terminology > confused. I understand satipatthana to be the direct experience of > a conditioned paramattha dhamma with right understanding, right > thought, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration. > It can never have anything to do with kasinas, cemeteries or any > other concepts. (As you say, it can have breath as an object but > even then, only if breath is directly known as a rupa (not a > concept). > > ------------------------ > RM: > Even if samatha does not lead to jhana, then samatha is a way > of "taming the wild monkey" that is the mind. > -------------- > > Maybe so, but the only kind of samatha meditation that can be > beneficial on the Path is jhana. There is no mention (I am reliably > informed) of any lesser forms of samatha training in the Tipitaka. > > -------------- > RM: > I understand vipassana meditation as an exercise wherein > satipatthana is used to penetrate the true characteristics (anicca, > dukkha, anatta) of whatever object arises. If followed ardently, > vipassana meditation can lead to magga citta (sainthood); > ------------------------- > > Once again, this is not quite the way I am used to seeing those > terms. I understand that satipatthana and vipassana are synonyms; > except that the former term is not used for supramundane > consciousness. I could be adding to the confusion here :-) > azita: I understand them to be the same too, or a least similar, but I don't understand what you mean by '...the former term is not used for supramundane consciousness...'. I might be totally wrong here, but I understand that satipatthana only arises when wisdom has developed to the degree that knows nama from rupa. Now I don't know how to describe vipassana! > Kind regards, > Ken H patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 29554 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 3:34am Subject: Re: Anatta Hi Victor, Victor: I suggested you refer to the Satta Sutta regarding to what extent is one said to be a 'being' and noted that the Buddha did not say that a being is made up of the five aggregate. James: Yes and no. Actually, he said that a being is made up of the five `clinging' aggregates. The aggregates just on their own, or even together, don't make a being; however, when there is clinging to the five aggregates: form, perception, feeling, mental fabrications, and consciousness, then there is a being: "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to be 'a being (satta).' "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications... "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn23-002.html The important thing to consider is that desire, passion, delight, and craving for the five aggregates is makes a being. Therefore, it is the craving mind that makes a being, not the aggregates themselves. The craving mind is what pulls the aggregates together. In this sutta, the Buddha even draws the analogy of a `being' being like a sand castle built by children. When they delight in it and play in it, the being is present. When they grow tired of it and no longer delight in it, and smash it, the being is gone. Of course this supposes an interesting metaphysical question as to who the `children' are supposed to represent, but I don't think that is important to consider too deeply. Maybe this metaphor shouldn't be taken that literally. I think it is important to realize that the five aggregates are not really `parts' of a being, but simply a method of analysis created by the Buddha for the purpose of release. The five aggregates are an ever-constant process and they cannot be separated from each other, therefore they are not `parts'. (I know there is that `chariot' metaphor, with its parts, but I don't believe it is to be taken literally…if it was, the Buddha would have used such a description, but he didn't). The important thing is to understand that it is the clinging mind that creates a being and thus creates suffering. Metta, James 29555 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 4:50am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Ken, Rob, Azita, and All, Just a quick explanation of meditation terms: Satipatthana is an umbrella term, meaning Foundations of Mindfulness, which includes the more specific methods of Vipassana, Anapanasati, and Sati. Samatha is an umbrella term, meaning calmness, which includes the more specific method of Jhana. Samatha (Calmness) alone cannot lead to insight wisdom but Satipatthana (Foundations of Mindfulness) without calmness as a conditioning factor CAN be either too weak or mentally disturbing to lead to insight wisdom. Just to define some Pali terms related to meditation: vipassana: Clear intuitive insight into physical and mental phenomena as they arise and disappear, seeing them for what they actually are -- in and of themselves -- in terms of the three characteristics (see ti-lakkhana) and in terms of stress, its origin, its disbanding, and the way leading to its disbanding (see ariya-sacca). jhana (Skt. dhyana): Mental absorption. A state of strong concentration focused on a single physical sensation (resulting in rupa jhana) or mental notion (resulting in arupa jhana). Development of jhana arises from the temporary suspension of the five hindrances (see nivarana) through the development of five mental factors: vitakka (directed thought), vicara (evaluation), piti (rapture), sukha (pleasure), and ekaggatarammana (singleness of preoccupation). satipatthana: Foundation of mindfulness; frame of reference -- body, feelings, mind, and mental events, viewed in and of themselves as they occur. anapanasati: Mindfulness of breathing. A meditation practice in which one maintains one's attention and mindfulness on the sensations of breathing. samadhi: Concentration; the practice of centering the mind in a single sensation or preoccupation. sati: Mindfulness, self-collectedness, powers of reference and retention. In some contexts, the word sati when used alone covers alertness (sampajañña) as well. vitakka: Directed thought. In meditation, vitakka is the mental factor by which one's attention is applied to the chosen meditation object. Vitakka and its companion factor vicara reach full maturity upon the development of the first level of jhana. piti: Rapture; bliss; delight. In meditation, a pleasurable quality in the mind that reaches full maturity upon the development of the second level of jhana. sukha: Pleasure; ease; satisfaction. In meditation, a mental quality that reaches full maturity upon the development of the third level of jhana. ekaggatarammana: Singleness of preoccupation; "one-pointedness." In meditation, the mental quality that allows one's attention to remain collected and focused on the chosen meditation object. Ekaggatarammana reaches full maturity upon the development of the fourth level of jhana. bhavana: Mental cultivation or development; meditation. The third of the three grounds for meritorious action. cankama: Walking meditation, usually in the form of walking back and forth along a prescribed path. nimitta: Mental sign, image, or vision that may arise in meditation. Uggaha nimitta refers to any image that arises spontaneously in the course of meditation. Paribhaga nimitta refers to an image that has been subjected to mental manipulation. nivarana: Hindrances to concentration -- sensual desire, ill will, sloth & drowsiness, restlessness & anxiety, and uncertainty. abhiñña: Intuitive powers that come from the practice of concentration: the ability to display psychic powers, clairvoyance, clairaudience, the ability to know the thoughts of others, recollection of past lifetimes, and the knowledge which does away with mental effluents. arammana: Preoccupation; mental object. tapas: The purifying "heat" of meditative practice. samvega: The oppressive sense of shock, dismay, and alienation that comes with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of life as it's normally lived; a chastening sense of one's own complacency and foolishness in having let oneself live so blindly; and an anxious sense of urgency in trying to find a way out of the meaningless cycle. vipassanupakkilesa: Corruption of insight; intense experiences that can happen in the course of meditation and can lead one to believe that one has completed the path. The standard list includes ten: light, psychic knowledge, rapture, serenity, pleasure, extreme conviction, excessive effort, obsession, indifference, and contentment. asubha: Unattractiveness, loathsomeness, foulness. The Buddha recommends contemplation of this aspect of the body as an antidote to lust and complacency. kayagata-sati: Mindfulness immersed in the body. This is a blanket term covering several meditation themes: keeping the breath in mind; being mindful of the body's posture; being mindful of one's activities; analyzing the body into its parts; analyzing the body into its physical properties (see dhatu); contemplating the fact that the body is inevitably subject to death and disintegration. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html Metta, James 29556 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 7:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Rob M > I agree that the Abhidhamma texts that we have were not taught by > the Buddha. k: ???? You are the first person I know who practise Abdhidhamma and said that it is not taught by the Buddha, could you tell me who other than Buddha who can teach the 24 paccaya. Let me inform you, even Ven Sariputa also cannot do that without Buddha teaching him. kind regards Ken O 29557 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 7:03am Subject: Re: Sensing feeling where it arises and where it vanishes ( 04 ) Dear James, Thanks for your response to my post. Yes. When I read the message you re-stated I feel the writing style is a bit similar but not the content. I have already responded it at dhamma-list. And you replied that again. I do not have any more thing to say on the matter. we all are our master. With Metta, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Htoo, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Htoo Naing > wrote: > > Dear Dhamm Friends, > He is sitting and concentrating on his breath. It touches. > There is a feeling that arises with cold incoming breath touching at > his nostrils. And he notes that feeling arises. There is a feeling > that arises along with touching of warm outgoing breath air and he > notes that feeling. He also notes that there are gaps in between > breaths and he notices that he is noting that gap while equanimous > feeling arises and sometimes joyous feeling arises. > > > > > I wanted to let you know that I am enjoying your series very much! > And consider it to be of great benefit. You combine Pali and English > in such a way as to make both intelligible and worthwhile. I wanted > to share another writing, by Ajahn Lee, along the same lines of what > you write about the importance of knowing the breath: > > "When your concentration has strength, it gives rise to discernment: > the ability to see stress, its cause, its disbanding, and the Path to > its disbanding, all clearly within the breath. We can explain this as > follows: The in-and-out breath is stress -- the in-breath the stress > of arising, the out-breath the stress of passing away. Not being > aware of the breath as it goes in and out, not knowing the > characteristics of the breath: This is the cause of stress. Knowing > when the breath is coming in, knowing when it's going out, knowing > its characteristics clearly -- i.e., keeping your views in line with > the truth of the breath: This is Right View, part of the Noble Path. > Knowing which ways of breathing are uncomfortable, knowing how to > vary the breath; knowing, "That way of breathing is uncomfortable; > we'll have to breathe like this in order to feel at ease": This is > Right Consideration. The mental factors that think about and properly > evaluate all aspects of the breath are Right Speech. Knowing various > ways of improving the breath; breathing, for example, in long and out > long, in short and out short, in short and out long, in long and out > short, until you come across the breath that's most comfortable for > you: This is Right Action. Knowing how to use the breath to purify > the blood, how to let this purified blood nourish the heart muscles, > how to adjust the breath so that it eases the body and soothes the > mind, how to breathe so that you feel full and refreshed in body and > mind: This is Right Livelihood. Trying to adjust the breath so that > it comforts the body and mind, and to keep trying as long as you > aren't fully at ease: This is Right Effort. Being mindful of the in- > and-out breath at all times, knowing the various aspects of the > breath -- the up-flowing breath, the down-flowing breath, the breath > in the stomach, the breath in the intestines, the breath flowing > along the muscles and out to every pore -- keeping track of these > things with every in-and-out breath: This is Right Mindfulness. A > mind intent only on matters of the breath, not pulling any other > objects in to interfere, until the breath is refined, giving rise to > fixed absorption and then liberating insight: This is Right > Concentration. > When all of these aspects of the Noble Path -- virtue, concentration, > and discernment -- are brought together fully mature within the > heart, you gain insight into all aspects of the breath, knowing > that "Breathing this way gives rise to good mental states; breathing > that way gives rise to bad mental states." You let go of the factors - > - i.e., the breath in all its aspects -- that fashion the body, the > factors that fashion speech, the factors that fashion the mind, > whether good or bad, letting them be as they truly are, in line with > their own inherent nature: This is the disbanding of stress." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/skillof.html > > Metta, James 29558 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 7:13am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hi Michael > Michael: > Dictionary.com defines ‘inherent’ as: > Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic. > Permanently existing in something; inseparably attached or > connected; > naturally pertaining to; innate; inalienable. K: I prefer the essential consitituent or characterisitics :). It is up to you to choose also. No one can stop you from doing that neither is there anyone has the power to choose ;-) Till I am back in Singapore, we will have the discussion again on this issue Best wishes Ken O 29559 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 7:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi RobM Did you read the visudd about preparation of Samatha meditation, there should be right conditions, one must be of restraint (do not have the details yet as the book is not with me presently), there must be a good monastary (avioding 16 or 18 faults of a monastary) etc.. One can reach jhana anytime but what kind of jhana are we talking about, is it about those that is used by brahims where Buddha learn from in the first place or those who Buddha taught that jhanas must accompany by panna. One cannot develop panna, by thinking that by there is a conept of I or self must do this or that - bc that lead to an attachment to a self. Can one say let my thoughts be thus and let my thoughts not be thus - if you can - I will learn from you instead. When an object is an earth kasina - it what meant as undersing the reality of earth as paramattha dhamma and from there reaching insight and not talking earth as an concept. When one able to understand earth as paramatha dhamma, the panna is highly developed and not one that is still attached to concepts. best wishes Ken O 29560 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 7:36am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Michael No that is not a good comparision, you are talking about origination and one that is about khandhas. There is no sub khandhas and you still cannot prove otherwise and hence to me your theory of infinite regression is not valid in Thervada Buddhism. best wishes Ken O --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Larry, > > That is what the Buddha meant when he said that there is no > beginning > discernible in samsara. > > Metta > Michael > > 29561 From: Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 2:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi, Ken - I was going to let this post remain without further comment. But I've thought better of that, on the chance that you might wish to clarify or add to what you say below. I presume you believe that you have really answered what I have asked, but I don't see it that way. It seems to me that, in each case, you have responded by saying something having a related sense to it, but not actually giving a clear and direct answer. Also, in one case, you add a presumption of wrong view without giving evidence for same, and several times you talk about "self", which is not anything that I discussed or even hinted at. So, it seems to me that you did not reply to what I asked, but instead replied to a post that is a straw-man. When the Buddha said to guard the senses, he was instructing his followers to engage in an activity. When he told them to abide by the sangha rules, he was instructing his followers to engage in an activity. When he told them to find an isolated spot and meditate, he was instructing his followers to engage in an activity. My questions, in their bare form can be restated as follows: 1) Is kamma (volition/action) a condition for the arising of insight, or do you believe that insight arises or not independent of kamma? 2) Are abiding by sila (for example the five layperson precepts) and engaging in meditative cultivation (formal meditation, moment-by-moment mindfulness, and guarding the senses) futile? 3) Do you maintain that the practice recommended by the Buddha consists of nothing but studying and thinking about what he taught? [Understanding, which you gave as something additional, is not a volitional activity. One can decide to study and to think over. One *cannot* simply decide to understand. Understanding is not a willed activity. It is not part of a path of practice - it is a consequence of a path of practice.] I would be happy to read whatever more you would care to add on this topic. With metta, Howard In a message dated 2/1/04 5:59:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > You wrote: > ------------------------------- > H: >This seems to be saying that there are no actions to be taken > that will serve as conditions for the arising of insight. It seems > that you are saying that insight arises or not independent of kamma > (volition/action). > --------------------------------- > > There is no control over dhammas. As the sutta says, if dhammas > were self, it would be possible to say, let my body be thus; let my > feelings . . . perception . . volitions . . . consciousness be thus. > But there is no self and so there is no control over dhammas. > > --------------------------------- > H: >Is that your meaning, Ken, that attempts at cultivation of sila > and meditative cultivation, are, according to the teachings of the > Buddha, irrelevant and futile, and have no bearing on the arising of > wisdom? > > -------------------------------- > > Attempts at control would be deliberate rejections of the Buddha's > teaching, would they not? There can be no mental cultivation with > wrong view. > > --------------------------------- > H: >Do you maintain that the practice recommended by the Buddha > consists of nothing but studying and thinking about what he taught? > --------------------------------- > > No. According to the texts, there has to be studying, thinking, > discussing AND directly understanding what has been learnt (that is, > directly understanding that namas and rupas are anicca, dukkha and > anatta). > > ------------------------------- > H: >If your answer to this is "yes", and it is indeed your > contention that studying is the whole of the practice, I ask where > the Buddha suggested that. > ------------------- > > N/a > > :-) > Kind regards, > Ken H > /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) 29562 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 8:11am Subject: Re: Anatta Hi James, I would be interested to see a passage in the discourses in which the Buddha did say that a being is made up, composed of the five clinging aggregates, the five aggregates of clinging/sustenance (pancupadanakkhandha). As far as I understand what the Buddha said, when one is caught up, tied up in any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, feeling, perception, fabrications, or consciousness, one is said to be a being. You said that desire, passion, delight, and craving for the five aggregates is what makes a being, that it is the craving mind that makes a being. At end of the message you also said that it is the clinging mind that creates a being thus creates suffering. Perhaps you mean the following: 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. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-002.html As I understand the metaphor, the little sand castles stand for form, feeling, perception, fabrications, and consciousness. The little boys and girls playing with little sand castles stand for the beings not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for the five aggregates. I think that seeing form, feeling, perception, fabrications, and consciousness as processes brings in some insight, as processes have the connotation of changes. I also think it is seeing the five aggregates from a broader perspective. As I see it, the five aggregates encompass the entire scope of experiences, events, phenomena, etc, such as birth, death, separation from the loved one, lamentation, distress... Let me know how you understand it. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Victor, > > Victor: I suggested you refer to the Satta Sutta regarding to what > extent is one said to be a 'being' and noted that the Buddha did not > say that a being is made up of the five aggregate. > > James: Yes and no. Actually, he said that a being is made up of the > five `clinging' aggregates. The aggregates just on their own, or > even together, don't make a being; however, when there is clinging to > the five aggregates: form, perception, feeling, mental fabrications, > and consciousness, then there is a being: > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one > is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to > be 'a being (satta).' > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... > perception... fabrications... > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: > when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a > being.' > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn23-002.html > > The important thing to consider is that desire, passion, delight, and > craving for the five aggregates is makes a being. Therefore, it is > the craving mind that makes a being, not the aggregates themselves. > > The craving mind is what pulls the aggregates together. In this > sutta, the Buddha even draws the analogy of a `being' being like a > sand castle built by children. When they delight in it and play in > it, the being is present. When they grow tired of it and no longer > delight in it, and smash it, the being is gone. Of course this > supposes an interesting metaphysical question as to who > the `children' are supposed to represent, but I don't think that is > important to consider too deeply. Maybe this metaphor shouldn't be > taken that literally. > > I think it is important to realize that the five aggregates are not > really `parts' of a being, but simply a method of analysis created by > the Buddha for the purpose of release. The five aggregates are an > ever-constant process and they cannot be separated from each other, > therefore they are not `parts'. (I know there is that `chariot' > metaphor, with its parts, but I don't believe it is to be taken > literally…if it was, the Buddha would have used such a description, > but he didn't). The important thing is to understand that it is the > clinging mind that creates a being and thus creates suffering. > > Metta, James 29563 From: Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 3:22am Subject: Afterthought [Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James] Hi again, Ken - In a message dated 2/1/04 10:40:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > I was going to let this post remain without further comment. But I've > thought better of that, on the chance that you might wish to clarify or add > to > what you say below. > ============================= An important addition: You are not under the *slightest* obligation to reply to any of my questions. It may seem a bit of an "assault" to give what might appear to be an interrogation. I don't intend my questions to you in that way, but I realize that it might well seem otherwise. In any case, you have every right in the world to simply say that you would rather not discuss this, or would rather not discuss it any further, or that you replied as you deemed appropriate and nothing further is needed. So, bottom line - we can leave this just as it is, or go forward with it, whatever you wish. After all, we are only discussing opinions, and not much stock need be put in them! ;-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 29564 From: Htoo Naing Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 9:07am Subject: Sensing feeling where it arises and where it vanishes ( 06 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, The Dhamma practitioner has been walking in the mid of shower of feeling. Sometimes, there arises a wave of storm of feeling, after which there always is a reverberating remnant of their effects resulting in decremental feeling waves like at the periphery of circles of wave created by throwing a stone into a pond. He has been on the mood of continuous attentive noting on feeling. As feeling are arising like a shower of rain, he will not be able to note or count each and every single drop of rain, the whole process of which could be perfected by the Thera, The Elder, The Marshal of Law, the right wing of The Live Buddha, Venerable Sariputta, who was the wisest only second to The Buddha. Why do feeling come in shower? Because feeling arise with each and every single Citta and thus they continuously bombarding on mind. But all these feeling cannot simply be conscious all the time. They all are drawn under attention only in the process of mental impulse called Javanacittas series which comes in 7 successive Cittas without any interruption. In the whole mental process of Vithicittas, there are only 14 Vithicittas ( conscious mind ) as the Rupa or Arammana ( object ) which has lifespan of 17 mind moments has passed 3 moments in the name of Atita Bhavanga ( past unconscious mind ), Bhavangacalana ( shaking unconscious mind ), and Bhavaguppaccheda ( stopping unconscious mind ). So, on the remaining portion of the Arammana ( Rupa ) ,14 Vithi Cittas have to depend on. Among them the first 5 come with the names of Panca Dvara Avajjana Citta ( 5-sense-door-contemplating-mind ), Panca Vinnana Citta ( one of 5-sense-conscious mind ), Sampaticchana Citta ( receiving mind ), Santirana Citta ( investigating mind ), and Votthabbana Citta ( deciding mind ) which is Manodvara Avajjana Citta ( mind-sense-door-contemplating mind ). These 5 preliminary Cittas just before Javana Cittas are resultant consciousness or Vipaka Cittas with the exception of the first ( external door ) and the last ( internal door ), which are necessary for full understanding. These 2 door-mind are Kiriya Cittas, the action of which does not give any Kamma effect and their action are just done and there will be no potential Kamma. So, feeling will be fully understood in the process of Javana Cittas. Sometimes 2 Cittas follow Javana and they are called deep-feeling mind ( Tadaarammana Cittas ) which are Vipaka Cittas. These 2 are just resultant Cittas. The practitioner's mind sparks at Javana and there have been many sparks. Javanacittas in the block of 7 arise in the mid of Bhavangacittas. These Javana shower sometimes changes to apparent rain and on some occasion there is torrential rain of feeling like explicit fury or super greediness as can be seen in the poor who see a storehouse of gold coins. The practitioner will not mind just drizzling of feeling like inconspicuous early arising feeling. When the storm of feeling comes that is explicit fury or super greediness or whatever, he will feel with mental impulse. After repeatedly feeling when the origional object has been fallen away far behind then there follow decremental feeling waves and finally rest into stillness of Bhavanga Cittas which flow continuously. Leaving these microscopic view aside, the practitioner takes the object of feeling which is Vedana Cetasika that arises along with Cittas. He makes a mental note that this feeling arises here and this feeling vanishes there. His noting mind arise even in the mess of daily routine. May all beings be able to be mindful and concentrate on feeling. Htoo Naing 29565 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 9:28am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hello KenO, KenO: I prefer the essential consitituent or characterisitics :) Michael: Do you realize that this definition implies an essence? And that an essence is something not subject to change? Or for you 'essential constituent' does not mean 'essential constituent' ? Metta Michael 29566 From: Larry Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 9:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear Larry, > Before trying to separate anything; what is present? > These dhammas can be discerned (so the texts say)- but not by > someone - by panna. Hi Robert, Thanks for your reply. Just one tentative comment. I'm starting to think ekaggata cetasika (one-pointed mental factor) is what discerns dhammas at a more and more subtle level. I think panna might be an evaluation. Panna has the characteristic of penetrating the individual essences of states (Vism. XIV 7) but concentration knows and sees correctly (Vism. XIV 7). I'm wondering if "penetrating" means "sees as it is, that is, undesirable/ungraspable". If we say desire is basically an evaluation, then possibly anti-desire (panna) is also an evaluation. Also, in the practice of concentration, dhammas are sifted at a very subtle level. Larry 29567 From: Larry Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 9:36am Subject: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Howard, Okay, so you have no views on the concept/reality issue. I suppose that's commendable, but it isn't much fun. Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Honestly I'm not prepared to even attempt to express what reality > might "be". > > 29568 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 9:39am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hello KenO, KenO: There is no sub khandhas and you still cannot prove otherwise and hence to me your theory of infinite regression is not valid in Thervada Buddhism. Michael: Another way of looking at the issue is to think that the khandhas are just a bunch of conditions which come together and because of that coming together a phenomena arises that the Buddha has called a khandha. It will not be difficult to see that this bunch of conditions can be regarded as 'sub khandhas'. Metta Michael 29569 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 9:59am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hello Larry. I cannot say there is an infinite regress but if you think in terms of conditionality, and as I mentioned in another post, of phenomena being the coming together of a bunch of conditions, and those conditions also subject to another bunch of conditions, and so on, then I would say that the beginning of that whole process is indetermined. That is what I would call reality. Illusion is seeing phenomena as 'real' i.e. with something intrinsic. Metta Michael >From: LBIDD@w... >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas >Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 18:11:14 -0700 (MST) > >Hi Michael & Howard, > >Hmmm. I don't think beginningless time is the same as an infinite >regress. An infinite regress is illogical and ultimately nihilistic. If >you say reality is made of something then you have to say what that >something is. If reality isn't made of anything, how is it real? >Illusion is just the other side of the reality "coin". It takes reality >to make an illusion (or delusion). You could say there is no reality, no >illusion, nothing at all, minus-zero. Is that what you want to say? > >Larry > > > 29570 From: Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 5:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/1/04 12:38:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Okay, so you have no views on the concept/reality issue. I suppose > that's commendable, but it isn't much fun. --------------------------------------------- Howard: ;-)) -------------------------------------------- > > Larry > > ======================== Well, I guess it is an overstatement to say I have no views with regard to "reality". I do, but I don't think that views are worth all that much. But just say something (so that we can have some fun! ;-), I'll blather a bit: I think that there is a vastness to "reality". I think that it may be thought of as a "rather glorious" and vast web of intimately related, interconnected, interdependent, and inseparable phenomena-events, without ground. I think that there is nothing in "reality" that has separate, independent, or lasting existence, that there is nothing therein that can be pinned down or grasped in the slightest, that there is no core to be found anywhere, and, most particularly, that there are no knowing selves/subjects, but that knowing and known are inseparable. But, finally, I must add that "reality" is actually not at all what I have just said, because it's nature is beyond the capacity for language and thought to express. 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) 29571 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 10:31am Subject: Re: Anatta Hi Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi James, > Let me know how you understand it. > > Metta, > Victor I think I explained it enough, but I guess I will try again. Can you not see the forest for the trees or what? ;-)) Okay, it seems that you want a direct quote from the Buddha saying: Beings are composed of the five aggregates. Why? This is a metaphysical position and there would be no reason to make a statement like that. He only taught suffering and the path to liberation, that was it! However, by his own admission, there were a lot more things that he knew that he didn't teach…because they would not lead to liberation. Just because the Buddha didn't say it directly does that mean it isn't so? No. Use your own brain: here we have the five clinging aggregates: form, perception, feeling, mental fabrications, and consciousness. Look at yourself, can you find all of those things there in that body with its perceptions, feelings, mental fabrications, and consciousness called "Victor"? I hope so, or you are dead! ;-)) Now, can you find those things in water, fire, air, or earth? No. Can you find those things in plants? No. So obviously those are the things which compose a being. However, they are not `parts', they are processes, and they cannot be separated. Metta, James 29572 From: Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 5:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi again, Larry - I just reread my "opinion" on what "reality" is, and, quite honestly, not only does it miss, it makes me nauseated! There is truly a stench to it, being such an absurdly mediocre substitute for the real thing. So, please take what I said with a grain of salt. No, better than that, keep the grain of salt and throw the "opinion" out! The salt is worth more! 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) 29573 From: Larry Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 11:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Michael, This sounds like beginningless time to me, which I have no problem with. What I don't really understand is what is a condition if that is all there is? Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > Hello Larry. > > I cannot say there is an infinite regress but if you think in terms of > conditionality, and as I mentioned in another post, of phenomena being the > coming together of a bunch of conditions, and those conditions also subject > to another bunch of conditions, and so on, then I would say that the > beginning of that whole process is indetermined. That is what I would call > reality. Illusion is seeing phenomena as 'real' i.e. with something > intrinsic. > > Metta > Michael 29574 From: Larry Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 11:13am Subject: Re: Anatta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: here we have the five clinging > aggregates: form, perception, feeling, mental fabrications, and > consciousness. Hi James and all, If I may, I would like to ammend a convention. I think it might be better to call sankhara khandha "mental fabricators" instead of "mental fabrications". The reason for this is that the cetasikas that are categorized in this khandha are no more fabricated than the other mental factors. Also, this khandha is particularly associated with the conditioning of kamma, so in that sense they are fabricators. I wonder if they might also have something to do with the proliferation of concepts as well. Perception (sanna) is, I think (?), usually associated with the "birth" of concepts. Anyway, I know this ("mental fabrications") is a common translation, but it doesn't really make sense to me. Larry 29575 From: Larry Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 11:16am Subject: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Howard, I'm getting a little zoned-out with all this abstract thinking myself. Maybe I'll go for a walk. Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, Larry - > > I just reread my "opinion" on what "reality" is, and, quite honestly, > not only does it miss, it makes me nauseated! There is truly a stench to it, > being such an absurdly mediocre substitute for the real thing. So, please take > what I said with a grain of salt. No, better than that, keep the grain of salt > and throw the "opinion" out! The salt is worth more! > > With metta, > Howard 29576 From: Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 6:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/1/04 2:18:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I'm getting a little zoned-out with all this abstract thinking > myself. Maybe I'll go for a walk. > > Larry > ====================== Yes, a good walk sounds just wonderful! ;-) 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) 29577 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 0:10pm Subject: Re: Anatta Hi James, Since you said that the Buddha said a being is made up, composed of the five `clinging' aggregates, I was interested in seeing a passage in the discourse in which he did say so. As I see it, the idea that a being is made up, composed of the five aggregates, or for that matter, clinging-aggregates is a metaphysical position, springing from the self-identity view "I am this composition of five clinging- aggregates"/"The five clinging-aggregates makes what I am." The Buddha did not teach that. Whatever it is, this composition of the five clinging-aggregates, may they be parts or processes, is inconstant, dukkha/unsatisfactory, not self. It 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." Your comments regarding this message and my previous message are welcome. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > Hi James, > > > Let me know how you understand it. > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > I think I explained it enough, but I guess I will try again. Can you > not see the forest for the trees or what? ;-)) Okay, it seems that > you want a direct quote from the Buddha saying: Beings are composed > of the five aggregates. Why? This is a metaphysical position and > there would be no reason to make a statement like that. He only > taught suffering and the path to liberation, that was it! However, > by his own admission, there were a lot more things that he knew that > he didn't teach…because they would not lead to liberation. Just > because the Buddha didn't say it directly does that mean it isn't > so? No. Use your own brain: here we have the five clinging > aggregates: form, perception, feeling, mental fabrications, and > consciousness. Look at yourself, can you find all of those things > there in that body with its perceptions, feelings, mental > fabrications, and consciousness called "Victor"? I hope so, or you > are dead! ;-)) Now, can you find those things in water, fire, air, or > earth? No. Can you find those things in plants? No. So obviously > those are the things which compose a being. However, they are > not `parts', they are processes, and they cannot be separated. > > Metta, James 29578 From: robmoult Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 0:12pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > > > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > PS: I have posted this article before, but decided to post > > it again > > > as it was relevant to some current threads. > > > > I like this article very much! Add a few more ancedotes and maybe > > some Canon quotes and submit it to "Tricycle" or "Shambhala Sun" > (you > > could probably spice up some of your Abhidhamma articles and submit > > those too ;-). > > Oops typo...ancedotes is supposed to read 'anecdotes ('ancedotes' > sounds kinda like antacids! ;-)) Before 2002, I used a variety of texts in my Abhidhamma class. In 2002, I provided handouts in each class. At the end of 2002, I consoldiated all of these handouts (this is my Class Notes file available in the download section of DSG). About 70% of the content of the class notes was my summary of other people's works. This became the class textbook for 2003. In 2004, I am not using these notes as my class textbook any more. I am writing my own mini-essays based on various subjects adding diagrams wherever possible and handing them out each week. In class, I use the mini-essays as a structure but insert my own experiences, etc. as "colour commentary". In December 2003, I plan to print my collection of mini-essays into a book. The minimum print run is 1000 copies, which is far more than I need for my class, so I will distribute the remainder for free. My "Free-Will" mini-essay was originally written as an article for a Buddhist Magazine, "Eastern Horizon". This magazine covers all three schools (Theravada, Mahayana and Vajarana) and I wanted to keep the piece less technical as it was for a more general readership. "The Internet Sutra" was another piece that I wrote for this magazine. It also has a lighter style than my normal mini-essays. My mini-essay on Anatta that I recently posted is closer to my "textbook style". James, I welcome your input. Having explained how I intend to use my mini-essays, I seek your advice as to how my writing style could be more effective. Metta, Rob M :-) 29579 From: robmoult Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 0:15pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Michael, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > Hello RobM, > > RobM: > I see a being as a collection of five > aggregages; the aggregates are ultimate realities, but even ultimate > realities depend on other things to arise > > Michael: > In my understanding 'ultimate realities' point towards something that exist > based on its own power, that has something intrinsic in it, some kind of > essence. Is that what you mean? Yup! Metta, Rob M :-) 29580 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 0:57pm Subject: Re: Anatta Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi James, Since you said that the Buddha said a being is made up, composed of the five `clinging' aggregates, I was interested in seeing a passage in the discourse in which he did say so. As I see it, the idea that a being is made up, composed of the five aggregates, or for that matter, clinging-aggregates is a metaphysical position, springing from the self-identity view "I am this composition of five clinging- aggregates"/"The five clinging-aggregates makes what I am." The Buddha did not teach that. Whatever it is, this composition of the five clinging-aggregates, may they be parts or processes, is inconstant, dukkha/unsatisfactory, not self. It 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." Your comments regarding this message and my previous message are welcome. Metta, Victor KKT: I cannot resist buzzing in here :-)) I have a question for you, Victor: (just for joke, please don't mind :-)) When you wrote: __Hi James, What is this 'James' you addressed to ? __A conglomeration of aggregates? __An encapsulation of aggregates? __The label of the composition of aggregates? __Or the aggregates, then which one? To close this joke, here is an excerpt from The Principles of Buddhist Psychology by David J. Kalupahana, p.22: Strange as it may seem, confusing as it may appear, the Buddha who spent a good part of his philosophical discourses on the negation of self (atta) should continue to use terms like 'I' (aham), 'mine' (mama), 'you' (tumhe), 'yours' (tumhakam) and, above all, the very term 'self' (atta). The encapsulation of aggregates named KKT :-)) 29581 From: robmoult Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 0:57pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not Hi Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > RM: > When interviewed later, the > subjects indicated that at the times that the blood flow to the OAA > was dramatically reduced, they were experiencing a "higher reality". > The illusion of self may be hardwired, but we can overcome this > hardwiring through correct practice. > ---------------------- > > Back in the 1960's people like Timothy Leary and Baba Ram Das > thought LSD could fix the same hardwiring problem. However, they > agreed that the meditation practices of their Indian gurus did the > same thing without drugs. I say, why bother with meditation? If it > is a simple matter of re-wiring, then take the drugs and have done > with it! > > I might add that right understanding can never be accomplished by > either method. ===== I agree. The Franciscan nuns also were able to achieve the same states but but they described them as "talking with God". One must start with a mundane "right understanding". With this perspective, right thinking naturally flows. This is manifested through right speech / action / livelihood / effort. These practices lead to right mindfulness and right concentration. Right mindfulness and right concentration lead to experiences that support a supramundane form of "right understanding". This supramundane form of right understanding allows the other path-factors to arise naturally and consistently by weakening the latent blockages. (at least this is my understanding). ===== > RM: > Habits are developed and nurtured through concentrated > repetition. > Another word for "concentrated repetition" is "practice". > -------------------- > > I think the practice you proceed to describe is purely conventional > (not ultimately real). > > As a boy, I was a keen surfer but I was not as `naturally good at > it' as some other kids were. After considerable practice, in the > intervening forty years (almost), I am reasonably good (although my > knees aren't quite up to it). But what has changed in ultimate > reality? What qualities have been accumulated through this > practice? I suspect that, the next time I am born as a human being, > I will be just as lacking in natural surfing ability as I was this > time around. ===== I'm not so sure. I believe that because of your practice in this life, that you will be naturally drawn toward surfing in your next life. This is natural decisive support condition at work. However, there is nothing to say that your body in your next life will be more suited to surfing than your body was in this life. Because of expriences in their past life, my kids are drawn to music. They both have perfect pitch and started composing music at the age of 6. Their talent was a gift from their past lives, but their results in this life will depend on the self-discipline and goal- setting ability. A predeliction to self-discipline also comes from previous lives, but it needs to be nurtured and supported in this life to be effective. Many of the people on DSG, including myself, were born as Christians. What has drawn us to the Dhamma / Ahidhamma? I believe that we had been exposed to the Dhamma in a previous existence and therefore were attracted to it when we discovered it in this existence. Of course, had conditions supporting our contact with the Dhamma not arisen in this existence, many of us would still be Christians. ===== > > ----------- > > RM: > That is why the Buddha emphasizes, so strongly the need to be > mindful of every action, of every choice. > ------------ > > I would have thought it was of this `present' action (or choice). Am > I being pedantic? ===== You are not being pedantic and I will insert the word "present". On the other hand, how can one be truly "mindful" of anything else other than the present? :-) ===== > > ---------------- > . . . > RM: > Formal meditation is one form of "concentrated repetition". > Sitting each morning and radiating metta, develops a habit of metta > in the mind. > ------------------ > > You bet it does! And I wish it were as simple as you make it sound. > But where is the self, the free will, that can say, "Let there be > metta?" > > When I sit down and `radiate metta,' there is pleasant feeling > (usually) and lots of conceit, but is there any metta? No – because > my actions are motivated by subtle wrong view (of a controlling > self) and by attachment and by other, unwholesome, worldling-like, > notions. > > As you say, this can create a habit; but I would say, not a good > habit. > > ---------------- > > RM: > Vipasanna meditation develops a habit of seeing things as they > truly are; impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self. > --------------- > > By `vipassana meditation,' you don't mean satipatthana do you? You > mean a practice that leads up to satipatthana. I would say; when > there is a moment of kusala consciousness that hears Dhamma, > considers Dhamma or speaks Dhamma then there is a practice that > leads up to satipatthana (the practice of Dhamma). > > If we could decree, "Let there be vipassana practice," then there > would be free will: there would be a `supervising self' and the > world would be totally different from the way the Buddha described > it. (And the way you described it; except for the bits I disagreed > with:-) ) ===== Your last comments fall into the category of "value of meditation". This is one of those subjects that I need more time to reflect upon. However, in the interim, I will continue my meditation. Metta, Rob M :-) 29582 From: robmoult Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 1:21pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Rob M, > > Your concluding paragraph reads: > ------------------------- > I have not yet had the time to carefully study the Abhidhamma or > Sutta theory behind the various types of meditation (you give me too > much credit). I hope to be able to do that analysis some day. > -------------------------- > > I didn't realise you hadn't studied this. I notice that you have > some fairly definite ideas on meditation but I would have to agree > that they don't coincide, exactly, with the Tipitaka versions. (I > hope that doesn't sound rude.) > > -------------------------- > RM: > I understand samatha meditation as an exercise wherein > satipatthana is used to focus concentration on an object (kasina, > breath, cemetary, etc.). > ------------------------- > > This surprises me. Mind you, it could be me who has his terminology > confused. I understand satipatthana to be the direct experience of > a conditioned paramattha dhamma with right understanding, right > thought, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration. > It can never have anything to do with kasinas, cemeteries or any > other concepts. (As you say, it can have breath as an object but > even then, only if breath is directly known as a rupa (not a > concept). > > ------------------------ > RM: > Even if samatha does not lead to jhana, then samatha is a way > of "taming the wild monkey" that is the mind. > -------------- > > Maybe so, but the only kind of samatha meditation that can be > beneficial on the Path is jhana. There is no mention (I am reliably > informed) of any lesser forms of samatha training in the Tipitaka. > > -------------- > RM: > I understand vipassana meditation as an exercise wherein > satipatthana is used to penetrate the true characteristics (anicca, > dukkha, anatta) of whatever object arises. If followed ardently, > vipassana meditation can lead to magga citta (sainthood); > ------------------------- > > Once again, this is not quite the way I am used to seeing those > terms. I understand that satipatthana and vipassana are synonyms; > except that the former term is not used for supramundane > consciousness. I could be adding to the confusion here :-) ===== When conditions are more conducive, I definitely have to spend time exploring this subject in more detail. It is clear that some of my ideas (mainly parroting others, perhaps incorrectly understanding them) are distorted. I am going to approach this subject slowly and carefully. Until I have done my homework and have ideas that I can defend, I am going to try and keep my mouth shut (and my typing fingers still). For what it is worth, Bhikkhu Bodhi's introduction to Soma Thera's "The Way of Mindfulness - The Satipatthana Sutta and its Commentary" (recently serialized by Larry) includes the following: Most contemporary meditation teachers explain Satipatthana meditation as a method for generating insight (vipassana). While this is certainly a valid claim, we should also recognize that Satipatthana meditation also generates concentration (samadhi). Unlike the forms of meditation which cultivate concentration and insight sequentially, Satipatthana brings both these faculties into being together, though naturally, in the actual process of development, concentration will have to gain a certain degree of stability before insight can exercise its penetrating function. In Satipatthana, the act of attending to each occasion of experience as it occurs in the moment fixes the mind firmly on the object. The *continuous* attention to the object, even when the object itself is constantly changing, stabilizes the mind in concentration, while the observation of the object in terms of its qualities and characteristics brings into being the insight knowledges. Note: BB put the word "continuous" in italics Metta, Rob M :-) 29583 From: robmoult Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 2:09pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Ken O, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Rob M > > > I agree that the Abhidhamma texts that we have were not taught by > > the Buddha. > > k: ???? You are the first person I know who practise Abdhidhamma and > said that it is not taught by the Buddha, could you tell me who other > than Buddha who can teach the 24 paccaya. Let me inform you, even > Ven Sariputa also cannot do that without Buddha teaching him. This statement was at the conclusion of a description of how the Buddha went to Tavitisma Heaven to teach the Abhidhamma, returning each day to give a summary to Sariputta, which Sariputta then filled in the details to give us the texts that we have today. The Abhidhamma texts that we have written down today (Dhammasangani, Vibhanga, etc.) were not the direct words of the Buddha (unlike the Suttas, most of which include the direct words of the Buddha). The Abhidhamma texts that we have written down today were inspired by the Buddha and if the timing is correct, implicitly accepted by the Buddha but were never spoken in this form by the Buddha. What most people accept as "Abhidhamma" today is based on the Abhidhammatthasangaha, written 1500 years later. For example: - The explicit distinction between conventional and absolute realities is from the Abhidhammatthasangaha; see Y. Karunadasa's essay - The list of 89 cittas is from the Abhidhammatthasangaha; this list does not explicitly appear in the original texts - The list of 52 cetasikas and their association with the cittas is from the Abhidhammatthasangaha; for example, the first verse of the Dhammasangani lists 56 cetasikas associated with all good states of mind and concludes with "now these - or whatever other incorporeal, causually induced states there are on that occasion - these are the states that are good". The Abhidhammatthasangaha takes this list from the Dhammasangani, combines some and adds nine more cetasikas to come up with its own list. - The cognitive process which lists the 17 cittas in a sense-door process, etc. is from the Abhidhammatthasangaha and is not laid out in the original texts. Here is a quote from Nyanatiloka's "Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines": "citta-vithi, as well as all terms for the various functions within the processes of consciousness, such as avajjana-citta, sampaticchana, santirana, votthapana, javana, tadarammana, bhavanga, cuti: none of these terms is found in the Sutta Canon. except javana, in Pts.M. Even in the Ahh. Canon (e.g. Patth) only javana and bhavanga are twice or thrice briefly mentioned. The stages, however, must have been more or less known." There are many other instances, but these four examples make the point that what is generally accepted as "Abhidhamma" today should not be treated as the word of the Buddha. To me, the implications of this are: - One should not get too hung up on the technical aspects of the Abhidhamma (i.e. the Buddha never said that rupa last for exactly seventeen thought moments) - If in doubt, the Suttas always take precedence Metta, Rob M :-) 29584 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 2:20pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not Hi Rob M, Rob: My "Free-Will" mini-essay was originally written as an article for a Buddhist Magazine, "Eastern Horizon". This magazine covers all three schools (Theravada, Mahayana and Vajarana) and I wanted to keep the piece less technical as it was for a more general readership. James: I thought it seemed like a magazine article; that is why I made the comment I made. With some spicing up it could probably work for a more mainstream Buddhist publication. I'm not familiar with `Eastern Horizon', but really, the audience doesn't matter a great deal. Write from the heart and the audience will respond, regardless of their Buddhist school affiliation. Rob: "The Internet Sutra" was another piece that I wrote for this magazine. It also has a lighter style than my normal mini-essays. James: I don't recall this piece. Perhaps you can send it to me off- list? Rob: My mini-essay on Anatta that I recently posted is closer to my "textbook style". James: Okay, then by `textbook style' you mean pretty bare-bones with little commentary. Rob: James, I welcome your input. Having explained how I intend to use my mini-essays, I seek your advice as to how my writing style could be more effective. James: For the purposes of your class your writing style is just fine. However, your mini-essays will be by necessity very `teacher- oriented' rather than `student-oriented' since you provide almost all of the filler and background information in class. This is fine if you want to limit your essays to `in-class' use only. If you want to make them appeal to a more general audience, then you would have to make some changes. You can contact me off-list about this as we are probably starting to get off-topic. I am not an expert in this regard but many people seem to be attracted to my writing style and writing sense. Metta, James 29585 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 2:25pm Subject: Re: Anatta Hi Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi James, > Your comments regarding this message and my previous message are > welcome. > > Metta, > Victor I really don't have anymore comments...or this could be never-ending. Metta, James 29586 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 2:32pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hello RobM, Essence by definition is unchanging and independent. Therefore it cannot arise dependently. Metta Michael >From: "robmoult" >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta >Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 20:15:27 -0000 > >Hi Michael, > >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" > wrote: > > Hello RobM, > > > > RobM: > > I see a being as a collection of five > > aggregages; the aggregates are ultimate realities, but even ultimate > > realities depend on other things to arise > > > > Michael: > > In my understanding 'ultimate realities' point towards something >that exist > > based on its own power, that has something intrinsic in it, some >kind of > > essence. Is that what you mean? > >Yup! > >Metta, >Rob M :-) > > > 29587 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 2:45pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hello Larry, I am not saying that only conditions exist but since a phenomena arises from a collection of conditions that collection can be regarded as the sub elements of that phenomena. Conditions are any event, state or process that explains another event, state or process, without any kind of metaphysical occult connection between both. Metta Michael >From: "Larry" >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas >Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 19:00:53 -0000 > >Hi Michael, > >This sounds like beginningless time to me, which I have no problem >with. What I don't really understand is what is a condition if that >is all there is? > >Larry > >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" > wrote: > > Hello Larry. > > > > I cannot say there is an infinite regress but if you think in terms >of > > conditionality, and as I mentioned in another post, of phenomena >being the > > coming together of a bunch of conditions, and those conditions also >subject > > to another bunch of conditions, and so on, then I would say that >the > > beginning of that whole process is indetermined. That is what I >would call > > reality. Illusion is seeing phenomena as 'real' i.e. with something > > intrinsic. > > > > Metta > > Michael > > > > 29588 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 5:26pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Dear Robm In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > The Abhidhamma texts that we have written down today (Dhammasangani, > Vibhanga, etc.) were not the direct words of the Buddha (unlike the > Suttas, most of which include the direct words of the Buddha). The > Abhidhamma texts that we have written down today were inspired by the > Buddha and if the timing is correct, implicitly accepted by the > Buddha but were never spoken in this form by the Buddha. > > What most people accept as "Abhidhamma" today is based on the > Abhidhammatthasangaha, written 1500 years later. For example: > - The explicit distinction between conventional and absolute > realities is from the Abhidhammatthasangaha; see Y. Karunadasa's essay Dear Robm Some passgaes from the Atthasalini (given by Nina in a past post) "The Abhidhamma, the ultimate doctrine, is the domain of omniscient Buddhas only, not the domain of others"(Atthasåliní). "He who excludes the Abhidhamma (from the Buddha-word) damages the Conquerer's Wheel of Dhamma (jina-cakkam pahåram deti). He excludes thereby the Omniscience of the Tathagata and impoverishes the grounds of the Master's Knowledge of Self-confidence (vesårajja-ñåna to which Omniscience belongs); he deceives an audience anxious to learn; he obstructs (progress to) the Noble Paths of Holiness; he makes all the eighteen causes of discord appear at once." RobertK 29589 From: wen Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 6:30am Subject: need help... dear all, i'm a new member in here, and i really need help for clarification about how to do the meditation of asubha-bhavana with properly, i already have the objects in the form of photos, i really hope there'll be some precious advices from all of you thank you, 29590 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 6:30pm Subject: Re: Anatta Hi KTT, I was addressing to James, like I am addressing to you now, as a human being. It was a message from a human being to a fellow human being. As I see it, the Buddha's teaching is not about negating self, but negating the five aggregates as self, namely: form, feeling, perception, fabrication, or consciousness is not self. In other words, form, feeling, perception, fabrication, or consciousness 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." Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > > Hi James, > > Since you said that the Buddha said a being is made up, composed of > the five `clinging' aggregates, I was interested in seeing a passage > in the discourse in which he did say so. As I see it, the idea that > a being is made up, composed of the five aggregates, or for that > matter, clinging-aggregates is a metaphysical position, springing > from the self-identity view "I am this composition of five clinging- > aggregates"/"The five clinging-aggregates makes what I am." The > Buddha did not teach that. > > Whatever it is, this composition of the five clinging-aggregates, may > they be parts or processes, is inconstant, dukkha/unsatisfactory, not > self. It 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." > > Your comments regarding this message and my previous message are > welcome. > > Metta, > Victor > > > > > KKT: I cannot resist > buzzing in here :-)) > > I have a question for you, Victor: > (just for joke, please don't mind :-)) > > When you wrote: > > __Hi James, > > What is this 'James' > you addressed to ? > > __A conglomeration of aggregates? > __An encapsulation of aggregates? > __The label of the composition of aggregates? > __Or the aggregates, then which one? > > To close this joke, > here is an excerpt from > The Principles of Buddhist Psychology > by David J. Kalupahana, p.22: > > Strange as it may seem, confusing as it may appear, > the Buddha who spent a good part of his philosophical > discourses on the negation of self (atta) should continue > to use terms like 'I' (aham), 'mine' (mama), 'you' (tumhe), > 'yours' (tumhakam) and, above all, the very term 'self' (atta). > > > The encapsulation of > aggregates named KKT :-)) 29591 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 8:28pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Rob K, I find the quote you provided does not help to explain how the Abhidhamma Pitaka contains the original words of the Buddha, or the content of the Abhidhamma Pitaka is the Dhamma that the Buddha taught. By providing this quote, are you implying that Rob M was damaging the Conquerer's Wheel, impoverishing the grounds of the Master's Knowledge of Self-confidence, deceiving an audience anxious to learn, obstructsing (progress to) the Noble Paths of Holiness, and making all the eighteen causes of discord appear at once? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear Robm In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > wrote: > > > The Abhidhamma texts that we have written down today > (Dhammasangani, > > Vibhanga, etc.) were not the direct words of the Buddha (unlike > the > > Suttas, most of which include the direct words of the Buddha). The > > Abhidhamma texts that we have written down today were inspired by > the > > Buddha and if the timing is correct, implicitly accepted by the > > Buddha but were never spoken in this form by the Buddha. > > > > What most people accept as "Abhidhamma" today is based on the > > Abhidhammatthasangaha, written 1500 years later. For example: > > - The explicit distinction between conventional and absolute > > realities is from the Abhidhammatthasangaha; see Y. Karunadasa's > essay > Dear Robm > Some passgaes from the Atthasalini (given by Nina in a past > post) "The Abhidhamma, the ultimate doctrine, is the domain of > omniscient > Buddhas only, not the domain of others"(Atthasåliní). > "He who excludes > the Abhidhamma (from the Buddha-word) damages the Conquerer's Wheel > of > Dhamma (jina-cakkam pahåram deti). He excludes thereby the > Omniscience of > the Tathagata and impoverishes the grounds of the Master's Knowledge > of > Self-confidence (vesårajja-ñåna to which Omniscience belongs); he > deceives > an audience anxious to learn; he obstructs (progress to) the Noble > Paths of > Holiness; he makes all the eighteen causes of discord appear at > once." > > > RobertK 29592 From: Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 8:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] need help... Hi Wen, Welcome to the group. Is asubha bhavana the reflection on the repulsiveness (foulness) of the body? I don't know of anyone here practicing this, but perhaps we can be of a little help anyway. What kind of photos do you have and where did you get this practice? Have you studied the satipatthana sutta? Why do you want to do this particular practice? Maybe you could tell us a little bit about yourself. Below is a link to the commentary on the part of the satipatthana sutta dealing with repulsiveness. Larry http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m17170.html 29593 From: Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 8:56pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Michael, Let's let this one percolate for a while. Larry ------------------------ M: Hello Larry, I am not saying that only conditions exist but since a phenomena arises from a collection of conditions that collection can be regarded as the sub elements of that phenomena. Conditions are any event, state or process that explains another event, state or process, without any kind of metaphysical occult connection between both. Metta Michael 29594 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 10:01pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Azita, ------------------- A: > I am confused by your final statement Ken..... K: >> I understand that satipatthana and vipassana are synonyms; > except that the former term is not used for supramundane > consciousness. > > > azita: I understand them to be the same too, or a least similar, but I don't understand what you mean by '...the former term is not used for supramundane consciousness...'. I might be totally wrong here, but I understand that satipatthana only arises when wisdom has developed to the degree that knows nama from rupa. Now I don't know how to describe vipassana! -------------------- I'm sure you're right with the first one. I can dimly remember that Jon and Larry (?) sorted this terminology out. Both satipatthana and vipassana refer to the various cittas that are accompanied by the cetasikas, right understanding, right thought, etc., and have a dhamma as object. Vipassana can refer to all such cittas (including those with the unconditioned dhamma as object) whereas satipatthana refers only to those with a conditioned dhamma as object. In other words, the mundane form of vipassana can be called satipatthana. That's my recollection; corrections welcome. Kind regards, Ken H PS I have just seen that RobM has added more on this -- haven't read it yet though. 29595 From: Jeffrey S. Brooks Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 8:51pm Subject: Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism Hello James and thank-you for providing me with a quote from a contemporay who obviously understand jhana. Best regards, Jeff Brooks --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > I can see that this dialogue isn't getting very far. Let me quote > some passages from Ajahn Lee, a monk who was a master at Jhana > meditation: > > "When people criticize you, saying that you're in a blind state of > jhana, it's still better than having no jhana to be in. And if they > say that you're like a baby chick that hasn't come out of its egg, > that's okay, too. When a baby chick is still in the egg, no hawk can > swoop down on it and catch it. When it comes out of the egg is when > it becomes prey." > > "They may say that you're sitting in "stump" concentration, but > don't pay them any mind, because stumps can have their uses. > Sometimes they grow new branches, with tender leaves you can eat. But > if the stump catches fire and burns to a crisp, that's no good at > all." > > "Momentary concentration is like a house roofed with thatch; its > posts are made out of softwood. Momentary concentration isn't jhana. > Threshold concentration is like a house made out of hardwood with a > tile roof. Fixed penetration is like an immovable concrete building. > This is where we become "one" in a single preoccupation on the single > or direct path (ekayana-magga). It's like sitting alone in a chair or > lying alone on a bed, without anyone trying to come and take up our > space, or like being alone in a room without anyone else coming in to > disturb us. When we're alone in a room, we can be at our ease. We can > even take off our clothes if we like. We can behave with good manners > or bad, and no one will complain. This is why a mind with jhana as > its dwelling can be at its ease. It has a deep well so that it can > get plenty of water -- to the point where it can drop directed > thought and evaluation, leaving nothing but pleasure: This is where > feeling becomes your frame of reference (vedananupassana- > satipatthana). The body feels full. All four properties -- earth, > water, fire, and wind -- feel full. When the mind feels full in this > way, nothing is lacking. That's rapture. You don't want any more of > the four properties. When the mind soaks for a long time in this > sense of rapture, it's like something you've soaked in water for a > long time: The water is bound to permeate it to a point of > saturation. This sense of rapture is the second level of jhana. When > the sense of rapture begins to move, you don't feel at ease, in the > same way as when a boat begins to sway you want to get back on land. > So once rapture fills the body, you let go of it, leaving nothing but > pleasure and singleness of preoccupation. When the mind has soaked > itself in pleasure to a point of saturation, it lets go, leaving an > empty sense of equanimity. When the mind is really empty, it feels > spacious and light. The more it soaks in equanimity, the more still > it gets, giving rise to an inner sense of light. When the light is > really intense you arrive at Right Mindfulness." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/skillof.html#skills > > Metta, James 29596 From: Jeffrey S. Brooks Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 8:58pm Subject: Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism - Long Hello Christine, I have read the Majjhima Nikaya that Bhikkhu Bodhi translated. While I value my copy of that volume, as well as my other volumes of the Nikayas, I however find no evidence to support a belief that he or any of the translators had any more than a superficial understanding of the English language of cognition and gnosis. And, it is also clear they had absolutely no understanding of absorption (jhana). Best regards, Jeff Brooks --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Jeffrey, and all, > > Thank you for explaining that you meant no offense. Email is a > difficult medium, and misunderstandings can happen easily. I > apologise for the challenging tone of my last post. The oldest record > of the Buddha's teaching is in Pali, not english, or burmese, or > thai. So the Dhamma (as preserved in the Tipitaka - the Three > baskets) doesn't need 'interpretation'. It needs accurate > translation and faithful rendering to keep the meanings of the > Teachings pristine, and exactly as the Buddha taught. > Perhaps you may feel more comforable with the words of a New Yorker > born to a Jewish family in 1944, who lived all his life in Brooklyn, > went to a public elementary school, junior high school and college > in Brooklyn; received a BA degree in philosophy in 1966 and then went > to Claremont Graduate School in California; completed his doctorate > (PhD) in 1972; has been a Mahayana monk and is a Theravada Bhikkhu, > is well versed in Pali, was the President of the Buddhist Publication > Society for many years, has addressed the United Nations and is > esteemed as the translator of many important suttas from the Pali as > well as the Samyutta Nikaya, parts of the Anguttara Nikaya, and is a > joint translator of the Majjhima Nikaya with Bhikkhu Nanamoli. He is > Bhikkhu Bodhi. > > The Majjhima Nikaya Introduction p.38 ff > Regarding Insight (vipassanaa) Bhikkhu Bodhi states: > "The methods of meditation taught by the Buddha in the Pali Canon > fall into two broad systems. One is the development of serenity > (samatha), which aims at concentration (samaadhi); the other is the > development of insight (vipassanaa) which aims at understanding or > wisdom (pa~n~naa). In the Buddha's system of mental training the > role of serenity is subordinated to that of insight because the > latter is the crucial instrument needed to uproot ithe ignorance at > the bottom of samsaaric bondage. > > **The attainments possible through serenity meditation were known > to Indian contemplatives long before the advent of the Buddha. The > Buddha himself mastered the two highest stages under his early > teachers but found that they only led to higher planes of rebirth, > not to genuine enlightenment. (MN 26.15-16)** > > However, because the unification of mind induced by the practice > of concentration contributes to clear understanding, the Buddha > incorporated the techniques of serenity meditation and the resulting > levels of absorption into his own system, treating them as a > foundation and preparation for insight and as a "pleasant abiding > here and now".... > > "Whereas in serenity meditation the meditator attempts to focus > upon a single uniform object abstracted from actual experience, in > insight meditation the endeavour is made to contemplate, from a > position of detached observation the ever-shifting flux of experience > itself in order to penetrate through to the essential nature of > bodily and mental phenomena. The Buddha teaches that the craving and > clinging that hold us in bondage are sustained by a network > of "conceivings" (ma~n~nita) - deluded views, conceits, and > suppositions that the mind fabricates by an internal process of > mental commentary of "proliferation" (papa~nca) and then projects out > upon the world, taking them to possess objective validity. The task > of insight meditation is to sever our attachments by enabling us to > pierce through this net of conceptual projections in order to see > things as they really are. > To see things as they really are means to see them in terms of the > three characteristics - as impermanent, as painful or suffering, and > as not self. Since the three characteristics are closely > interlinked, any one of them can be made the main portal for entering > the domain of insight, but the Buddha's usual approach is to show all > three together - impermanence implying suffering and the two in > conjunction implying the absence of self. When the noble disciple > sees all the factors of being as stamped with these three marks, he > no longer identifies with them, no longer appropriates them by taking > them to be mine, I or self. Seeing thus, he becomes disenchanted > with all formations. When he becomes disenchanted, his lust and > attachment fade away and his mind is liberated from the taints. > Instructions for the development of insight in the Majjhima > Nikaaya, though concise, are many and diverse. The single most > important lesson on the practice conducing to insight is the > Satipatthaana Sutta, the Discourse on the Foundations of Mindfulness > (MN10; also found in the Diigha Nikaaya with an amplified section on > the Four Noble Truths). The sutta sets forth a comprehensive system > called satipatthaana designed to train the mind to see with > micropscopic precision the true nature of the body, feelings, states > of mind, and mental objects. The system is sometimes taken to be the > paradigm for the practice of "bare insight" - the direct > contemplation of mental and bodily phenomena without a prior > foundation of jhaana - and, while several exercises described inthe > sutta canalso lead to the jhaanas, the arousing of insight is clearly > the intent of the method. > Other suttas in the Majjhima Nikaaya describe approaches to > developing insight that either elaborate upon the satipatthaana > contemplations or reach them from a different starting oint. Thus MN > 118 shows how the practice of mindfulness of breathing fulfils all > four foundations of mindfulness, not the first alone as shown in MN > 10. Several suttas - MN 28, MN 62, MN 140 - present more detailed > instructions on the contemplation of the elements. MN 37, MN 74 and > MN 140 contain illuminating passages on the contemplation of > feeling. In some suttas the Buddha uses the five aggregates as the > groundwork for insight contemplation (e.g. MN 22, MN 109); in some, > the six sense bases (e.g. MN 137, MN 148, MN 149); in some, the two > combined (MN 147). MN112 has sections dealing with insight based on > the five aggregates, the six elements, and the six sense bases, and > as resulting from the gradual training. MN 52 and MN 64 show that > insight can also be aroused with the jhaanas, the immaterial > attainments, and the divine abodes as its objects; the disciple > enters any of these states and contemplates its constituent factors > as subject to the three characteristics." > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 29597 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 10:33pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Howard, ----------------------- H: > I presume you believe that you have really answered what I have asked, but I don't see it that way. It seems to me that, in each case, you have responded by saying something having a related sense to it, but not actually giving a clear and direct answer. ------------------------------- If we were all accomplished Abhidhamma scholars, we could communicate in the same language: As we are, it is hard to be on the same wavelength. For me, it is hard enough to stay on my own wavelength -- the mind changes so quickly. My Abhidhamma understanding extends about as far as "Right understanding comes first." That means right understanding comes before, not after, right effort. The right effort that is pertinent to the Middle Way, is a cetasika; it arises with (in the same conscious moment as) -- and depends upon -- the cetasika, `right understanding.' We both know this but you seem more determined, than I am, to pinpoint the conventional ramifications: You want to know if this means we do something or if it means we don't do something. I don't think there is a right answer to that. If pressed, I can only say, "Because there is no self, there can be no control over dhammas" or words to that effect. There are countless ways of wording the same answer and it's all good `practice.' :-) ----------------------------- H: > Also, in one case, you add a presumption of wrong view without giving evidence for same, ----------------------------- Given that the Buddha taught anatta (not-self), any belief in self is a deliberate (volitional) rejection of that teaching. That is the definition of miccha-ditthi (wrong view). In subtle ways, we have wrong view every minute of the waking day. Trying to summon-up right mindfulness is a form of wrong view (because there is no self who can summon-up anything). Giving-up on right mindfulness is another form of wrong view (because it implies it cannot be conditioned). I find it handy to remember that even wrong view is a suitable object for right view. --------------------- H: > and several times you talk about "self", which is not anything that I discussed or even hinted at. So, it seems to me that you did not reply to what I asked, but instead replied to a post that is a straw-man. ------------ Everything, that is not the Middle Way, comes down to self-view in one form or another. -------------------- H: > When the Buddha said to guard the senses, he was instructing his followers to engage in an activity. When he told them to abide by the sangha rules, he was instructing his followers to engage in an activity. When he told them to find an isolated spot and meditate, he was instructing his followers to engage in an activity. ---------------------------------- Before the Buddha taught any of these things, he taught that all dhammas (conditioned and unconditioned) were anatta. So there is no self who can follow, or not follow, his teaching. That means everything he said has to be understood in a way that is out of the ordinary. For example it has to be understood as `description,' not as `prescription.'. What better way could there be? Wouldn't you feel disappointed, Howard, if the way out of samsara was in the least bit ordinary? I would. I am very glad to have learnt that the way out is not, at all, along the lines of; "Sit with your legs crossed. This way! No, not like that; like this. OK, now put the left hand in the palm of the right hand . . . thumbs like so . . . Now breathe in! . . No, no, no; like this!" Count me out! Not interested! ------------------------- H: > My questions, in their bare form can be restated as follows: 1) Is kamma (volition/action) a condition for the arising of insight, or do you believe that insight arises or not independent of kamma? ------------------------ Kamma (cetana) is a universal cetasika and so it must arise with insight. Cetasikas are mutually dependent in various ways and so, yes, I suppose cetana is one of the conditions. In any case, the right volition would not entail any sense of, "Let there be insight!" ------------------------- 2) Are abiding by sila (for example the five layperson precepts) and engaging in meditative cultivation (formal meditation, moment-by- moment mindfulness, and guarding the senses) futile? ------------------------- If these are conventional designations for certain moments of kusala consciousness then, of course, they are conducive to the development of panna. Otherwise, yes they are futile. For example, if I practice `attachment to living beings' under the illusion that it is metta, that is still a step in the wrong direction. ------------------------ 3) Do you maintain that the practice recommended by the Buddha consists of nothing but studying and thinking about what he taught? [Understanding, which you gave as something additional, is not a volitional activity. One can decide to study and to think over. One *cannot* simply decide to understand. Understanding is not a willed activity. It is not part of a path of practice - it is a consequence of a path of practice.] ---------------------------- I don't accept the question. Firstly: understanding is as much a volitional activity (sankhara-khandha) as is anything else. Secondly: it is only according to our conventional view of reality that one can `decide' to study and think over. In the same, conventional way, one *can* decide to understand. (One can also decide to fly to the moon.) Ultimately, reading and writing cannot be willed. There is the illusion of willing, but that's as far as it goes. In that way, I see direct understanding (satipatthana) as a part of Dhamma practice in the same way as are `hearing, considering and discussing.' In answer to your follow-up post: This is no trouble at all -- thanks for the extra questions. As I have just said (rather wittily, I thought) it's all good `practice.' Kind regards, Ken H 29598 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 0:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yet more discussion (and food) Hi James & All, (esp. those we met in Bangkok and those of you that kept DSG running so well;-), --- buddhatrue wrote: > Yes, I also believe it has been a very worthwhile discussion (at > least for me). However, I think your being gone is just a > coincidence! ;-)) There are also worthwhile discussions when you are > here. Anyway, thanks for the updates on your trip. They have been > interesting and very considerate of you. Have a safe journey home! ... Thx James;-) It’s been great reading and it’s even better to be back and able to check in from home (‘just attachment’, I hear KenO saying:-)). It’s a good sign when there are such worthwhile discussions whether or not a few of the most frequent posters and mods are around or not. I do sincerely hope our return doesn’t send anyone back to lurkerland.....(RobM, Ken H, Michael, Victor, Swee Boon, KKT and anyone else - just pretend we’re away surfing all the time;-). James, we printed our your kind comments to Nina for her and were particularly happy to see you quoting from the Visuddhimagga and Abhidammatha Sangaha and now from a Pali glossary;-) You really will have to join us all in Bkk sometime. (Hope, I wasn't dreaming). Jon gave very brief updates and I’m sure we’re all waiting for the full version which only CHRISTINE could do justice to. For me personally, it was wonderful to see quite a number of very old dhamma friends (around 10 that we’ve known from the 70s), medium old dhamma friends and more recent ones who we’ve got to know from here. Friends from all over the world and many we’d have liked to have spent more time with and several said the same, but that’s always the way of attachment.(‘Just get to the Dhamma’, KenO will be telling me!!) When Chris mentioned Ven Yanatharo was to be in town at the same time for Robert Ed’s ordination, we encouraged her to invite them to the discussions too. Only Ven Y arrived, but there we all were armed with dhamma discussion ‘ammunition’. VenY arrived with his direct questions that others consider, but only he might ask A.Sujin, directly, in his loud and clear voice and with a big twinkle in his eye - Qs relating to ones he’d heard about her and the Foundation, about her views on the Sangha, her levels of attainment and so on;-) She’s an expert in answering questions with questions, but it was all in the best of humour. A lot was also heard and considered about the Vinaya and difficulties of the monk’s life today by Ven Y. It was pointed out that any life has difficulties;-) I appreciated Ven Y’s questions about rebirth and self, spirit, soul. We gave answers about why we might have confidence in rebirth and most related to the present moment. I mentioned that while there was no understanding of conditions now, there was bound to be uncertainty about the next moment, next life and an idea of self and so on. I could tell Ven Y found most the answers unconvincing, but when we checked the list that evening, James had given the perfect answer with a quote from the Paccaya Sutta also indicating that without an understanding of conditions there will always be a wondering about ‘what was I in the past....’, ‘what will I be in the future.....’ and so on. Thanks, James. I printed it out to give Ven Y the next day, but we didn’t see him again. Perhaps he’ll add his own impressions or answers he heard on this ‘funny little group’ as he chose to call DSG;-) KenO came armed with a copy of the commentary to the Abhidammattha Sangaha and a very fast tongue and mind - too fast for the rest of us to keep up with at times. His first question related to the arising of the group of primary rupas - I’m not sure he got the answer he was looking for or whether anyone really understood the question (KenO - ‘You know, Howard’s qu’). A.Sujin began testing him throughout the day on his Abhidhamma knowledge..... he was pretty wise and well-prepared for this and gave all the right answers;-) His good humour (just like on list), asides and keen interest were key reasons as to why the discussions were so meaty and yet enjoyable and fun too;-). I’m still not sure why he thinks it’s so dangerous to travel in the same car as any of us and would rather hike down Charoen Nakorn Road (long, busy and polluted) or why he’s convinced it’s a waste of time for me to offer any pleasantries such as ‘how’s your tea?’ or welcomes to new members, (KenO: ‘if it’s not dhamma it’s akusala), but then as I say, we were all a bit slow for him and I’m sure he would have liked to fast forward us all or to zap as he can do on list. ‘that’s a waste of time’ - zap!). Christine arrived with a bag of texts as well, including B.Bodhi’s AN anthology and of course she managed to bring Angulimala, Vessantara and a few of her favourites (!) into various discussions too. She’s becoming quite one of the ‘oldies’ and was even heard giving and finding translations for Pali terms during discussions;-) We met at the airport yesterday and had a final few words on victims at work and in the suttas - no conclusions but I think we all learnt more about our accumulations.Certainly (thanks KenO again), I learnt more about my frivolous ones;-) ...and Jon was armed with the Visuddhimagga, Betty (I think) with the Nyantiloka dictionary (most useful at these discussions), Nina and I with plenty of Abhidhamma qus from DSG, ready for any lulls or pauses. We thanked Larry, Howard, RobM and others for many of these further points and considerations. I know Nina will be writing more, so I can unpack now;-). Indeed, Nina was waiting for us on our arrival to refine and check my book of qus, Azita;-) As Jon said, our old friend Vince arrived with all the meditation and samatha qus and honestly, at times, K.Sujin couldn’t get a word in either. It was never boring and the lunches and brunch together were most enjoyable too..... dhamma and catch-up (Ok, KenO - dhamma and lobha). Many thanks to all who joined us in Bkk and especially to Betty and Sukin for coordinating us all so well while we were there. We still don't know what happened to Chuck from Texas, but Pinna, an old friend and lurking member from Texas was with us. Even greater thanks to all those who have been contributing here in our absence in such good form and humour and thereby enabling us to really take a good break knowing we were leaving the list in your good finger-tips. With metta, Sarah p.s KenO - I’ll get into some straight dhamma soon - well, maybe after a welcome or two to new members,that is;-) Have a good trip back to Sing. (oops, there I go again;-)) And remember to send a fax or letter to BPS re your Samyutta Nikaya order!! ====== 29599 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 1:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Larry, > Good to see you again. When you are sitting do you think there is no > such reality as this sitting, or do you think the reality of this > sitting is tangible data, or do you just experience tangible data, or > do you look at the experience of tangible data? If you look at the > experience of tangible data, what happens? If you are asking what my experience is in daily life, then I must say that it is no different from any uninstructed worldling :-). That is, I get mentally lost, or else I am attracted or repelled by what goes through the other five doorways. But I have had also the following experiences. [With the background knowledge about conditionality, I believe whatever citta arises to experience any object, whether sense or mind, there is never a reason to feel that it should have been otherwise.] So if the thought "there is no such reality as this sitting" or "this sitting is tangible data" arose, it is a case of it having been conditioned partly by previous knowledge of Abhidhamma. But I wouldn't *believe in* thinking such a way. I do not see any possibility of talking my way to understanding. The very utterance of these words could be from wrong view. It is better that I see the value of this moment without being caught in mental proliferation no matter if the content of proliferation be the Abhidhamma language. But even this if arisen, can be understood and no need ever to wish otherwise and always good to have patience. If there is "just experience tangible data", I am sure that it will be followed by much lobha and papanca ;-). So for every kusala you can expect a thousand akusala arising as consequence. But even if it happens, this is what it is supposed to be. I do sometimes "look at the experience of tangible data", but increasingly I detect `self' at play behind this. And with this, sometimes there is discouragement about the fact that *there is absolutely nothing "I" can do to make sati arise*, however there can at other times be `patience, courage and good cheer'. And often I think about Azita. :-) I believe the deliberate looking at experience is fueled not only by lobha but also by wrong view, such that encouraging the kind of practice would be increasing both. Hope my answer helps. Metta, Sukin. 29600 From: christhedis Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 2:35am Subject: Mahayana: lower realms Hi everyone, It's been a while since I posted or even read postings in here, I hope no- one minds my occasional drop-in question. Also, I know this is a Theravada group but I can't find an answer to my question anywhere, so thought I'd try in here (plus I like you guys (and gals) :) So... in Mahayana, is there an equivalent to the Theravada stream- enterer, in terms of attaining a level where one does not fall back into lower realms (the stream-enterer level in Theravada)? I know Mahayanists are not looking to enter the stream in terms of guaranteed eventual nibbana, but do they have a level where they will be continually reborn into the human or higher realms? I know they have a Buddhahood level but I'm not sure what the implications of it are. Thanks, and best wishes to all. Chris. 29601 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 3:53am Subject: Re: Yet more discussion (and food) Hi Sarah, Sarah: Thx James;-) It's been great reading and it's even better to be back and able to check in from home (`just attachment', I hear KenO saying:-)). James: Good that you are both back safe and sound and that you had an enjoyable trip and meeting (the five khandhas are attachment...not easy to escape it ;-). Sarah: James, we printed our your kind comments to Nina for her and were particularly happy to see you quoting from the Visuddhimagga and Abhidammatha Sangaha and now from a Pali glossary;-) You really will have to join us all in Bkk sometime. (Hope, I wasn't dreaming). James: Glad that she will get to read them. I hope that she had a nice trip and is relaxed now that it is over. LOL! Yes, you did actually see me quoting from those sources and using Pali. As they say, "When in Rome…" ;-). Maybe I will join you sometime. I will listen to my heart in that regard. Sarah: James had given the perfect answer with a quote from the Paccaya Sutta also indicating that without an understanding of conditions there will always be a wondering about `what was I in the past....', `what will I be in the future.....' and so on. Thanks, James. I printed it out to give Ven Y the next day, but we didn't see him again. Perhaps he'll add his own impressions or answers he heard on this `funny little group' as he chose to call DSG;-) James: If this is the same Ven. Yanatharo who wrote a very inappropriate e-mail to me about how attractive I am, from my pictures, and how he might like to `deflower' me in his next lifetime since he can't now that he is a monk (the one I forwarded to you and Howard), don't give him anything from me and don't mention me to him, please. I think he has a few screws loose! ;-)) Sarah: (KenO - `You know, Howard's qu'). James: LOL! Oh, that narrows it down! ;-)) Sarah: It was never boring and the lunches and brunch together were most enjoyable too..... dhamma and catch-up James: Sounds like a grand time. I will have to seriously consider joining you sometime in the future. Metta, James 29602 From: icarofranca Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 4:11am Subject: Re: Anatta Dear Larry:- "If I may, I would like to ammend a convention. I think it might be > better to call sankhara khandha "mental fabricators" instead > of "mental fabrications". The reason for this is that the cetasikas > that are categorized in this khandha are no more fabricated than the > other mental factors. Also, this khandha is particularly associated > with the conditioning of kamma, so in that sense they are > fabricators. I wonder if they might also have something to do with > the proliferation of concepts as well." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A good remark, Larry: Khandhas are aggregates, so at the standpoint of a medium level Bhikkhu's mind doesn't matter either if they fabricate their cetasika's concomitants or are a fabricated result by them through Kamma. Both are at the same ground of reasoning and the noble Bhikkhu pays no more attention at one than at any other (of course he will keep in mind his stream-entering his consciousness if facing some defilement gross or subtile in front of his senses) ----------------------------------------------------------------- "I think (?) " ------------------------------------------------------------------ Don't fret, Larry... Mettaya, Icaro 29603 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 4:12am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Robert K, Robert K: Some passgaes from the Atthasalini (given by Nina in a past post) "The Abhidhamma, the ultimate doctrine, is the domain of omniscient Buddhas only, not the domain of others"(Atthasåliní). "He who excludes the Abhidhamma (from the Buddha-word) damages the Conquerer's Wheel of Dhamma (jina-cakkam pahåram deti). He excludes thereby the Omniscience of the Tathagata and impoverishes the grounds of the Master's Knowledge of Self-confidence (vesårajja-ñåna to which Omniscience belongs); he deceivesan audience anxious to learn; he obstructs (progress to) the Noble Paths of Holiness; he makes all the eighteen causes of discord appear at once." James: Actually, the quote from the Atthasalini goes on, you cut out the juicy stuff!: "…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.'" http://www.buddhanet.net/abhidh09.htm Hmm…that's one way to keep people quiet!! ;-)) Metta, James 29604 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 4:31am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Thanks James! In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Robert K, > > "The Abhidhamma, the ultimate doctrine, is the domain of > omniscient Buddhas only, not the domain of others"(Atthasåliní). > "He who excludes the Abhidhamma (from the Buddha-word) damages the > Conquerer's Wheel of Dhamma (jina-cakkam pahåram deti).> ========== > James: Actually, the quote from the Atthasalini goes on, you cut out > the juicy stuff!: > > "…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.'" > > http://www.buddhanet.net/abhidh09.htm > > Hmm…that's one way to keep people quiet!! ;-)) > > Metta, James 29605 From: icarofranca Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 4:33am Subject: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Dear Larry: I'm getting a little zoned-out with all this abstract thinking myself. Maybe I'll go for a walk. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't worry, Larry...thinking about it is more easy than seems..:-)) Tcharararan Tcha-ra-raaan.... Mettaya, Ícaro 29606 From: robmoult Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 5:52am Subject: The Internet Sutra (a rerun) This was such a fun piece, that I needed little prompting to post it again... The Buddha was an expert teacher, who often explained the Dhamma using analogies that were familiar to the listener. If the Buddha were alive today, He would likely use today's technology in His analogies. Here is an imaginary "sutra" using a modern technology as an analogy. Thus have I heard. On one occasion, Rob the Engineer was sitting in a cyber-cafe surfing the net and the thought arose, "I do not understand the concepts of mind (nama), matter (rupa) and non-self (anatta). I shall go and ask the Buddha to explain." Rob the Engineer went to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to Him, he sat down at one side and said: "Venerable sir, please explain to me the concepts of mind (nama), matter (rupa) and non-self (anatta)." "I will explain this to you, Engineer Rob, using the Internet as an example. Before you came to me, what were you doing?" "I was typing at a computer, Venerable Sir." "What are the things that make up a computer, and what are their functions?" "A computer has both hardware and software. The function of the hardware is to provide a base of support for the software and the function of the software is to receive and process the information that is input." "Does the software operate according to fixed rules, according to its nature, or is there a being or force controlling and directing the software?" "The software operates according to fixed rules, according to its nature." "Engineer Rob, you should understand the senses as you understand the computer. The senses have both nama and rupa. Eye sensitivity, the physical eye, is rupa. Eye consciousness is nama. The function of rupa is to provide a base of support for nama. The function of nama is to receive and process the information from the visible object. Nama operates according to its nature and there is no self controlling it. There is seeing, but there is no seer. This is the view of non-self." "So in this analogy, nama corresponds to the software while rupa corresponds to the hardware. Is this correct, Venerable Sir?" "It is so. Did the computer on which you were typing work in isolation?" "No Venerable Sir, the computer was connected to the Internet." "You should understand that the senses do not operate in isolation from the mind. How would you describe the 'Internet', Engineer Rob?" "The Internet is an uncountable number of computers, all running software, working in unison. Venerable Sir, does this mean that the mind is also nama and rupa?" "Yes, Engineer Rob, the mind is a combination of nama and rupa. Now, is there any force controlling and directing the Internet?" "No, Venerable Sir, the Internet is a very complex combination of hardware and software but there is no single thing in control of the Internet." "You should understand that though the mind is a very complex combination of nama and rupa, there is no self in control of the mind. Engineer Rob, is there a single thing that you can point to and say, 'This is the Internet'?" "No Venerable Sir, it is an ever-changing grouping of hardware and software that we label as 'Internet'. The 'Internet' is a concept; the 'Internet' is not a piece of hardware or software." "This is how you should understand a person, Engineer Rob, as an ever- changing grouping of nama and rupa; a concept, not an ultimate reality. This is the view of non-self." "This analogy is most interesting to me, Venerable Sir." "Engineer Rob, what makes the Internet work?" "In addition to being governed by the laws of physics (signal degradation, etc.), the foundation of the Internet is a set of rules that define how software interacts (TCP/IP, HTTP, etc.). The Internet is almost never at rest as there are almost always inputs arriving from one of the clients." "Even so, In addition to being governed by the laws of utu-niyama (we all must age), the foundation of a being is a set of rules that define how nama interacts (citta-niyama, kamma-niyama). A being is almost never at rest as there are almost always external objects being apprehended by the five senses." "Please continue, Venerable Sir." "Engineer Rob, imagine that your student wished to have a better understanding of the Internet. Would you advise that student to focus their attention on the hardware or the software?" "Venerable Sir, Though hardware is necessary for the Internet to exist, it is best to treat hardware as a platform for software and focus on how hardware impacts the software (speed, capacity, etc.) rather than the technical details of the hardware (processors, etc.). What makes the Internet interesting and powerful is the interaction between software. One can never truly understand the internet looking at the macro-level (appearance of web pages, etc.). To truly understand the Internet, one must understand how the underlying hardware, software and rules work." "Exactly, Engineer Rob. Though rupa is necessary for a person to exist, it is best to treat rupa as a platform for nama and focus on how nama experiences rupa (solidity, temperature, motion) rather than the technical details of rupa (protons, neutrons, electrons). What makes a person interesting and powerful is the interaction of nama. One can never truly understand a person looking at the macro-level (personality, etc.). To truly understand a person, one must understand how the underlying rupa, nama and niyama work." Engineer Rob was satisfied and delighted with what he had heard from the Blessed One. Metta, Rob M :-) PS: No, Engineer Rob did not become enlightened... I am not MANA enough for that ! :-) 29607 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 6:28am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hi Michael I have been through with you with this before so I do not wish to restate myself. With your stream of thoughts and argument, there will be no end to anything. Since everything exist do have essence, we might as well dont have any thing exist at all in the first place. I think you should look up in the sutta whether things exist or not before a fruitful dicussion can be continue or I think this is not going to benefit you or me. If your line of thinking you might as well define anatta which is an essential characteristics of Buddha as a being or an independent entity. best wishes Ken O 29608 From: abhidhammika Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 6:36am Subject: Re: Mahayana: lower realms Dear Chris and all How are you? Chris wrote and asked: "Also, I know this is a Theravada group but I can't find an answer to my question anywhere, ... So... in Mahayana, is there an equivalent to the Theravada stream- enterer, in terms of attaining a level where one does not fall back into lower realms (the stream-enterer level in Theravada)?" The question you asked is rather difficult against the backdrop of many forms of Mahayana schools. As far as Theravada is concerned, a bodhisatta / bodhisattva may be reborn in the lower realms including the hell realms. Examples are many in the Jaataka stories where the former lives of Gotama the Buddha as the lower lifeforms such as animals as well as higher lifeforms such as humans and gods are recorded. There is a large Mahayana group called BuddhistWellnessGroup (Yahoo). Perhaps some of co-owners may be able to answer your question from the Mahayana perspective. Please ask Dr Desmond Chiong or Yick Keng Hang. By the way, I am also a co-owner of BuddhistWellnessGroup who represents Theravada and Pali scholarship and, as such, can answer your questions only from the Theravada perspective. Good luck! :-) With regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christhedis" wrote: Hi everyone, It's been a while since I posted or even read postings in here, I hope no- one minds my occasional drop-in question. Also, I know this is a Theravada group but I can't find an answer to my question anywhere, so thought I'd try in here (plus I like you guys (and gals) :) So... in Mahayana, is there an equivalent to the Theravada stream- enterer, in terms of attaining a level where one does not fall back into lower realms (the stream-enterer level in Theravada)? I know Mahayanists are not looking to enter the stream in terms of guaranteed eventual nibbana, but do they have a level where they will be continually reborn into the human or higher realms? I know they have a Buddhahood level but I'm not sure what the implications of it are. Thanks, and best wishes to all. Chris. 29609 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 7:19am Subject: Re: The Internet Sutra (a rerun) Hi Rob M, Even though the discourse you wrote is obviously imaginary, I think you are still putting your own ideas in the Buddha's mouth. Some might find the imaginary discourse a fun and interesting piece of writing. However, regarding what the Buddha taught, I think the discourses in the Pali Canon is much more reliable source of the teaching of the Buddha than the imaginary discourse. I would be interested to see if the Buddha actually taught the view of non-self like the ideas in the following passages Nama operates according to its nature and there is no self controlling it. There is seeing, but there is no seer. This is the view of non-self." "This is how you should understand a person, Engineer Rob, as an ever- changing grouping of nama and rupa; a concept, not an ultimate reality. This is the view of non-self." If you could, please provide some passage from the discourse in the Pali Canon to support the ideas in the above passages from the imaginary discourse. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > This was such a fun piece, that I needed little prompting to post it > again... [snip] > > Thus have I heard. On one occasion, Rob the Engineer was sitting in a > cyber-cafe surfing the net and the thought arose, "I do not > understand the concepts of mind (nama), matter (rupa) and non-self > (anatta). I shall go and ask the Buddha to explain." > > Rob the Engineer went to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to > Him, he sat down at one side and said: > > "Venerable sir, please explain to me the concepts of mind (nama), > matter (rupa) and non-self (anatta)." > > "I will explain this to you, Engineer Rob, using the Internet as an > example. Before you came to me, what were you doing?" > > "I was typing at a computer, Venerable Sir." > > "What are the things that make up a computer, and what are their > functions?" > > "A computer has both hardware and software. The function of the > hardware is to provide a base of support for the software and the > function of the software is to receive and process the information > that is input." > > "Does the software operate according to fixed rules, according to its > nature, or is there a being or force controlling and directing the > software?" > > "The software operates according to fixed rules, according to its > nature." > > "Engineer Rob, you should understand the senses as you understand the > computer. The senses have both nama and rupa. Eye sensitivity, the > physical eye, is rupa. Eye consciousness is nama. The function of > rupa is to provide a base of support for nama. The function of nama > is to receive and process the information from the visible object. > Nama operates according to its nature and there is no self > controlling it. There is seeing, but there is no seer. This is the > view of non-self." > > "So in this analogy, nama corresponds to the software while rupa > corresponds to the hardware. Is this correct, Venerable Sir?" > > "It is so. Did the computer on which you were typing work in > isolation?" > > "No Venerable Sir, the computer was connected to the Internet." > > "You should understand that the senses do not operate in isolation > from the mind. How would you describe the 'Internet', Engineer Rob?" > > "The Internet is an uncountable number of computers, all running > software, working in unison. Venerable Sir, does this mean that the > mind is also nama and rupa?" > > "Yes, Engineer Rob, the mind is a combination of nama and rupa. Now, > is there any force controlling and directing the Internet?" > > "No, Venerable Sir, the Internet is a very complex combination of > hardware and software but there is no single thing in control of the > Internet." > > > "You should understand that though the mind is a very complex > combination of nama and rupa, there is no self in control of the > mind. Engineer Rob, is there a single thing that you can point to and > say, 'This is the Internet'?" > > "No Venerable Sir, it is an ever-changing grouping of hardware and > software that we label as 'Internet'. The 'Internet' is a concept; > the 'Internet' is not a piece of hardware or software." > > "This is how you should understand a person, Engineer Rob, as an ever- > changing grouping of nama and rupa; a concept, not an ultimate > reality. This is the view of non-self." > > "This analogy is most interesting to me, Venerable Sir." > > "Engineer Rob, what makes the Internet work?" > > "In addition to being governed by the laws of physics (signal > degradation, etc.), the foundation of the Internet is a set of rules > that define how software interacts (TCP/IP, HTTP, etc.). The Internet > is almost never at rest as there are almost always inputs arriving > from one of the clients." > > "Even so, In addition to being governed by the laws of utu-niyama (we > all must age), the foundation of a being is a set of rules that > define how nama interacts (citta-niyama, kamma-niyama). A being is > almost never at rest as there are almost always external objects > being apprehended by the five senses." > > "Please continue, Venerable Sir." > > "Engineer Rob, imagine that your student wished to have a better > understanding of the Internet. Would you advise that student to focus > their attention on the hardware or the software?" > > "Venerable Sir, Though hardware is necessary for the Internet to > exist, it is best to treat hardware as a platform for software and > focus on how hardware impacts the software (speed, capacity, etc.) > rather than the technical details of the hardware (processors, etc.). > What makes the Internet interesting and powerful is the interaction > between software. One can never truly understand the internet looking > at the macro-level (appearance of web pages, etc.). To truly > understand the Internet, one must understand how the underlying > hardware, software and rules work." > > "Exactly, Engineer Rob. Though rupa is necessary for a person to > exist, it is best to treat rupa as a platform for nama and focus on > how nama experiences rupa (solidity, temperature, motion) rather than > the technical details of rupa (protons, neutrons, electrons). What > makes a person interesting and powerful is the interaction of nama. > One can never truly understand a person looking at the macro-level > (personality, etc.). To truly understand a person, one must > understand how the underlying rupa, nama and niyama work." > > Engineer Rob was satisfied and delighted with what he had heard from > the Blessed One. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > PS: No, Engineer Rob did not become enlightened... I am not MANA > enough for that ! :-) 29610 From: Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 2:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi, Ken - In a message dated 2/2/04 1:34:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > ----------------------- > H: >I presume you believe that you have really answered what I have > asked, but I don't see it that way. It seems to me that, in each > case, you have responded by saying something having a related sense > to it, but not actually giving a clear and direct answer. > ------------------------------- > > If we were all accomplished Abhidhamma scholars, we could > communicate in the same language: As we are, it is hard to be on > the same wavelength. For me, it is hard enough to stay on my own > wavelength -- the mind changes so quickly. > > My Abhidhamma understanding extends about as far as "Right > understanding comes first." That means right understanding comes > before, not after, right effort. The right effort that is pertinent > to the Middle Way, is a cetasika; it arises with (in the same > conscious moment as) -- and depends upon -- the cetasika, `right > understanding.' > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: We start in the very midst of samsaric ignorance. To step off that dime, there must, of course, be some initial understanding of what the Buddha had to say and there has to be some appreciation for it. This sort of conventional, intellectual understanding and intention is required at the outset. But that is a far cry from the Right Understanding and Right Intention needed for liberation. And even the initial degree of understanding required is not something that can be willed. Either the conditions were previously forged for a degree of understanding-ability to be in place or not, but one can not simply say "May I understand" or "May there be wisdom". And anyway, nowhere is it said that the eightfold path is a linear one whose links develop in order. All aspects are needed and are supportive of each other. ------------------------------------------------------- > > We both know this but you seem more determined, than I am, to > pinpoint the conventional ramifications: You want to know if this > means we do something or if it means we don't do something. I don't > think there is a right answer to that. If pressed, I can only > say, "Because there is no self, there can be no control over > dhammas" or words to that effect. There are countless ways of > wording the same answer and it's all good `practice.' :-) > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: My take on your position, and of some others here, is that no-self implies no-volition. I think that is nonsense. Volition is impersonal. It is a fundamental error to think that volition requires an agent. To throw out the baby (the capacity to act with intent) with the bath water (a willing, acting agent) is to dismiss a necessary condition for following the Dhamma. ---------------------------------------------------- > > ----------------------------- > H: >Also, in one case, you add a presumption of wrong > view without giving evidence for same, > ----------------------------- > > Given that the Buddha taught anatta (not-self), any belief in self > is a deliberate (volitional) rejection of that teaching. That is > the definition of miccha-ditthi (wrong view). > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: And thus I have expressed no wrong view! ------------------------------------------------------- In subtle ways, we > > have wrong view every minute of the waking day. Trying to summon-up > right mindfulness is a form of wrong view (because there is no self > who can summon-up anything). ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Some phenomena have immediate volition as a condition for arising, and others don't. When you wish to open your eyes, Ken, with other supporting conditions in place, this can just be done. Likewise for paying attention. But there needn't be a self to do something in order for that something to be done. You seem to think that an action requires an agent. That is self view!! (It seems to me that because you actually have a rather *strong* self-view but also accept the belief that self-view is wrong view, you go to the far extreme as a "way out of the dilemma", and you adopt the belief that no willed activity is possible - "because there is no self who can summon-up anything.") ------------------------------------------------------- Giving-up on right mindfulness is > > another form of wrong view (because it implies it cannot be > conditioned). I find it handy to remember that even wrong view is > a suitable object for right view. > > --------------------- > H: >and several times you talk about "self", which is not anything > that I discussed or even hinted at. So, it seems to me that you did > not reply to what I asked, but instead replied to a post that is a > straw-man. > ------------ > > Everything, that is not the Middle Way, comes down to self-view in > one form or another. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I guess that settles that, Ken! And do you assume that you are the one to know what is Middle Way when you see it, and what is not? -------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------- > H: >When the Buddha said to guard the senses, he was instructing > his followers to engage in an activity. When he told them to abide > by the sangha rules, he was instructing his followers to engage in > an activity. When he told them to find an isolated spot and > meditate, he was instructing his followers to engage in an activity. > ---------------------------------- > > Before the Buddha taught any of these things, he taught that all > dhammas (conditioned and unconditioned) were anatta. So there is no > self who can follow, or not follow, his teaching. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, yes, yes, Ken. You are flogging a dead horse! ---------------------------------------------------- That means > > everything he said has to be understood in a way that is out of the > ordinary. For example it has to be understood as `description,' > not as `prescription.'. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that is 90% incorrect. All one needs to do is study the suttas, but without contorting the mind to accept an extreme position never taken by the Buddha, to see that the position is incorrect. ----------------------------------------------------- > > What better way could there be? Wouldn't you feel disappointed, > Howard, if the way out of samsara was in the least bit ordinary? I > would. I am very glad to have learnt that the way out is not, at > all, along the lines of; "Sit with your legs crossed. This way! No, > not like that; like this. OK, now put the left hand in the palm of > the right hand . . . thumbs like so . . . Now breathe in! . . No, > no, no; like this!" > Count me out! Not interested! > > ------------------------- > H: >My questions, in their bare form can be restated as > follows: 1) Is kamma (volition/action) a condition for the arising > of insight, or do you believe that insight arises or not independent > of kamma? > ------------------------ > > Kamma (cetana) is a universal cetasika and so it must arise with > insight. Cetasikas are mutually dependent in various ways and so, > yes, I suppose cetana is one of the conditions. In any case, the > right volition would not entail any sense of, "Let there be insight!" > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Nowhere have I maintained that insight can be willed. It arises as consequence of a lengthy progression of many conditions, among which are many instances of the exercise of will. Condition Z (insight) may require conditions A though Y, and with some of these being acts of volition, but none of them being a willing of "Let there be Z". --------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------- > 2) Are abiding by sila (for example the five layperson precepts) and > engaging in meditative cultivation (formal meditation, moment-by- > moment mindfulness, and guarding the senses) futile? > ------------------------- > > If these are conventional designations for certain moments of kusala > consciousness then, of course, they are conducive to the development > of panna. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Of course they are conventional designations. What else? (But they are shorthands for mountains of "realities") ----------------------------------------------- Otherwise, yes they are futile. For example, if I > > practice `attachment to living beings' under the illusion that it is > metta, that is still a step in the wrong direction. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: But contemplating one's own suffering and that of others, with the intention and effort made to see the commonality of feeling and response, can condition the inclination to metta in one whom such is weak. (Note: "In one whom" is conventional language.) ------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------ > 3) Do you maintain that the practice recommended by the Buddha > consists of nothing but studying and thinking about what he taught? > [Understanding, which you gave as something additional, is not a > volitional activity. One can decide to study and to think over. One > *cannot* simply decide to understand. Understanding is not a willed > activity. It is not part of a path of practice - it is a consequence > of a path of practice.] > ---------------------------- > > I don't accept the question. Firstly: understanding is as much a > volitional activity (sankhara-khandha) as is anything else. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: Really! I just willed typing this sentence, and the action followed. But my willing to understand something does not work. I can will thinking about it and paying attention to it, but I cannot will the understanding. Not everything is the same. ------------------------------------------- > Secondly: it is only according to our conventional view of reality > that one can `decide' to study and think over. In the same, > conventional way, one *can* decide to understand. (One can also > decide to fly to the moon.) Ultimately, reading and writing cannot > be willed. There is the illusion of willing, but that's as far as > it goes. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Willing is not an illusion at all. It is cetana. Thinking that, literally, there is a self/agent who wills, however, is an illusion. -------------------------------------------------- > > In that way, I see direct understanding (satipatthana) as a part of > Dhamma practice in the same way as are `hearing, considering and > discussing.' > > In answer to your follow-up post: This is no trouble at all -- > thanks for the extra questions. As I have just said (rather > wittily, I thought) it's all good `practice.' > > 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) 29611 From: Htoo Naing Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 8:09am Subject: Sanna and its implications Dear Dhamma Friends, There are five aggregates called khandha. They are rupakkhandha or aggregate of material, vedanakkhandha or aggregate of feeling, sannakkhandha or aggregate of perception, sankharakkhandha or aggregate of mental formation and vinnanakkhandha or aggregate of consciousness. Among these five khandha, sannakkhandha frequently cause confusion in terms of translation and interpretation. As usual, translation is not an easy job as any couple of languages will not be so close to fully understand each other. But interpretation on the other hand may work to make sense. Sanna is mostly understood as perception and at many Dhamma sites, sanna appears as perception. At another time, it may appear in the name of consciousness which is a bit confusing with citta which is consciousness. For example the highest jhana or the 4th arupa jhana is called n'evasanna-nasannaayatana arupa jhana. It is translated as neither perception nor non-perception. At another site, it is written as neither consciousness nor unconsciousness. Still there are others who believe that sanna is memory and they will persistently use sanna as memory and they will relate sanna with memory whenever the word sanna arise in a setting of Dhamma anywhere. What does Visuddhimagga say? Some believe that Visuddhimagga is a comprehensive collections of all Dhamma and whenever problem arise they will consult with Visuddhaimagga. What is 'sanna'? 1. Sanna is sense, sanna is consciousness, sanna is perception, sanna is 3rd aggregate of 5 aggregates. 2. Sanna means sense, perception, discernment, recognition, assimilation of sensation, awareness. 3. Sanna is consciousness of diversity. In etymology there appear words end with -nna. It means cognition or perception. Sanna, vinnana, panna are examples of words end with -nna or ~n~na. Here sanna is like knowledge of a child. Vinnana is like knowledge of ordinary adult. And panna is like knowledge of an expert. 4. Sanna is conception, idea, notion. 5. Sanna is a thing that used as a mark. It is a guiding wire. It is a guiding rope. '' Rukkha sanna pubbatta sanna karonto'' ''using trees and hills as guiding marks'' while trekking through jungles and forests. 6. Sanna as twofold. a) Patighasamphassaja. Sense impression and recognition b) Adhivacanasamphassaja. Association by similarities. 7. Sanna as threefold. 1)rupasanna 2)patighasanna 3)nanatthasanna. Kama, vyapada, vihinsa 8. Sanna as fivefold. Pancavimutti 1) anicca 2) anicce dukkha 3) dukkhe anatta 4) pahana 5) viraga 9. Sanna as sixfold. 1) rupa 2) sadda 3) gandha 4) rasa 5) photthabba 6) dhamma 10. Sanna as sevenfold. 1) anicca sanna 2) anatta sanna 3) asubha sanna 4) adinava sanna 5) pahana sanna 6) viraga sanna 7) nirodha sanna 11. Sanna as tenfold. 1) asubha 2) marana 3) ahare patikula 4) sabbaloke anabhirata 5) anicca 6) anicce dukkha 7) dukkhe anatta 8) pahana 9) viraga 10) nirodha 12. Still there are other unclassified definitions. Among these,three words deserve to be examined in some detail. There three words are sanna , vinnana , and panna. Sanna is like the knowledge of a child. For example, when a child see a penny coin he will perceive it as money coin. He will not know more than that as a normal child. As soon as he sees that coin, he immediately knows that it is a money coin. Vinnana is like the knowledge of an ordinary adult. When a man sees the same coin, he knows that it is a money coin and it worths a panny and it is not a 5 pence coin or 10 pence coin but one penny coin. And he knows that the coin can be used in circulation of money in trading. Panna on the other hand is like the knowledge of an expert. When a doctor of Chemistry sees a penny coin. He knows that it is a money coin. It worths one penny and it is not 5 pence or 10 pence coin but one penny coin. And he also knows that it can be used in circulation of money in trading. Moreover, he also knows that the coin is made of copper and the weight and texture of the coin is so and so. So panna is penetrative, analytical and in detail realization of all those which are to be realized. Sanna is sometimes translated as memory because there is some relation with memory but not to the extent that sanna is to be equated with memory. As can be seen in above detailing, sanna perceives. When a person see a green tree, he sees it as a green tree. Here there are many moments pass when he actually assumes what he has seen as a green tree. When 'he' first sees that green tree, he knows nothing more than a light and colours. If someone cannot believe this he can test himself by doing rapid blinking. There should place some object in front of him and that object should be replaced with another coloured thing. If the shift is very rapid, he will not know what the object is but just a light in colour. But in that object there always is at least a marker. See No. 5. Sanna is a thing used as a mark. He sees first green. That marker green provokes him another thought which causes arising of dhammaarammana or mental object at manodvara or mind door. As soon as the green colour is seen possible thoughts and concepts that may arise are 1. Grass as grass is always green. 2. Tree 3. Painting 4. Idea of hatred in some culture 5. Previous dressing with green colour 6. Green car 7. Green valvety sandles or footwear 8. Green hat 9. Holiday 10.Moss 11.Traffic light and accidents 12.Exitway of a building and disasters 13...and so on. Sanna works as perceiver of a mark attached to object. Memory on the other hand is a collection of concepts and ideas that suddenly flash back and all at once realize that these concepts are what he experienced. I hope this message is clear to all and this makes all members to arise comprehensive thoughts and provokes further search. May you all attain penetrative and analytical wisdom. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing JourneyToNibbana htootintnaing@y... JourneyToNibbana@yahoogroups.com 29612 From: Andy Wilson Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 8:11am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The Internet Sutra (a rerun) All, Rob: > "This is how you should understand a person, Engineer Rob, as > an ever- changing grouping of nama and rupa; a concept, not > an ultimate > reality. This is the view of non-self." My apologies in advance if this is a trivial question, but i am only beginning my study of abhidhamma (and, indeed, of dhamma generally) and would like to test my understanding to see if i am correctly following some of the discussions. It seems to me that the tendency of Rob's argument here and elsewhere is something like the following: A. buddhism teaches annica (impermanence) B. annata is closely connected to annica; because, given; C. that which can be said to truly exist is not subject to change and D. there is nothing in the mind that is not subject to change then; E. there is nothing in the mind (a subject of experience) that can be said to exist ultimately (== annata) Perhaps there is another premise here along the lines that 'that which does not exist ultimately does not exist really', or similar. Now i want to ask: if i have understood the argument correctly, what is the justification for holding that that which is subject to change is not ultimately real? Is there a fundamental difference between this line of argument and, eg., the belief of reductionist materialism that since everything is reducible to atoms (earth, fire, air and water / hydrogen, helium, etc.), then not only can experience be explained entirely by studying the laws governing the relations of these atomic constituents, but also any aggregate of such elements (eg. you or i, sensible objects...) has only an apparent or subsidiary type of existence. For example, the commonly used example in the texts of the chariot which is not more than the sum of its parts seems to carry this message. My worry stems from the fact that it seems to me generally unwise when analysing a phenomenon or object into it's elements to then hypostasise the consituents as the 'truly real' and evaporate the complex itself as 'not truly real'. why not instead treat all such reductions as provisional and relative, remove the need for ontological fundamentals ('ultimate consitituents of reality'), and abandon ontological absolutism (everything is either 'really real' or 'not really real'). in modern physics this is similar to the approach of, eg., david bohm i think. This would have the advantage of avoiding the sort of ontological absolutism that the experiental approach of adhidhamma probably could not support(?) have missed the point entirely? metta (i think) andy 29613 From: Michael Beisert Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 9:23am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hello Larry, Agreed. Why not let percolate during a walk? I got tthe impression you also appreciate a walk :) Metta Michael >From: LBIDD@w... >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas >Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 21:56:50 -0700 (MST) > >Hi Michael, > >Let's let this one percolate for a while. > >Larry >------------------------ >M: Hello Larry, >I am not saying that only conditions exist but since a phenomena arises >from a collection of conditions that collection can be regarded as the >sub elements of that phenomena. Conditions are any event, state or >process that explains another event, state or process, without any kind >of metaphysical occult connection between both. >Metta >Michael > > > 29614 From: Andy Wilson Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 8:50am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The Internet Sutra (a rerun) andy: > why not instead treat all such reductions as provisional and > relative, remove the need for ontological fundamentals I forgot to add that I like the notion of one existent 'supporting' the existence of another, as opposed to its 'constituting' the existence of the other, so to speak. This terminology seems to be used in abhidhamma i think, though i couldn't give references(?) andy 29615 From: Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 4:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Internet Sutra (a rerun) Hi, Andy (and Rob) - In a message dated 2/2/04 11:55:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, andy@l... writes: > > All, > > Rob: > >"This is how you should understand a person, Engineer Rob, as > >an ever- changing grouping of nama and rupa; a concept, not > >an ultimate > >reality. This is the view of non-self." > > My apologies in advance if this is a trivial question, but i am only > beginning my study of abhidhamma (and, indeed, of dhamma generally) and > would like to test my understanding to see if i am correctly following > some of the discussions. > > It seems to me that the tendency of Rob's argument here and elsewhere is > something like the following: > > A. buddhism teaches annica (impermanence) > B. annata is closely connected to annica; > > because, given; > > C. that which can be said to truly exist is not subject to change > > and > > D. there is nothing in the mind that is not subject to change > > then; > > E. there is nothing in the mind (a subject of experience) that can be > said to exist ultimately (== annata) > > Perhaps there is another premise here along the lines that 'that which > does not exist ultimately does not exist really', or similar. > > Now i want to ask: if i have understood the argument correctly, what is > the justification for holding that that which is subject to change is > not ultimately real? > > Is there a fundamental difference between this line of argument and, > eg., the belief of reductionist materialism that since everything is > reducible to atoms (earth, fire, air and water / hydrogen, helium, > etc.), then not only can experience be explained entirely by studying > the laws governing the relations of these atomic constituents, but also > any aggregate of such elements (eg. you or i, sensible objects...) has > only an apparent or subsidiary type of existence. For example, the > commonly used example in the texts of the chariot which is not more than > the sum of its parts seems to carry this message. > > My worry stems from the fact that it seems to me generally unwise when > analysing a phenomenon or object into it's elements to then hypostasise > the consituents as the 'truly real' and evaporate the complex itself as > 'not truly real'. why not instead treat all such reductions as > provisional and relative, remove the need for ontological fundamentals > ('ultimate consitituents of reality'), and abandon ontological > absolutism (everything is either 'really real' or 'not really real'). in > modern physics this is similar to the approach of, eg., david bohm i > think. > > This would have the advantage of avoiding the sort of ontological > absolutism that the experiental approach of adhidhamma probably could > not support(?) > > have missed the point entirely? > > metta (i think) > andy > =========================== The distinction between what some call "real" and what they call "unreal" may actually be the distinction between perceived and conceived. (By 'perceived' here, I don't mean "recognized" by the operation of sa~n~na, but simply directly present as opposed to inferred.) When we experience hardness, that is perceived in this sense. But when we experience a tree, all that are present are a number of visual and/or tactile sense objects plus one or more mind-door constructs built using multi-layered applications of sa~n~na and formational operations (sankhara). In the case of a tree, we *seem* to be cognizing an "external entity", but we are, in fact, only conceiving of such - there is nothing of that sort that is being directly perceived. That makes "the tree", if not necessarily unreal, at least unknown and merely inferred. But *all* the actual content of experience, all of what is actually and directly present (to the mind), is "real" in exactly the sense that it constitutes experience, and all of it is yet "unreal" in the sense that none of it is self-existent or independently existent. 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) 29616 From: Michael Beisert Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 9:42am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hello KenO, OK. Let it be. But read and reflect on the teachings of the Kaccayanagotta Sutta. Maybe you will understand. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-015.html Metta Michael >From: Kenneth Ong >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno >Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 14:28:32 +0000 (GMT) > >Hi Michael > >I have been through with you with this before so I do not wish to >restate myself. With your stream of thoughts and argument, there >will be no end to anything. Since everything exist do have essence, >we might as well dont have any thing exist at all in the first place. > I think you should look up in the sutta whether things exist or not >before a fruitful dicussion can be continue or I think this is not >going to benefit you or me. If your line of thinking you might as >well define anatta which is an essential characteristics of Buddha as >a being or an independent entity. > > >best wishes >Ken O 29617 From: Michael Beisert Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 10:24am Subject: RE: [dsg] Mahayana: lower realms Hello Chris, The following quote can be found in 'The Psycho-Ethical Aspects of Abhidhamma' by Rina Sircar (page 98-99): 'The Hinayana system does not offer any parallel to the first bhumi of the Mahayanist's pramudita, for it has no concern with bodhicitta. The second bhumi-vimala corresponds to the sotapatti and sakadagami of the Hinayana. The third bhumi-prabhakari corresponds to anagami of the Hinayanists. The fourth, fifth and sixth bhumis correspond to the abhipanna of the Hinayanists. With the sixth bhumi the comparison between the Hinayana and Mahayana stages ends.' Metta Michael >From: "christhedis" >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [dsg] Mahayana: lower realms >Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 10:35:55 -0000 > >Hi everyone, > >It's been a while since I posted or even read postings in here, I hope no- >one minds my occasional drop-in question. Also, I know this is a >Theravada group but I can't find an answer to my question anywhere, >so thought I'd try in here (plus I like you guys (and gals) :) > >So... in Mahayana, is there an equivalent to the Theravada stream- >enterer, in terms of attaining a level where one does not fall back into >lower realms (the stream-enterer level in Theravada)? I know >Mahayanists are not looking to enter the stream in terms of guaranteed >eventual nibbana, but do they have a level where they will be continually >reborn into the human or higher realms? I know they have a >Buddhahood level but I'm not sure what the implications of it are. > >Thanks, and best wishes to all. > >Chris. > > > > 29618 From: Michael Beisert Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 10:48am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The Internet Sutra (a rerun) Hello Andy, Andy: Perhaps there is another premise here along the lines that 'that which does not exist ultimately does not exist really', or similar. Now i want to ask: if i have understood the argument correctly, what is the justification for holding that that which is subject to change is not ultimately real? Michael: I guess it depends on how you define ‘ultimate reality.’ In my definition ultimate reality is something that exists based on its own power, without relying on anything else for its existence. Is that how you would define it? Andy: My worry stems from the fact that it seems to me generally unwise when analysing a phenomenon or object into it's elements to then hypostasise the consituents as the 'truly real' and evaporate the complex itself as 'not truly real'. why not instead treat all such reductions as provisional and relative, remove the need for ontological fundamentals ('ultimate consitituents of reality'), and abandon ontological absolutism (everything is either 'really real' or 'not really real'). in modern physics this is similar to the approach of, eg., david bohm i think. This would have the advantage of avoiding the sort of ontological absolutism that the experiental approach of adhidhamma probably could not support(?) Michael: I would very much agree with what you are saying. In my view it makes more sense to approach the Buddhist teachings from a phenomenological stand point and not dwell into ontological fundamentals. But the Abhidhamma, and more particularly some interpretations of the Abhidhamma, point towards the dhammas as being fundamental components of reality, ultimate realities with true existence. It has been a big point of contention which has sparked a lot of criticism being one of the reasons for the birth of Mahayana philosophy. Metta Michael _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 29619 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 0:29pm Subject: bangkok bits and detachment Hello Sarah, (KenH at end) and All, Disaster has struck :-) and I've lost all my notes and jottings on what particularly appealed to me about the discussions and experiences in Bangkok. So you're spared my dhamma ramblings. I'll have to rely on others to make up for my lack of dhamma topic contributions. This time, I was particularly struck by K. Sujins patience, Ven Yanatharo's openness and friendliness, and KenO's natural, irrepressible enthusiasm, willingness to talk, and knowledge of the dhamma. My arriving a day before the discussions were due to start, allowed Betty and I to do a little sightseeing and catching up. At the temple with the reclining Buddha (?name) I saw a SAL tree in flower ( the twin Sal trees from the Mahâ-Parinibbâna-Sutta (v. and vi.) of the Digha-Nikâya?). "Be so good, Ânanda, as to spread me a couch with its head to the north between twin sal-trees. I am weary, Ânanda, and wish to lie down." "Yes, Reverend Sir," said the venerable Ânanda to The Blessed One in assent, and spread the couch with its head to the north between twin sal-trees. Then The Blessed One lay down on his right side after the manner of a lion, and placing foot on foot, remained mindful and conscious. Now at that time the twin sal-trees had completely burst forth into bloom, though it was not the flowering season;" I took a photo of the tree, and of the unusual flower. I've seen many bodhi trees, but to see the species of trees that the Blessed One died between, was exciting for me. Betty always takes me interesting places - we took a rough boat-trip across the choppy river to a restaurant for lunch and then I had a guided Cemetery tour at the end of the day. (I'm not sure I'd like to know where my rupa-bits are going to be after death, unlike the equanimous Betty.). The strangest conversation (E&OE) of the weekend occurred when I needed someone to translate into Thai (for the taxi driver) the instructions that Betty had written in English on how to get to the Foundation. The Marriott concierge's translation faltered, so we thought to ring Jon at the Peninsula Hotel. The room didn't answer, but Sarah was tracked down to the lobby. Taking my call on one phone and locating Jon by using another phone, Sarah's lateral thinking was to hold the two phones at the Peninsula Hotel together to that we, at the Marriott, could shout questions at Jon. Needless to say, it didn't work, and 'someone' eventually showed some compassion and took the phones out of Sarah's hands, transferred the call, so that the M. Concierge could speak to Jon and write in Thai. :-) :-) I agree with Jon that this time in Bkk seemed to revolve around friends, old and new, and food. (It was, strikingly without chicken in most places, though the Marriott was still serving chicken congee. Should Kentucky Fried Chicken now change its name from KFC to KFF as it was only selling fish?) I need to thank Ivan this time round for a few conversations, over breakfast and at Sukin and Betty's delicious lunch, about the Present Moment. From something he said, I clearly understand how there is absolutely no control, no self, but how we still manage to live an ordered life with decision making and planning occurring. However, my ability to explain in words seems to have slipped away again (Why does it DO that!?) and I look forward to a refresher next time. I did have the skeleton of a post in my (lost) jottings - wondering what the Buddha 'really meant' by detachment. Defining attachment/detachment/non-attachment, passive internal compassion/active external compassion, and (lets throw in) anatta, mana, and restorative justice as well - triggered by Sarah's remarks at the airport about my predilection for strong reactions about seeing victims in stories (i.e. Vesantara Jataka, Angulimala, ill Soi dogs, chickens buried alive, patients referred to me in crisis etc.), and her question about what the deeper meaning of this predilection is. [Fortunately, I didn't reply with the old but true Australianism of 'b-gg--ed if I know'] How can beginners in the Dhamma, enmeshed in the world and relationships, be detached 'from the beginning'? Isn't this like expecting us not to have a 'sense of self' from the beginning? As Vince said "I'm not enlightened yet, you know." Don't these things come along the way a bit - maybe with attaining Stream Entry - and would it be possible for beginners? Going home via Singapore was the usual Changi Airport experience - I swear that I'm going to go in one of the game shows next time. I think if you sat in one of the coffee shops there, everyone you know will eventually traipse by. Or maybe it's just every Australian you know will ev... Hey KenH - I've a copy of Nina's "Conditions - an Outline of the twenty four paccaya" for you from the Foundation via Sarah. You have two choices - to wait until the next Cooran weekend and I'll bring it, or send me your postal address. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 29620 From: Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 4:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Sukin: "I do sometimes "look at the experience of tangible data", but increasingly I detect `self´ at play behind this." ..."I believe the deliberate looking at experience is fueled not only by lobha but also by wrong view, such that encouraging the kind of practice would be increasing both." "I believe whatever citta arises to experience any object, whether sense or mind, there is never a reason to feel that it should have been otherwise." Hi Sukin, What is this self that you detect? Is "deliberate looking" not allowed? What is the problem if you see a defilement? Can you really see an intention? If not, how do you know it was there? Larry 29621 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 6:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Rob M > The Abhidhamma texts that we have written down today > (Dhammasangani, Vibhanga, etc.) were not the direct words of the Buddha (unlike the Suttas, most of which include the direct words of the Buddha). The Abhidhamma texts that we have written down today were inspired by the Buddha and if the timing is correct, implicitly accepted by the Buddha but were never spoken in this form by the Buddha. k: They are not inspired by the Buddha bc only Buddha has the knowledge of Abhidhamma. They are taught by the Buddha to VEN Sariputta. No Arahants can teach the dhamma without Buddha teaching them in the first place. Not even a pacceka Buddha can teach the dhamma. k: Definitely there are notes in Abhidhamma cannot be found in the sutta and that does not exclude it being taught by the Buddha. Abhdhidhamma being technical bc the nama and rupas are complex. Sutta is conventional terms, if Buddha will to use technical terms in the suttas, the sutta will be very long. Just imagine replace the *self* as the five aggregtes etc. If you think that Sutta should take precedence over Abdhidhamma in your earlier mail, IMHO it is bc you do not have much confidence in the Abdhidhamma text and it is not the Abdhidhamma text in question. There is no conflicts when there is conflict, it is bc it is not explain properly or pple do not read the Abdhidhamma text carefully and consider it thoroughly. Just like the recent about magga/phala. The sutta is so clear. When we talk about one training to be atttaining the fruits of Stream entrant - it indicates mahakusala with or without panna (depends on conditions) hence there is no magga yet as one is not enlighted. When one is enlighted (Stream entrant), then there is magga and phala. Furthermore the sutta is longer than quoted, there are four other kinds, it includes also danna to animals. These are the problems, the bias of writers who do not show the details and discuss out of context. Even though I am not a well thorough read like Nina or many others here, if you feel like talking a point in sutta that is in conflict with Abhidhamma, I would like to discuss with you thoroughly. k: When others who do not believe in Abdhidhamma like James, question the text, that is understandable. This time I am of grave concern bc you write to magazines, taught to students and internet. If you do not have confidence in the text enough, I sincerely hope you stop writing or teach others. Until you feel that these are taught by Buddha and these texts are not in conflict or sutta does not take precedence, then you are call one in touch in Abhidhamma. Or not I think you will only influence more misunderstanding to others. I am not a student of A. Sujin, in fact I do not have any teacher(except for dhamma), hence I am talking as a neutral party. best wishes Ken O 29622 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 6:05pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Michael This is what I call writer bias, essence have six difference meanings which I have write to you before. It can also define as The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something. Do you have more in discussion to support your case other than running in circles about essence, existence and intrinsic. I state again, you have not yet show in any sutta or commentary text to back up your case esp on sabhava and also your so call regression theory (sub khandhas). best wishes Ken O --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello RobM, > > Essence by definition is unchanging and independent. Therefore it > cannot > arise dependently. > > Metta > Michael > > 29623 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 6:28pm Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Ken O, Ken: When others who do not believe in Abdhidhamma like James, question the text, that is understandable. This time I am of grave concern bc you write to magazines, taught to students and internet. If you do not have confidence in the text enough, I sincerely hope you stop writing or teach others. Until you feel that these are taught by Buddha and these texts are not in conflict or sutta does not take precedence, then you are call one in touch in Abhidhamma. Or not I think you will only influence more misunderstanding to others. I am not a student of A. Sujin, in fact I do not have any teacher(except for dhamma), hence I am talking as a neutral party. James: Well, since you mention me, I guess I will jump in here. Frankly, I don't understand what you are getting so worked up about. Rob simply explained that the Buddha had taught the general outline of the Abhidhamma to Ven. Sariputta and gave Sariputta the authority to elaborate on it and teach it to those monks who have that type of intellectual bent. So Rob is just saying that the Abhidhamma isn't the direct, spoken word of the Buddha, but it did come from the Buddha's enlightened mind. And, over the years, other texts were added to the Abhidhamma. Now, if you want to get excited about anybody, you should get excited about me! ;-)) I doubt that the Buddha explained the Abhidhamma to Ven. Sariputta or anyone. I think the Buddha went only as far as the five aggregates and the six sense bases and that was it! I think the Abhidhamma was invented by scholar monks about three hundred years after the Buddha's parinibbana. Furthermore, I don't think you have the right to tell anyone who can and who cannot teach the Abhidhamma, and I think you owe Rob an apology in that regard. Metta, James 29624 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 9:10pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not/Andrew Hi Andrew, I wrote: ------------------ >> and it is interesting to imagine what the world would be like if there were a self. It would be so different from the world > we know. It is probably even harder to comprehend than anatta. (At > least anatta is real.) ----------------- To which you replied: ----------------- > Perhaps you would like to expand on this point, KenH. What would the world be like if there were a self? ------------------ I was hoping you would tell me :-) Despite giving it a lot of thought, I haven't reached any startling conclusions. A self would have to be similar to an almighty god, wouldn't it? (Except, the one we were taught about, never seemed particularly happy with his lot.) A self wouldn't be impermanent or unsatisfactory (but that sounds like not-self) . . Sorry, I've got to stop thinking about it: I'm like a dog chasing its tail. Kind regards, Ken H 29625 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 9:18pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi James, Thanks for this Pali glossary. You say you got it from access-to- insight. They don't like the Abhidhamma there, do they? That would explain the imprecision of their definitions. :-) Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Ken, Rob, Azita, and All, > > Just a quick explanation of meditation terms: > > Satipatthana is an umbrella term, meaning Foundations of Mindfulness, > which includes the more specific methods of Vipassana, Anapanasati, > and Sati. > > 29626 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 9:26pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not Hi Rob M, Thanks for the rundown on Path factors; it's not quite the way I'm used to reading it but I won't try too hard to pick holes in it. A couple of comments though: ----------------- RM: > One must start with a mundane "right understanding". ------------------------------ Sorry if I'm taking you too literally, but I wonder where one really `starts' Dhamma practice. Remembering that the practice is; "lovely at the beginning, lovely at the middle and lovely at the end,' (sorry; no ref.), we can safely say the beginning is kusala. However, I wouldn't say it was with `right understanding.' In the ultimate sense of hearing, considering and discussing Dhamma, only kusala moments are involved. Mundane right understanding might accompany such moments (in which case there is satipatthana), but only if we're very lucky. Our intellectual understanding would have to be very comprehensive, I would think. Perhaps mundane right understanding (at the level of satipatthana) is what the sutta regards as `lovely at the middle.' (?) (Perhaps not.) On the subject of surfing; I was saying that no amount of practice would improve my accumulated tendencies (natural ability) for my next human life: ------------------- RM : > I believe that because of your practice in this life, that you will be naturally drawn toward surfing in your next life. This is natural decisive support condition at work. However, there is nothing to say that your body in your next life will be more suited to surfing than your body was in this life. -------------------- Yes, that sounds right. I might come back as keen as ever but my surfing attributes (both physical and mental) will depend on wholesome and unwholesome kamma. There's not a lot of wholesome kamma involved, unfortunately – we surfies are a rough mob. ----------------- On the subject of whether the Buddha taught us to be mindful of `every' action and `every' choice, you wrote: ---------------- RM: > You are not being pedantic and I will insert the word "present". On the other hand, how can one be truly "mindful" of anything else other than the present? :-) ---------------- Exactly! Ambitious aspirations to `always practise Dhamma' may do wonders for our ego, but it is only the present moment that counts. When we consider what we actually understand about the present billionth of a second, the ego is not so outspoken :-) Kind regards, Ken H 29627 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 9:31pm Subject: Re: bangkok bits and detachment In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > > I need to thank Ivan this time round for a few conversations, over > breakfast and at Sukin and Betty's delicious lunch, about the Present > Moment. From something he said, I clearly understand how there is > absolutely no control, no self, but how we still manage to live an > ordered life with decision making and planning occurring. However, > my ability to explain in words seems to have slipped away again (Why > does it DO that!?) and I look forward to a refresher next time. > >_________ Hi Chris., Sounds like a fun and beneficial time - and who could want more. Ivan has keen understanding, and wit to match. I figure if him and KenH ever meet up they will be friends for life. Why does it slip away - because it is conditione like that, anatta. Understanding accumulates though; if there is enough listening, considering and application then it seeps into the bones and won't be easily dislodged. Robk 29628 From: Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 9:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta Hi Icaro, Is there a grammatical reason why sankhara khandha is translated as "mental fabrications" rather than "mental fabricators"? It occurred to me that sankhara khandha is the only khandha that arises as multiple dhammas (contact, volition, one-pointedness, life faculty, attention, etc.). Because of that it seems like the only khandha that is truly an aggregate in itself. Although rupa arises in an inseparable group and all the khandhas arise together in reality. Perhaps that is why it is called mental fabrications. It seems like a slippery word to translate. Larry 29629 From: Sukin Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 10:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Larry, > What is this self that you detect? Is "deliberate looking" not allowed? > What is the problem if you see a defilement? Can you really see an > intention? If not, how do you know it was there? Thanks for asking. I did think about the possibility of being asked along these lines when I wrote. And just now I was reading Howard's response to Ken H. and had some thoughts but am a little hesitant to butt in. So I will say something here. The "self" can be associated with tanha, mana or ditthi. For me the first two exist in their most gross forms all the time, so I do not particularly worry about whether the more subtle forms are there. Coming to appreciate the Buddha's teachings doesn't mean that lobha will not influence how I view and apply the teachings. I can see that as much as I desire 'worldly' gains, I now desire 'spiritual' ones. There are instances when lobha is unaccompanied by 'view', when seeking this or that object happens as a consequence of seeking pleasant feelings and a general desire to 'be'. If there is some level of sati during such instances, it would be largely due to I believe, Rt. View. Though this level of Rt. View is only intellectual and therefore very weak, meaning that it is immediately followed as usual by all sort of akusala, it makes sense to me that with the further development of understanding, instances of sati arising under any circumstance would also increase. At this point I am thinking about natural decisive support condition. I believe that the development of panna depends directly on the varied situations under which sati could arise, and this I believe depends on how much one has heard, considered and understood the teachings. About conditionality, how "sati" as a reality arises dependent on other factors, but primarily Rt. View. The intellectual appreciation of the Tilakkhana and how Dependent origination is taking place all the time. I also believe that if we can appreciate that 'intention' arises with every citta, we would not be particularly impressed by the "stories of dhamma" which could in fact be an instance of 'ignorance' of this present moment. What I am trying to say is that intention is not a factor of the path, and we can have wrong understanding of the Teachings, thinking that development of panna requires that certain things have to be done, implying that those particular conditions *do* exist now or *will arise* because of certain conventional activity. I can understand people of other religions and also those Buddhists who do not appreciate the Abhidhamma. That they may be wrongly lead to the conclusion that 'observing', 'watching', 'seeing' is all one needs to do to know one's own mind. Whether they believe in a 'lasting mind' or they fail to appreciate the difference between consciousness with lobha and consciousness with sati, there seem to be a logical connection between 'observing' and coming to 'see and understand' and therefore to the 'intention' to do so. However with the knowledge of the complexity of conditions, the notoriety of lobha and moha, that only kusala and not akusala can condition more kusala, that panna of the patipatti and pativedha level must start with the pariyatti level and that all is anatta, I think 'deliberate' attempt at creating conditions or thinking that one knows what it might be, is I believe increasing not only ignorance, but also wrong view. And it is possible I think, that during moments when such thoughts arise, that 'Self View' and 'clinging to self' can be detected. So to answer your question Larry, "Is "deliberate looking" not allowed?" I just want to say that if you detect that you are taking the wrong path to a particular destination; would you still want to take it? However it is not a question of turning away having judged that it is wrong (even this will happen, but not to worry), but understanding that it is conditioned because there are conditions for it. And we know that the conditions for wrong view are in plenty, hence the urgency to develop more Rt. View. :-) Hope I have indirectly answered some of your other questions. Metta, Sukin. 29630 From: Andrew Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 10:24pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not/Andrew --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > > ----------------- A: Perhaps you would like to expand on this point, KenH. What would > the world be like if there were a self? > ------------------ > > Ken H: I was hoping you would tell me :-) Despite giving it a lot of > thought, I haven't reached any startling conclusions. > > A self would have to be similar to an almighty god, wouldn't it? > (Except, the one we were taught about, never seemed particularly > happy with his lot.) A self wouldn't be impermanent or > unsatisfactory (but that sounds like not-self) . . Sorry, I've > got to stop thinking about it: I'm like a dog chasing its tail. > Ken H I feel let down! :-) I thought you were going to show me a fresh new angle, a perspective I hadn't thought of before! Since we live in a world of illusory self, surely a world of self would be rather similar to that we think we already inhabit?? It would be a world of permanence and there would have to be some explanation of dukkha other than the unsatisfactoriness associated with impermanence. It would be a world where you really COULD say "I was the Queen of Sheba in a past lifetime" and not get frowned upon! LOL Andrew 29631 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 10:46pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hi Michael, Kens H & O, Steve, Suan, RobM, Nina & All, --- Michael Beisert wrote: M: > I have recently read a sutta which reminded me of a recent thread on >the sotaapanno magga and phala consciousness. It was argued, based on the > Vsm, > that both magga and phala consciousness occur in succession while I > said, > based on what I heard from a bhikkhu, that those are separate events, > that > magga happens with the elimination of one of the 3 lower fetters, and > phala > with the elimination of all 3 lower fetters. .... S: This is incorrect, I believe. As B.Bodhi summarises from the texts in his introduction to the Upanisa sutta: “Each momentary path-experience eradicates a determinate group of defilements ranked in degrees of coarseness and subtlety, so that the first path eliminates the coarsest defilements and the fourth path the most subtle. The defilements cut off by the paths are generally classified as ten "fetters" (samyojana), receiving this designation because they fetter sentient beings to samsara. With the first path the yogin eradicates the first three fetters -- personality view, doubt, and misapprehension of rules and observances. Thereby he becomes a "stream-enterer" (sotapanna), one who has entered the stream...” .... M: > The Visudhimagga states that: > Vism XX11, 15 > "Immediately next to that knowledge (stream-entry path consciousness), > however, there arise either two or three fruition consciousnesses, which > are its result. > > The Abhidhammattha Sangaha states that: > Cittasangahavibhaga, 26 & 27 > Each path consciousness issues automatically in its respective fruition > in > the same cognitive series, in immediate succession to the path. ..... S: Also, see the Patisambhidamagga, Khudaka Nikkaya, (~Naa.namoli transl,PTS, ch X1, The Path, ch X11, Fruition, chXXX11, Concentration with Immediate Result). It is clear that defilements are eradicated by the sotapatti magga cittas and the sotapatti phala cittas follow immediately. .... M: > The sutta in question is the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta (MN 142). > ... M: > It is quite clear that the stream enterer and the one practicing for the realization of stream entry fruition are two distinct individuals with > two > corresponding consciousnesses which leads to the conclusion that magga > consciousness and phala consciousness do not occur in succession, in the > > same cognitive series, as described in the Visudhimagga and the > Abhidhammattha Sangaha. ... S: It’s an interesting sutta and I appreciate your points. I’ve been considering it quite a bit. The same Pali words are used as in the other texts raised before by Steve, Nina and others. For example, ‘sotaapattiphalasacchakiriyaaya pa.tipanno - reached the realization of the fruition of the sotapanna (as Nina translated it). Before, Steve read it (in the context of a quote from the Abhidhamma text, Puggalapannatti) as suggesting ‘working for the realization of the fruition stage of the stream-attainer’or someone ‘who has not yet “put away the three fetters” and has not yet become a stream-attainer’. When I first read the extract of this sutta you posted, it also suggested to me that this wider meaning might be implied. In other words, as we know, all other factors being equal, the fruit or benefit from the act of giving is different according to the wisdom and virtue of the recipient. So, in this sutta, I read it as possibly referring to the 14 recipients: 1. Buddha 2. Paccekabuddha 3. Arahants 4. On the way to ‘fruit’ of Arahantship, i.e between Anagami and Arahant 5. Anagami 6. On the way to Anagami 7. Sakadagami 8. On the way to Sakadagami 9. Sotapanna 10. On the way to Sotapanna, i.e worldling developing insight 11. Non-Buddhist who has attained jhanas (outside the Dispensation, free from lust for sensual pleasures) 12. ‘Vurtuous, ordinary person’ 13. ‘Immoral ordinary person’ 14. Animal. Of course, within each of these categories there are numerous sub-categories, such as under animal, the size and so on. In another translation I looked at: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima3/142-dakkinavibhanga-e.htm For the 4th type above, for the Pali ‘arahattaphalasacchikiriyaaya pa.tipanne’, it gives: ‘A person fallen to the method of realizing worthines’ and adds a note which says: ‘Before attaining worthiness the bhikkhu has to make much effort to attain worthiness.’ The ~Naa.namoli/B.Bodhi transl gives: “one gives a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realisation of the fruit of arahantship’ and for the 10th type it gives: ‘...to one who has entered upon the way to the realisation of the fruit of stream-entry’. Here the translators give a brief but telling note from the commentaries which possibly supports my wider reading of this passage: “MA and M.T [comy and sub-comy] explain that this term [i.e sotaapattiphalasacchakiriyaaya pa.tipanno] can be loosely extended to include even a lay follower who has gone for refuge to the Triple Gem, as well as lay people and monks intent on fulfilling the moral training and the practice of concentration and insight. In the strict technical sense it refers only to those possessing the supramundane path of stream-entry.” .... S:In other words, according to the commentaries the 10th type -- as I understand this note -- refers to all worldlings developing insight like us;-) I’m not sure if the last ‘technical’ comment is from the commentaries of the translators. In any case, the latter ‘strict tecnical sense’ as Jon wrote before, this ‘is simply a streamwinner progressing to the corresponsing fruition moment.’ Nina also added more on this meaning and the reference to the 4 pairs of ariyans. Perhaps Steve or Suan can add any further comments from the commentary and sub-commentary?? I’ll sign off with the relevant extract from the Udana commentary which Nina gave in part for consideration of ‘the technical sense’ also. Metta, Sarah ...... S: Masefield transl, PTS, Sona Chapter: ‘The sotaapanna (sotaapanno): the one steadfast after entering upon, after reaching, the sota (N:stream) reckoned as the path, meaning the one stationed in the sotaapatti-fruit. The one practising for the realisation of the sotaa-patti-fruit (sotaapattiphalasacchikiriyaaya pa.tipanno): the one practising (pa.tipajjamaano) with the aim of setting before him at first hand the sotaapatti-fruit, the one stationed in the first path, who is also called "one aboard". The once-returner (sakadaagaamii): the one whose nature is that of returning, by way of relinking, but once more to this world, the one stationed in the second fruit. The non-returner (anaagaamii): the one who nature is that of not returning, by way of taking relinking, to the world of sense-desires, the one stationed in the third fruit...” ..... As Jon wrote before: ‘As to the use of ‘practice’ to describe the momentary progress from magga citta to phala citta, we need to understand how the term ‘practce’ is used in the texts. Generally, it is used to mean progressing along the path, that is, actual insight, particularly for the person who is already a stream enterer or above. the ‘path’ itself is in fact the four stages of enlightenment.’ =================================== 29632 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 11:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Ken O, > > Ken: When others who do not believe in Abdhidhamma like James, > question the text, that is understandable. This time I am of grave > concern bc you write to magazines, taught to students and internet. > If you do not have confidence in the text enough, I sincerely hope > you stop writing or teach others. Until you feel that these are > taught by Buddha and these texts are not in conflict or sutta does > not take precedence, then you are call one in touch in Abhidhamma. > Or not I think you will only influence more misunderstanding to > others. I am not a student of A. Sujin, in fact I do not have any > teacher(except for dhamma), hence I am talking as a neutral party. > > James: Well, since you mention me, I guess I will jump in here. k: I am always careful to mention you except on very exceptional cases ;-). > Frankly, I don't understand what you are getting so worked up > about. Rob simply explained that the Buddha had taught the general outline of the Abhidhamma to Ven. Sariputta and gave Sariputta the > authority to elaborate on it and teach it to those monks who have that type of intellectual bent. So Rob is just saying that the Abhidhamma isn't the direct, spoken word of the Buddha, but it did come from the Buddha's enlightened mind. And, over the years, other texts were added to the Abhidhamma. k: James you got to understand that Abhidhamma to me is the word of the Buddha. If it is not the word of the Buddha, then Abhidhamma should not be Abdhidhamma in the first place - then it should be considered the elder's words and not Buddha words. That is the whole difference in both. Furthermore, this shows that one does not really understand that the principle that only Buddha is able to teach the dhamma to others before others can teach the rest. > > Now, if you want to get excited about anybody, you should get > excited about me! ;-)) k: I am always excited by your thoughts and comments ;-). So far others have reply so there is no need for me to go in the show unless I find it interesting. J: I doubt that the Buddha explained the Abhidhamma to Ven. Sariputta or anyone. I think the Buddha went only as far as the five aggregates and the six sense bases and that was it! I think > the Abhidhamma was invented by scholar monks about three hundred years after the Buddha's parinibbana. k: No it cannot be bc it is too precise. > Furthermore, I don't think you have the right to tell anyone who > can and who cannot teach the Abhidhamma, and I think you owe Rob an apology in that regard. k: No. I dont owe Rob an apology. Even it is TB I will also advise him not to write things that he does not really study or consider it thoroughly. Sometimes his comments on the commentaries really disturb me. It is alright to make one personal comment just like you. But it is not right for one who teaches and propagates Buddhism has no confidence in the anicent texts. To me this is developing more wrong views etc for others and this is dangerous. To me this is serious matter bc when one teaches - one is highly regarded and follow by. best wishes Ken O 29633 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 11:46pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Michael As I said before if it is regression theory then how is satipatthana going to work. With your theory, - the feelings felt by Buddha should also be smaller still - then I think I dont how Buddha becomes sumpreme in knowledge bc there is still regression behind his knowledge. Certain issues are not discuss by the Buddha bc it is not beneficial just like origination but certain issues are discuss thoroughly and there is no reservation on the part by Buddha to explain in details. Issues like khandhas, dependent origination etc. So your assertion of your view is I think not support unless you can provide logical argument. I do not even ask for evidence, I am just requesting for logical argument. best wishes Ken O > > Michael: > Another way of looking at the issue is to think that the khandhas > are just a bunch of conditions which come together and because of that coming together a phenomena arises that the Buddha has called a khandha. It will not be difficult to see that this bunch of conditions can be regarded as 'sub khandhas'. 29634 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 11:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] new member Hi Andy, I’ll keep this short as KenO has been complaining that I just say the same to all new members anyway;-) --- Andy Wilson wrote: > hello, > > i am a new member, andy, introducing myself. ... I’d just like you to know that even though we were away, we were very glad to read your detailed intro and to thank you very much for it. Do you have a pic to go in the Member album? Can we encourage any others out of the woodwork too? http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/ You might like to see others (and James, when either Sukin or Christine or both get their pix in order, you might notice that you’re no longer the most youthful looking regular contributor;-)). .... <.....> > several years ago i had a health crisis and believed i might be > seriously ill. as a reaction i decided to try to broaden my point of > view (actually, trying to 'break' it on the grounds that it seemed even > to me to be obviously inadequate to my experience.) .... Actually, it was after a health crisis and participating in an on-line medical support group, that we got thinking about DSG..... ..... <....> > more recently however i began to practice some yoga exercises to help > with a slight injury and was impressed by it's effect on me from the > outset (i've only been practising for the last month or so). at the same > time, i happened to start reading her copy of naradas Abhidhammattha > Sangaha. i had browsed it before without it attracting me. this time > however i began to read it closely and have been drawn to it, though i > have not yet finished my first reading. i think i am attracted not only > to it's rigour, but it's 'plausibility' based on my own experience, > including some slight experience of meditation. through my reading many > of the concepts i found in buddhism that i found wooly and indeterminate > have begun to come into focus as ideas and experiences i am maybe > already somehow familiar with in different ways. for whatever reason, > much has at least begun to make sense to me and i would like to find out > more. .... I’m also from England. I wanted to tell Ken O that perhaps this is partly why I go through a rigmarole of pleasantries, but then you get straight to the point in your posts and disprove the theory;-) (I also have family members in M/c, some who do yoga as I do, but not for any enlightening experiences;-). .... > i am interested in this list to see if it can help me gain a clearer > understanding of buddhist philosophy / dhamma. i am especially > interested in how i can best deepen my understanding 'around the edge of > the text' by expanding my experience of meditation and yoga. i am also > casting around looking for opportunities to meet others in person who > might help me develop my understanding in a more focussed way. .... Hope to meet you one day. Meanwhile, RobM kindly responded and mentioned Nina’s book on Abhidhamma and CMA, I think. For searching the archives, you may find it useful to have these links handy: Pali glossary: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossary_of_pali_terms Back-up of archives with useful search functions: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ RobM’s back-up of archives in word document for reading and searching off-line: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ (he lost a lot of work, so it’s not quite up to date) Selected posts *by the moderators;-)* from the archives under topics http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts RobK’s websites - all good material *imho*: http://www.abhidhamma.org/ http://www.vipassana.info/ .... > as i am new to this tradition and culture, i apologise in advance for my > inevitable misunderstandings. .... You’ve got off to a great start and I also apologise likewise (you see, KenO....we speak the same language;-)) Btw, we have two on-going (but currently taking short breaks) study corners and you may find it useful to purchase the texts. One is the Visuddhimagga - Understanding corner led by Larry. The other is the Samyutta Nikaya (mostly using the Bodhi translation) one led by James*. Welcome again and hope you can encourage your girlfriend to participate as well. Metta, Sarah *p.s James, Christine & all in this corner - what do you say to kind of continuing to read through the SN in order --ie moving on to Marasamyutta-- even if we jump all over the place according to other threads that come up without any fixed rules in this regard?? ============================== 29635 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 11:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism - Long Hi Jeff Brooks You definition of jhana is not in accordance with Ancient text - are you also doubting those Arahants who wrote it???? Do you doubt that the Arahants not experiencing jhanas??? By the way you have not answer my previous qn, your definition of jhana is only esctasy but in the sutta it is both esctasy and mindfullness so how do you explain this jhanas of yours is only esctasy. Ken O 29636 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 11:58pm Subject: New Photos Hi all, Some new photos from the recent Bangkok meeting in the DSGMeetings folder. Enjoy. Sukin. 29637 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 0:32am Subject: Word of the Buddha (was:The Origin of Namarupa.....) Hi KenO & All, --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > k: James you got to understand that Abhidhamma to me is the word of > the Buddha. If it is not the word of the Buddha, then Abhidhamma > should not be Abdhidhamma in the first place - then it should be > considered the elder's words and not Buddha words. That is the whole > difference in both. Furthermore, this shows that one does not really > understand that the principle that only Buddha is able to teach the > dhamma to others before others can teach the rest. .... S: I appreciate these comments. Even the Kathavatthu and ancient commentaries can be referred to as 'buddhavacana'as I understand. From the time when key disciples like Mahakaccayana and Sariputta elaborated on brief comments and teachings given directly by the Buddha, any further commentary in conformity with this teaching became the 'word of the Buddha'. As you have said, whilst good friends may act as (often essential) guides, it is the Dhamma-vinaya or Buddhavacana itself which has to be our real teacher. In the Pali Text Society brochure, it says: PA¯LI LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE The main division of the Pa¯li canon as it exists today is threefold, although the Pa¯li commentarial tradition refers to several different ways of classification. The three divisions are known as pi akas and the canon itself as the Tipi.taka; the significance of the term pi.taka, literally “basket”, is not clear. The text of the canon is divided, according to this system, into Vinaya (monastic rules), Suttas (discourses) and Abhidhamma (analysis of the teaching). The PTS edition of the Tipi.taka contains fifty-six books (including indexes), and it cannot therefore be considered to be a homogenous entity, comparable to the Christian Bible or Muslim Koran. Although Buddhists refer to the Tipi.taka as *Buddhavacana, “the word of the Buddha”*, there are texts within the canon either attributed to specific monks or related to an event post-dating the time of the Buddha or that can be shown to have been composed after that time. The first four nika¯yas (collections) of the Sutta-pi.taka contain sermons in which the basic doctrines of the Buddha’s teaching are expounded either briefly or in detail. **** S:Indeed the use of the phrase ‘Buddhavacana’ which was used at the first council was not simply what the Buddha had said but that which accorded with the teachings of the Buddha. Let me sign off with a sutta from Anguttara Nikaya which elaborates. Please see the notes at the end. Metta, Sarah ===== http://www.abhidhamma.org/small%20learning.htm Catukkanipata, Bhandagamavaggo, 6) Learning and Virtue “Brethren, there are to be seen existing in the world these four beings. Which four? He that is ill-versed (in the Norm) and leads not a virtuous life; he that is ill-versed but leads a virtuous life ; he that is well-versed but leads not a virtuous life, and he that is well-versed and also leads a virtuous life. Brethren, who is the ill-versed person that leads not a virtuous life ? Here (in the world) a certain one is but slightly versed in the Sutta, Geyya, Veyyàkarana, Gathà, Udàna, Itivuttaka, Jàtaka, Abbhuta-dhamma and Vedalla,'(2) but, is ignorant of the primary and interpreted meaning (of the Norm) and has not reached complete righteousness. This indeed, brethren, is the ill-versed person who leads not a virtuous life. Brethren, who is the ill-versed person that leads a virtuous life ? Brethren, here (in the world) a certain one, though slightly versed (in the Norm consisting of the Sutta; and the rest), knows the primary and the interpreted meaning of that little, and governs his life accordingly. This indeed, brethren, is the one who is ill-versed but leads a virtuous life. Brethren, who is the well-versed person that leads not a virtuous life ? Brethren, here (in the world) a certain person is well-versed in the Sutta and the rest, aind knowing the primary and the interpreted meaning of the much he has learnt governs not his life accordingly. Brethren, this indeed is the person who is well-versed but leads not a virtuous life. Brethren, who is the well-versed person that leads a virtuous life ? Here (in the world) -a certain one who is well-versed (in the Norm consisting of the said Nine Factors) and, knowing the primary and interpreted meaning of the text, governs his life thereby. Brethren, this is the person who is well-versed and leads a virtuous life. Brethren, these four persons are indeed to be seen existing in the world.' He who is ignorant and careless in his ways- Men blame him for his ways and lack of learning too. He who is ignorant, but careful in his ways- Men praise his character, the' knowledge is not his He who is deep in lore, but careless in his ways- Men blame his character; his knowledge goes for naught. He who is deep in, lore and careful in his Men praise his character and learning deep as well. But deep in love, knowing the Norm, In wisdom perfect following The all- enlightened One as guide, A lump of solid gold is he. Who rightly can speak ill of him? Even the devas praise that man: Brahmà himself speaks well of him. ======================= 1 The four persons are. (1) the ignorant and sinful one, (2) the ignorant but vrrtuous one (3) the-versed but sinful one, and (4)the well versed and passion-free One (Arahant).-Comy. Anusota-gàmin, Patisota-gàmin. Thitatto, Pàragato 2 These are called the 'Nine Factors of the Norm '—Navanga Buddha-sàsana. Sutta is discourses including the two Vibhangas, Niddesa, Khandaka, Parivàra, Sutta Nipàta, Mangala úutta and other discourses bearing the name of Suttas. Geyya is discourses with accompanying verses, especially the Sagàthaka Vagga of the Samutta Veyyakarana consists of the whole of Abhidhamma Pitaka, and discourses unaccompanied by verses, but unincluded in the other eight divisions. Gathà, consists of Dhammapada, Thera- and Theri~gàthà, Sutta Nipiita and pure verses not called discourses. Udàna forms the eighty-two 'Sayings of Joy' of the Master. Itivuttaka is the sayings of the Master-Logia. Jataka is the five hundred and fifty stories relating to the Bodhisatta's past lives. Abbhuta-Dhamma is the record of the Lord's wonderful phenomena. Vedalla includes Culla-Vedalla, Maha-Vedalla and Sammà Ditthi and other discourses of exultation. [Sabbampi sagaathaka.m sutta.m geyyanti veditabba.m, visesena sa.myuttake sakalopi sagaathaavaggo. Sakalampi *abhidhammapi.taka.m*, niggaathakasutta.m, ya~nca a~n~nampi a.t.thahi a"ngehi asa"ngahita.m *buddhavacana.m*, ta.m veyyaakara.nanti veditabba.m. Dhammapada-theragaathaa-theri-gaathaa suttanipaate nosuttanaamikaa suddhikagaathaa ca gaathaati veditabbaa.] ====================================================================== 29638 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 1:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Word of the Buddha (was:The Origin of Namarupa.....) Dear KenO, RobM & All, Let me also requote from an earlier post which elaborates further on the nine divisions in the AN sutta I just quoted. Metta, Sarah ***** Nina quotes posts from Sarah: S: ..... Nina: The word of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Vinaya as taught by him, consists of nine divisions which are: Sutta, Geyya, Veyyåkaraùa, Gåth å,Udåna, Itivuttaka, Jåtaka, Abbhuta and Vedalla. See the 'Expositor', Atthasåliní, Introductory Discourse, 26. The teachings as compiled (not yet written) literature are thus enumerated in the scriptures as nine divisions, for example in the 'Middle Length Sayings' I, no. 22. Sutta, geyya, etc. are nine divisions (angas) of the Tipitaka, and of these: Veyyåkaraùa or 'Exposition' includes the Abhidhamma Pi.taka, the suttas without verses, and the words of the Buddha which are not included in the other eight divisions. ..... Post from Sarah: S: ..... Also from Sarah: QUOTE ***** S: "The Abhidhamma was in existence during The Buddha’s time. This can be proved from the following passages in the Book of Discipline, vol 111: a)"p.415 "Not given leave means: without asking (for permission). Should ask a question means: if, having asked for leave in regard to Suttanta, she asks about discipline or about Abhidhamma, there is an offence of expiation. If, having asked for leave in regard to Abhidhamma, she asks about Suttanta or about Discipline, there is an offence of expiation." b) "p.42 "There is no offence if, not desiring to disparage, he speaks, saying: "Look here, do you master suttantas or verses or what is extra to dhamma (i.e. Abhidhamma)and afterwards you will master discipline’; if he is mad, if he is the first wrong-doer." "These passages clearly show that Abhidhamma was in existence during The Buddha’s time because rules about it were laid down by Him. c)"Also in Middle Length Sayings 1, p.270.....Gosinga sal-wood.......Further dhamma...*....Mogallana is a talker on dhamma** Footnotes * "It is Abhidhamma and it is specifically stated in the Burmese Editions.... ** "Moggallana is called chief of those of psychic power, Ai,23. MA ii,256 explains that abhidhamma-men, having come to knowledge of subtle points, having increased their vision, can achieve a supermundane state’. Non-abhidhamma-men get muddled between ‘own doctrine’(sakavaada) and ‘other doctrine’ (paravaada)." d)"Again, at the time The Buddha returned to Sankassanagara from Tavatimsa, the realm of 33 gods, Sariputta, in Sariputta Sutta, unttered the following in praise of The Buddha: "Erst have I never seen Nor heard of one with voice So sweet as his who came From Tusita to teach." (Suttanipata verse No 955, transl by E.M. Hare, p.139) ...... "This verse is also found in Mahaniddesa (Sixth Synod, p.386), where there is a detailed commentary on it. The following is the commentary on the first line: "At the time The Buddha, after having resided for the period of Lent on the Pandukambala Stone at the foot of the Coral tree in Tavatimsa, came down to Sankassanagara.......... "When Sariputta, based on the methods given by The Buddha, preached Abhidhamma to his pupils, The Buddha not only stated that He had expounded the Abhidhamma in Tavatimsa but also narrated this Sariputta Sutta to be left behind as evidence of having done so for the later generations. The Mahaniddesa was included in the Three Councils.> ***** N: Note:The Bahiranidana is the intro to the Co of the Vinaya by Buddhaghosa. You will have your hands full. I quote these passages because I find that there are many misunderstandings about the dating of the Abhidhamma. This subject comes up all the time, as you will see. And see this one from Sarah today: S:<“But in the list [of four things] beginning with sutta, sutta means the three baskets which the three Councils recited. ‘Accordance with sutta’ means legitimate by being in accord [with what is explicitly legitimate]. ‘The word of a teacher’ means the commentary.> N: Thus three Baskets, not two. Abhidhamma is included. Nina. ======== 29639 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 1:47am Subject: Re: New Photos Thanks Sukin. Great to see the venerable Ajahn Jose. Also Chris., Vince, Nina, Sarah,....A lot of farang! And KenO and Manu: fine to see some black-haired youths among all the grey haired ones! RobK dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi all, > > Some new photos from the recent Bangkok meeting in the DSGMeetings > folder. > 29640 From: bodhi2500 Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 2:27am Subject: Re: Sotaapanno Hi All Thanks to all who replied to my last post on this thread. Here is another sutta about sotapanna that I don't understand> Practising..SN48;18;8 Bhikkhus, there are these five faculties. What five? The faculty of Faith/energy/mindfulness/concentration and wisdom. One who has completed and fulfilled these five faculties is an Arahant. If they are weaker than that, one is practicing for the fruit of Arahantship;If still weaker,one is a non-returner etc /snip/ if still weaker, one is a stream-enterer; if still weaker, one is practicing for the realization of the fruit of stream entry. But Bhikhhus, I say that for one in whom these five faculties are completely and totally absent is `an outsider, one who stands in the faction of worldlings' Com.> In this sutta the faculties are exclusively supramundane. Anyone know why the faculties of a "one practicing for the fruit of Stream entry" would be weaker than a stream-enterers faculties? Thanks Steve 29641 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 2:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yet more discussion (and food) Hi Nina, Sarah, Jon, Christine and Sukin and Manu K: I learn one thing in this discussion - dont sit near A Sujin bc she will ask me qns. Simple but difficult qn "What is dhamma?" "what is seeing" "Right understanding" gosh.... Two person sti S: I’m still not sure why he thinks it’s so dangerous to travel in the same car as any of us and would rather hike down Charoen Nakorn Road (long, busy and polluted) k: I was rather full during lunch and for the past few days I have not exercise so I decided to have a walk. I like walking as ut allows me to see the culture and life of ordinary Thai pple. S: or why he’s convinced it’s a waste of time for me to offer any pleasantries such as ‘how’s your tea?’ or welcomes to new members, (KenO: ‘if it’s not dhamma it’s akusala), k: Comes to think about it, Maybe I am a bit too judgemental about it. Maybe I expected more from dhammas friends (Nina - here is another example of conceit) k: Two persons strikes me, first is Vince - a very open-minded and friendly person (sometimes he strikes me as a lost found brother) and who reminds me about being too quick to judge. Secondly is Nina - I was expecting a teacher like person - instead a vibrant and energetic person. Full of energy. For the rest - just as what I have picture about through the emails k: I have found the info on the Buddha smiling cittas. It ise in the commentary of Abdhimmattha Sangaha. Will type out the text next time. Ken O As Jon said, our old friend Vince arrived > with > all the meditation and samatha qus and honestly, at times, K.Sujin > couldn’t get a word in either. It was never boring and the lunches > and > brunch together were most enjoyable too..... dhamma and catch-up > (Ok, KenO > - dhamma and lobha). > > Many thanks to all who joined us in Bkk and especially to Betty and > Sukin > for coordinating us all so well while we were there. We still don't > know > what happened to Chuck from Texas, but Pinna, an old friend and > lurking > member from Texas was with us. > > Even greater thanks to all those who have been contributing here in > our > absence in such good form and humour and thereby enabling us to > really > take a good break knowing we were leaving the list in your good > finger-tips. > > With metta, > > Sarah > p.s KenO - I’ll get into some straight dhamma soon - well, maybe > after a > welcome or two to new members,that is;-) Have a good trip back to > Sing. > (oops, there I go again;-)) And remember to send a fax or letter to > BPS re > your Samyutta Nikaya order!! > ====== > > > > > > > > > > > > 29642 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 3:06am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Ken H, Ken: Thanks for this Pali glossary. James: You're welcome. Ken: You say you got it from access-to-insight. They don't like the Abhidhamma there, do they? James: Actually, the site is run by one man, John Bullitt, and he doesn't say he doesn't `like' the Abhidhamma, this is what he writes, "Likewise, you won't find any texts from the Abhidhamma here, simply because I haven't found the Abhidhamma -- as fascinating as it certainly is -- to be particularly helpful to meditation practice." From my experience in this group, I would certainly agree with him there! ;-)) It seems that study of the Abhidhamma with any intensity, with the exception of Rob M, makes one very anti- meditation. Honestly, this really does break my heart. I would prefer to belong to a group which encourages each other to meditate, to directly know what the Buddha taught, and to share those experiences perhaps in the context of the Abhidhamma. But that isn't to be here; theoretical knowledge reigns supreme. But I do appreciate the intellectual level and the basic level of courtesy I find in this group that I don't find in others. I just hope my participation doesn't have a negative influence on my own meditation practice. Conditions are important to consider. Ken: That would explain the imprecision of their definitions. :-) James: Really? I didn't find the definitions imprecise. If you care to explain how the various definitions are imprecise that would be fine with me, and perhaps helpful for everyone. I just offered the list because I have noticed that the Pali Glossary offered in this group's Files Section doesn't contain hardly a single Pali term related to meditation. Again, those are negative conditions for the practice. I was hoping to balance things out a bit. Metta, James 29643 From: Andy Wilson Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 3:09am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Ken: > They are not inspired by the Buddha bc only Buddha has > the knowledge of Abhidhamma. They are taught by the Buddha to > VEN Sariputta. No Arahants can teach the dhamma without > Buddha teaching them in the first place. Not even a pacceka > Buddha can teach the dhamma. The question of 'authorship' of abhidhamma makes me want to ask: is what is at stake here the question of whether the buddha could be the buddha if he did *not* have abhiddhama knowledge (ie., prior to codification / authoring of abhidhamma texts)? tia andy 29644 From: icarofranca Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 3:16am Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta Dear Larry: " Is there a grammatical reason why sankhara khandha is translated as > "mental fabrications" rather than "mental fabricators"? It occurred to > me that sankhara khandha is the only khandha that arises as multiple > dhammas (contact, volition, one-pointedness, life faculty, attention, > etc.)." --------------------------------------------------------------------- You can trace two distinct lines of interpretation at these issues: a) Exegesis (a greek word that means something like "grammar"), b) A direct approach on facts, mainly ethological and medical ones. The first indicates a direct link between Khanda's definition and the similar ideas on Pali Grammar. You get compound terms that behaves under definite rules. When you think about "fabricated" or "factoring", you take a stand on these line of interpretation - compound terms, as the Khandas, unites two or more words in only one, with the last one suffering the change due to grammar position. Since the sequence is usually (there are exceptions!) Specific term + generic term, who fabricate things fabricates something, so the Khandas act as factoring ( with Citta as counterpart ) their concomitant Cetasikas at almost all cases. But there is not a "impedimenta" for the reverse case anyway... it only seems more rare to occur. The other one is the Ethology approach: the social melee within Buddha lived on. Since all external phenomena may be taken as a personal affair between reality and my own mind, factoring or factored take no more pound on balancing perceptions, and at compounding these perceptions in more complex terms. Since you, as a good and clever Bhikkhu, take the Pali Language as a super-ego's imperative, so you get the Khanda Analysis as a grammar compound tainted with kusala or akusala modes of expression, to interpret your own reality! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Because of that it seems like the only khandha that is truly an > aggregate in itself. Although rupa arises in an inseparable group and > all the khandhas arise together in reality. Perhaps that is why it is > called mental fabrications. It seems like a slippery word to translate. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Note the strong grammatical colors all these reasonings are taking out... since they are mental fabrications, so they behave at world ruled by symbolism and grammar ( Noah Chomsky comes at my help at these occasions!!!). In resume, I think that the Khandas fabricate our cetasikas, but not with our minds as a "tabula rasa" ( blank white sheet of paper). Citta takes a rule also on it - the Fabulous Rob Moult's essay expounds these issues very well!!! But corrections are welcome anyway!!! Don't fear thinking, Larry... it Doesn't hurt!!!!! mettaya, Ícaro > > Larry 29645 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 3:17am Subject: Re: Free Will or Not/Andrew Hi Ken H. and Andrew, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" > wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > > > > ----------------- > A: Perhaps you would like to expand on this point, KenH. What would > > the world be like if there were a self? > > ------------------ > > > > Ken H: I was hoping you would tell me :-) Despite giving it a lot > of > > thought, I haven't reached any startling conclusions. > > > > A self would have to be similar to an almighty god, wouldn't it? > > (Except, the one we were taught about, never seemed particularly > > happy with his lot.) A self wouldn't be impermanent or > > unsatisfactory (but that sounds like not-self) . . Sorry, I've > > got to stop thinking about it: I'm like a dog chasing its tail. > > > > Ken H > I feel let down! :-) I thought you were going to show me a fresh new > angle, a perspective I hadn't thought of before! > Since we live in a world of illusory self, surely a world of self > would be rather similar to that we think we already inhabit?? It > would be a world of permanence and there would have to be some > explanation of dukkha other than the unsatisfactoriness associated > with impermanence. It would be a world where you really COULD say "I > was the Queen of Sheba in a past lifetime" and not get frowned upon! > LOL > Andrew If you would like to have an idea of what it would be like to have a `self', I would suggest you watch the movie "Everlasting Tuck". It is about a family that drinks water from a magical spring and as a consequence they develop a `self'; they never grow old, never die, never get sick, and never change. It is a very interesting movie with some strong Buddhist lessons. Metta, James 29646 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 3:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] new member Hi Sarah, Sarah: James, when either Sukin or Christine or both get their pix in order, you might notice that you're no longer the most youthful looking regular contributor;-)). James: Well, that is good! (and maybe not so good ;-)). You know, when I was younger I just couldn't hardly wait to get older and look older; it seemed that no one took me very seriously. My appearance didn't seem to match my mind. Now that I am starting to look older I am not so sure I like that either! ;-)) Dukkha, Dukkha, Dukkha!! ;-)) Sarah: The other is the Samyutta Nikaya (mostly using the Bodhi translation) one led by James*. James: Sarah, you keep trying to give me a leadership role in this study and I keep trying to not accept any such thing ;-)). I do not feel qualified to lead such a thing…I'm too young!! LOL! Sarah: James, Christine & all in this corner - what do you say to kind of continuing to read through the SN in order --ie moving on to Marasamyutta-- even if we jump all over the place according to other threads that come up without any fixed rules in this regard?? James: Sure, that sounds fine to me. We dropped the study for a while because we were all so busy with deep and weighty thoughts! ;- )) Mara is a very interesting subject and it would probably be good to move on to him/it. Metta, James 29647 From: icarofranca Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 3:42am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Dear James: "Now, if you want to get excited about anybody, you should get excited > about me! ;-))" --------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow!!!! Let's raise a proposal for a "Sexy Sutta"!!! --------------------------------------------------------------------- I doubt that the Buddha explained the Abhidhamma to > Ven. Sariputta or anyone. I think the Buddha went only as far as the > five aggregates and the six sense bases and that was it! I think the > Abhidhamma was invented by scholar monks about three hundred years > after the Buddha's parinibbana. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Right, althought I ought to disagree with the term "invented"! The Abhidhamma was codified ( that's exactly the word for it) circa three hundred years after Buddha's passage to Parinibbana. All Theravadin Schools take these pitaka as sound Buddhistic Doctrine : it seems to my compreehension that the Abhidhamma's texts are a great resume of all metaphysical and philosophical dialogs between Buddha and His Arahats ans Boddhisattas, and AFTER the dialogs between the members of the Sangha. The FAQ (Frequent Answered Questions) scheme of the Vibhanga, for example, indicates also a effort to teaching laypersons the Basics about Buddhism at a easy and clever way. And if you think that lacks poetry in all Abhidhamma, The Dhammasangani is a great poem as a whole, and the Pattahana a true compilation ( abstract, of course!) of ancient traditions of classical India! Buddha explained many aspects of His Doctrine at Sariputta, Subhuti and others by the means of Poetry and old traditions...and at these aspects the Abhidhamma follows His footprints! But... I've forgot!!! I am a fan of Abhidhamma and my opinions about it are tainted up with personal views!!!! --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Furthermore, I don't think you have the right to tell anyone who can > and who cannot teach the Abhidhamma, and I think you owe Rob an > apology in that regard. --------------------------------------------------------------------- As a matter of fact, only members of the Sangha may preach Dhamma. Mettaya, Ícaro 29648 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 4:19am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Icaro, "Now, if you want to get excited about anybody, you should get excited > about me! ;-))" --------------------------------------------------------------------- Icaro: Wow!!!! Let's raise a proposal for a "Sexy Sutta"!!! James: LOL!! That is not the type of excitement I meant!! ;-)) I meant excited as in agitated, vexatious. Icaro: Right, althought I ought to disagree with the term "invented"! James: I chose that term to be especially vexatious! ;-)) `Codified' would be fine to me also. Icaro: And if you think that lacks poetry in all Abhidhamma, The Dhammasangani is a great poem as a whole, and the Pattahana a true compilation ( abstract, of course!) of ancient traditions of classical India! James: I don't know if the Abhidhamma lacks poetry or not. I have yet to read any of the Abhidhamma translated into English. I just go on what others write about it. Icaro: As a matter of fact, only members of the Sangha may preach Dhamma. James: Okay, well this depends on how you define `Sangha'. If you mean only ordained persons, then I don't know if I completely agree (but I could be wrong about that). Also, if you mean only ordained persons then you, Icaro, break this standard all the time (even in this post) and this group should be shut down immediately! Metta, James 29649 From: wen Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 3:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] need help... Dear Larry, Thank you so much for your attention, I'm a Buddhist living in Indonesia and yes the asubha bhavana that I asked was about contemplation of the impurities of the body. I read about it some and also focussed to it's function to reduce desire, but I cannot get the complete instructions, since I don't think many people like this kind of contemplation. I have some photos of dead bodies from the internet (decaying, bleeding, also skeletons). And yes I have read about this sutra of mindfulness but still I'm afraid of walking on the wrong path, so maybe there would be a Sangha member from this forum that can give me some advice… thank you, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Wen, > > Welcome to the group. Is asubha bhavana the reflection on the > repulsiveness (foulness) of the body? I don't know of anyone here > practicing this, but perhaps we can be of a little help anyway. What > kind of photos do you have and where did you get this practice? Have you > studied the satipatthana sutta? Why do you want to do this particular > practice? Maybe you could tell us a little bit about yourself. Below is > a link to the commentary on the part of the satipatthana sutta dealing > with repulsiveness. > > Larry > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m17170.html 29650 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 5:38am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Ken O and all, Whether Abhidhamma is the original words of the Buddha or if Abhidhamma is the Dhamma that the Buddha taught has been debated and views have been expressed about it. I believe that you realize that not all members in DSG have the same view regarding Abhidhamma as you do. I believe that most members in DSG accept that the discourses have the reliable records of the Buddha's teaching and his words. So at least there is a common ground upon which the discussion on the Buddha's teaching can be based. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Rob M > [snip] > best wishes > Ken O 29651 From: Michael Beisert Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 9:27am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hello KenO, Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the Simsapa forest. Then, picking up a few Simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "How do you construe this, monks: Which are more numerous, the few Simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the Simsapa forest?" "The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the forest are far more numerous." "In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn56-031.html "This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, passing away, and re-arising. This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle revolves for the manifesting (discernibility) of this world -- i.e., name-and-form together with consciousness. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn15.html In the first sutta quoted the Buddha confirms that his kwoledge goes far beyond what he has taught, and in the second sutta the Buddha is saying that namarupa and consciousness is how far our discernment can extend, and therefore that is enough for liberation. Combining those two suttas with some additional thinking about conditionality should not be hard to figure out that dhammas are not paramatha from an ontological sense but from a purely empirical point of view. Metta Michael >From: Kenneth Ong >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas >Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:46:01 +0000 (GMT) > >Hi Michael > >As I said before if it is regression theory then how is satipatthana >going to work. With your theory, - the feelings felt by Buddha >should also be smaller still - then I think I dont how Buddha becomes >sumpreme in knowledge bc there is still regression behind his >knowledge. Certain issues are not discuss by the Buddha bc it is >not beneficial just like origination but certain issues are discuss >thoroughly and there is no reservation on the part by Buddha to >explain in details. Issues like khandhas, dependent origination etc. > >So your assertion of your view is I think not support unless you can >provide logical argument. I do not even ask for evidence, I am just >requesting for logical argument. > > >best wishes >Ken O > > > > > Michael: > > Another way of looking at the issue is to think that the khandhas > > are just a bunch of conditions which come together and because of >that coming together a phenomena arises that the Buddha has called a >khandha. It will not be difficult to see that this bunch of >conditions can be regarded as 'sub khandhas'. > > > 29652 From: christhedis Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 9:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mahayana: lower realms Then I guess the answer is.. yes :) Thanks to both replies, any more are welcome. Chris. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > Hello Chris, > > The following quote can be found in 'The Psycho-Ethical Aspects of > Abhidhamma' by Rina Sircar (page 98-99): > > 'The Hinayana system does not offer any parallel to the first bhumi of the > Mahayanist's pramudita, for it has no concern with bodhicitta. The second > bhumi-vimala corresponds to the sotapatti and sakadagami of the Hinayana. > The third bhumi-prabhakari corresponds to anagami of the Hinayanists. The > fourth, fifth and sixth bhumis correspond to the abhipanna of the > Hinayanists. With the sixth bhumi the comparison between the Hinayana and > Mahayana stages ends.' > > Metta > Michael > > > >From: "christhedis" > >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > >Subject: [dsg] Mahayana: lower realms > >Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 10:35:55 -0000 > > > >Hi everyone, > > > >It's been a while since I posted or even read postings in here, I hope no- > >one minds my occasional drop-in question. Also, I know this is a > >Theravada group but I can't find an answer to my question anywhere, > >so thought I'd try in here (plus I like you guys (and gals) :) > > > >So... in Mahayana, is there an equivalent to the Theravada stream- > >enterer, in terms of attaining a level where one does not fall back into > >lower realms (the stream-enterer level in Theravada)? I know > >Mahayanists are not looking to enter the stream in terms of guaranteed > >eventual nibbana, but do they have a level where they will be continually > >reborn into the human or higher realms? I know they have a > >Buddhahood level but I'm not sure what the implications of it are. > > > >Thanks, and best wishes to all. > > > >Chris. 29653 From: Michael Beisert Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 10:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] need help... Hello Wen, I suggest you proceed very, very carefully with this kind of meditation. I did it once, briefly at a retreat, and it is very powerful. I suggest you seek advice from a teacher. But if you don't have a teacher nearby and want to start anyway, I would suggest you use the method employed by novice monks which is to use the hair, hair of the body, teeth and nails as object. How to do the meditation can be found in the Visudhimagga. Metta Michael >From: "wen" >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [dsg] need help... >Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 11:25:31 -0000 > >Dear Larry, >Thank you so much for your attention, I'm a Buddhist living in >Indonesia and yes the asubha bhavana that I asked was about >contemplation of the impurities of the body. I read about it some >and also focussed to it's function to reduce desire, but I cannot >get the complete instructions, since I don't think many people like >this kind of contemplation. I have some photos of dead bodies from >the internet (decaying, bleeding, also skeletons). And yes I have >read about this sutra of mindfulness but still I'm afraid of walking >on the wrong path, so maybe there would be a Sangha member from this >forum that can give me some advice… > >thank you, > > > > >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Hi Wen, > > > > Welcome to the group. Is asubha bhavana the reflection on the > > repulsiveness (foulness) of the body? I don't know of anyone here > > practicing this, but perhaps we can be of a little help anyway. >What > > kind of photos do you have and where did you get this practice? >Have you > > studied the satipatthana sutta? Why do you want to do this >particular > > practice? Maybe you could tell us a little bit about yourself. >Below is > > a link to the commentary on the part of the satipatthana sutta >dealing > > with repulsiveness. > > > > Larry > > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m17170.html > > 29654 From: Michael Beisert Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 9:16am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hello Sarah, Welcome back to our routine :) Sarah: S: This is incorrect, I believe. As B.Bodhi summarises from the texts in his introduction to the Upanisa sutta: With the first path the yogin eradicates the first three fetters -- personality view, doubt, and misapprehension of rules and observances. Thereby he becomes a "stream-enterer" (sotapanna), one who has entered the stream. Michael: I don’t think he is talking from his own experience, based on the interview he gave to the BCBS magazine a while ago. If it is from the commentary it could just be the same source as the Vsm and that does not add much to the discussion. Sarah: In any case, the latter ‘strict tecnical sense’ as Jon wrote before, this ‘is simply a streamwinner progressing to the corresponsing fruition moment.’ Michael: You are confirming what I said. He is a stream-winner and continues his practice (i.e. progressing) towards fruition. Two distinct separate moments that do not happen in succession. Here is another sutta for you: “And furthermore, just as the ocean is the abode of such mighty beings as whales, whale-eaters, and whale-eater-eaters; asuras, nagas, and gandhabbas, and there are in the ocean beings one hundred leagues long, two hundred... three hundred... four hundred... five hundred leagues long; in the same way, this Doctrine and Discipline is the abode of such mighty beings as stream-winners and those practicing to realize the fruit of stream-entry .. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/udana/ud5-05.html#abode The beings that live in the ocean are clearly different individual beings, and the stream-winners and those practicing for the fruit are also different individuals, otherwise the analogy doesn’t make sense. Metta Michael 29655 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 10:48am Subject: Letters From Mara Hi All, In lieu of a formal introduction to the Marasamyutta in the SN, I want to quote a bit of material written by a Ven. Punnadhammo about Mara (and provide the direct link at the bottom). It is a fictionalized account of the figure of Mara dictating a memo to his 10 legions of squadrons: Sense Desires, Boredom, Hunger and Thirst, Craving, Sloth and Acidy, Cowardice, Uncertainty, Malice and Obstinacy, Honor/Renown/Notoriety, and Self Praise and Denigration of Others. These various legions are listed by the Buddha in the Padhana Sutta. It is supposed to be written in modern times to help close up the hole in Samsara left by the Buddha: "It is quite true that one very clever "fish" escaped our net two and half millennia ago. I fully accept responsibility for that catastrophe. As you have all studied the history in basic training, I need not go over it in great detail. Remember, I tried my very best. Even my daughters dancing for him didn't move him. Even my terrible aspect, which sometimes frightens myself, had no effect. Worse, after he penetrated the true nature of our little game, I couldn't persuade him to keep it to himself; although, I thought I almost had him convinced. "Alas, what's done is done, and there is a small hole in our net through which beings continue to escape. Happily, all indications are that the hole grows smaller with time. It is very hard for our little fishies to imagine that their true welfare lies outside the net; all we need to do is to divert them from thoughts of the canning plant! … "I know this sounds preposterous, but most humans don't think these things through very carefully. They like what feels good and never mind the consequences. The only trick for us is to keep them diverted and entertained. We must keep coming up with new enticements as the old ones become tired. Even with our tried and true standards -- sex and food -- we need to develop new variations and twists. … "But we cannot rest, for there are a few beings getting dangerously close to finding a way out of our power. They are starting to reflect or even to practice renunciation and meditation. Once they discover that their true happiness is not based on our trickery, they may escape. We must use all the resources at our disposal to confuse them. Although they may be sitting quietly, their minds are still easily distracted. Fantasy is a great thing, especially since a mind with a bit of concentration can powerfully visualize and hold even our unwholesome objects. "The thing we must not let them do is to contemplate the real nature of the body. You would think that anyone of even moderate intelligence could see the inherently foul and unstable nature of those meat-machines they drag around. After all, they have to be constantly washing and perfuming the stinking things just to bear being in each other's company! But they don't see that and don't want to see it. We merely have to keep them looking at their bodies in a highly selective way, emphasizing the largely visual characteristics identified as "beautiful". It's an easy enough trick." http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/maracontent.html Metta, James 29656 From: Andrew Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 4:08pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not/Andrew Hi James Thanks for this tip - I will definitely look out for this movie. Not likely to be in the local video shop as I live on the edge of a village of 500 people and, it has to be said, their taste in videos leaves something to be desired. :-) You wrote: > If you would like to have an idea of what it would be like to have > a `self', I would suggest you watch the movie "Everlasting Tuck". It > is about a family that drinks water from a magical spring and as a > consequence they develop a `self'; they never grow old, never die, > never get sick, and never change. It is a very interesting movie > with some strong Buddhist lessons. > James, I think your search for a Buddhist discussion group in which everyone shares your interpretation of Dhamma is a bit like the search for the Holy Grail. But I do hope that some of the other meditators give you encouragement on and off list. It may interest you to know that the strictest and pushiest meditator I have ever come across, someone who frequently suggested I was lazy in my "meditation practice", was a chap who now goes under the name of "Ken H"! :-) There's a lesson in anicca for you!! I have no control over what other people think, so I just enjoy the ride! Best Wishes Andrew PS a bit cheeky, I know, KenH - but you've said as much before - and good on you for sharing your Dhamma journey with us! 29657 From: Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 4:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] need help... Hi Wen, I'm glad you wrote back. First, let me say I'm not qualified to give meditation instruction, so what I say is just my idea. I agree with Michael, the best way would be to talk to a meditation master to get detailed instructions. If you do this, ask a lot of questions. Make sure you understand. Concerning meditation in general, it is best to set up a clean, quiet place where you won't be disturbed. Plan on meditating for a certain length of time, say half an hour at first, then gradually increase the time. Do this every day if you can, and at the same time. Start be sitting with good posture, on a cushion, on the floor, with crossed legs, facing your object of meditation or a blank wall. If this is too difficult, you can sit in a chair, but try to maintain good posture and not lean into the chair. This will help in maintaining alertness. Before you focus on some other object, it is best to start with mindfulness of breathing; just to calm down your body and mind. As you breathe in, watch the physical sensations of breathing in. As you breathe out, watch the physical sensations of breathing out. If thoughts, emotions, or other physical sensations arise, just identify them and return to the breathing. Don't try to control your mind, but train it with a light touch. The goal is to just follow the breathing without any other distractions, but for most of us it will take many years to reach this goal. I would practice just this mindfulness of breathing for several weeks before going on to another object of meditation. This will develop non-attachment to both the body and the mind. Non-attachment arises for many reasons. Two of the main reasons are 1: we see and reason with our mind that something is undesirable, and 2: we just see that that is not me. For example, when I comb my hair, I look at my hair. My hair is not me because it is an object. Whatever "I" am, I can't be an object. Where ever I look, from my head to my toe, there is nothing but objects. No me. The same goes for my hopes and fears, and for confusion in general. When I am afraid, that fear seems like me; but if I look at that fear, it is an object. Someone might say, what about the looking itself? Isn't that me? Look at that looking. What do you see? Not me. This is genuine non-attachment. You will notice there is nothing to gain. You can use either of these approaches in contemplating the body. You can reason that it is disgusting, or you can just look at it. It is helpful to identify each part clearly. If you want to meditate on corpses, follow the instructions in the sutta. The main idea is that my body, and others' bodies, will be like these disgusting corpses someday. Start with just one picture. Look at it carefully. Notice all the details. Try to develop a mental image of the corpse. Then just try to take it to heart that your body will look like this one day. Do this in just the last 5 minutes of your meditation session, mindfulness of breathing goes first for the main part of the session. Once you are sitting for an hour at a time, two or more times a day, you could increase this to 10 minutes at the end of one session. If you start to become depressed or frequently have other negative emotions, discontinue the corpses and just use the breathing. Non-attachment isn't feeling bad. It is feeling even. One last thing. I hope others respond to your letter. Everyone has a different view and we can learn from them all. Good luck. Let us know how things turn out. Larry 29658 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 5:20pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Andy From beginingless time, it is only Buddha and no one else can do it can teach the Abhidhamma. Authorship is not a question bc if we start the qn of authorship, this pblm also arise in the suttas Ken O > > The question of 'authorship' of abhidhamma makes me want to ask: is > what > is at stake here the question of whether the buddha could be the > buddha > if he did *not* have abhiddhama knowledge (ie., prior to > codification / > authoring of abhidhamma texts)? > > > > tia > > andy > > > > > > > > > > 29659 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 5:26pm Subject: Six Sense Bases Hi Sarah, It seems that I may owe you an apology, but I am not sure. I was reading the Chachakka Sutta and according to this sutta eye consciousness does arise because of contact between the eye and forms. Not only that, it reads: "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect." I am not sure if the Buddha is supposed to be taken literally in this regard. "Consciousness at the eye" is not very specific, and "consciousness at the intellect" is even less specific. He doesn't seem to be pinpointing location, but is just using general terms. Not only that, I know of many, many, many scientific experiments, brain damage research, and drug research that show that sensory consciousnesses arise in the brain. That is the function of the brain. Whole areas of the brain have been mapped out that relate to various sensory processing. Also, what about dreaming? When someone is dreaming it isn't just like an idea contacting the intellect, it is a whole panorama of sights, sounds, tastes, and touch and ideas separate from that experience. There isn't any contact with anything. Does the Buddha explain dreaming consciousness? I can't find a single sutta where he does. Does the Abhidhamma explain dreaming consciousness? What got me to thinking about this is "The Farmer" in SN, Marasamyutta 19 (9): "The eye is yours, Evil One, forms are yours, eye-contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no eye, no forms, no eye-contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One. (297) (297) Here the Buddha is obviously referring to Nibbana. Cp. 35:117 on the cessation of the six sense bases. From my understanding, the Buddha no longer had a consciousness that was bound by rupa, it was unbounded, however, he still had eyes and he could still see. How? Here he is saying that he doesn't have any eyes; surely this isn't to be taken literally. If seeing is dependent on consciousness that arises at the eye from contact with form, but the Buddha didn't have consciousness that arises at the eye, how did he see? Maybe you or someone else can clear this up for me. Metta, James 29660 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 5:43pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not/Andrew Andrew: Thanks for this tip - I will definitely look out for this movie. Not likely to be in the local video shop as I live on the edge of a village of 500 people and, it has to be said, their taste in videos leaves something to be desired. :-) James: Well, I am now living in Cairo, Egypt so I have even less selection than you do! ;-)) Also, I think I miswrote the title before; it is actually "Tuck Everlasting". Andrew: James, I think your search for a Buddhist discussion group in which everyone shares your interpretation of Dhamma is a bit like the search for the Holy Grail. James: LOL!! You got that right. I used to be pretty naïve about such things; I have wizened up since then. Andrew: But I do hope that some of the other meditators give you encouragement on and off list. James: Not really, but I do find a lot of encouragement in the various articles on the Access To Insight web site. I especially like the writings of Ajahn Lee. I try to read some of his stuff everyday! (And I meditate some everyday). Andrew: It may interest you to know that the strictest and pushiest meditator I have ever come across, someone who frequently suggested I was lazy in my "meditation practice", was a chap who now goes under the name of "Ken H"! :-) James: Oh really. Actually, this doesn't surprise me. I can sense a lot of disgruntled ex-meditators in this group. I wrote an entire post about it titled "The Ups and Downs of Meditation". Andrew: There's a lesson in anicca for you!! James: Yep!! ;-)) Andrew: I have no control over what other people think, so I just enjoy the ride! James: Good attitude! Thanks for writing! You have really brightened my day! ;-)))) Metta, James 29661 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 5:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] need help... Dear Wen (and James), While reading the article (Letters from Mara) posted by James, I thought about your meditations on death and repulsiveness: It occurred to me that, right now, all around the world, there are people lying on their deathbeds; their bodies bloated and pustulant, convulsed in horrendous pain. Many of these people want only to die. Do they need to be told their bodies are repulsive? Should we tell them that their troubles would be over if only they would stop seeing their bodies as desirable and beautiful? -- Or if only they would stop clinging to physical pleasures? If we did, we would be thrown out of the hospital. And rightly so! On the other hand, there are people who have listened to, and understood the Dhamma – they have developed panna (understanding) to the extent that sometimes, when citta (a fleeting moment of consciousness) takes rupa (a fleeting physical phenomenon) as its object, that rupa becomes known as it truly is; impermanent, unsatisfactory and not self. At such moments, there is serenity and true happiness. Some of these wise people will be inclined to contemplate dead and decaying human bodies. It will remind them of their moments of direct, right understanding of rupa. They can gaze, calmly, upon scenes that other, lesser, mortals (me, for example) would find nauseating. However, we must not put the cart before the horse. If we haven't developed insight into ultimate reality, then gruesome cemetery contemplations are not for us. For us, any ritualistic gazing at rotting corpses would be a silly, pompous, imitation of our superiors. There are four objects of samatha meditation recommended by the Buddha – they are; the Buddha, metta, death and repulsiveness. The right way of practising them depends on our accumulated wisdom. For all of us, there are ways in which the four objects can be brought to mind naturally, calmly and wholesomely. It will happen spontaneously in daily life, without any formal, artificial, rite or ritual: For example: every day, people are, cordially and helpfully, reminding each other; "None of us is getting any younger," "You only live once," "No one lives forever," and so forth. I think; for us simple folk, these are genuine, wholesome meditations on death. Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "wen" wrote: > Dear Larry, > Thank you so much for your attention, I'm a Buddhist living in > Indonesia and yes the asubha bhavana that I asked was about > contemplation of the impurities of the body. I read about it some > and also focussed to it's function to reduce desire, but I cannot > get the complete instructions, since I don't think many people like > this kind of contemplation. I have some photos of dead bodies from > the internet (decaying, bleeding, also skeletons). And yes I have > read about this sutra of mindfulness but still I'm afraid of walking > on the wrong path, so maybe there would be a Sangha member from this > forum that can give me some advice… > 29662 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 7:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] need help... Dear Wen, there is a discussion with Khun Sujin that briefly explains 4 meditation subjects suitable at all times: http://www.abhidhamma.org/meri3.html ""S. : The monks are accustomed to practise continuously, for a long time, four meditation subjects of samatha, in order to have calm of citta and to subdue defilements which can disturb them. Laypeople can also practise these four meditation subjects. The Dhamma and the Vinaya which the monks practise can also be applied by layfollowers in their own situation, as a means of subduing defilements. W. : What are these four meditation subjects? S. : Recollection of the excellent qualities of the Buddha, the development of mettaa (loving kindness), perception of repulsiveness and mindfulness of death. S. : We can recollect the wisdom of the Buddha by which he attained enlightenment. We can recollect the purity of the Buddha who completely eradicated all defilements. We can recollect the great compassion of the Buddha who taught the Dhamma in manifold ways with the purpose of helping all living beings. At the moment we recollect the excellent qualities of the Buddha there is kusala citta with calm, which is free from defilements, because we do not think of other things which can cause the arising of defilements. The citta which recollects the qualities of the Buddha is pure and it is inclined to practise the Dhamma as it has been taught by the Buddha. At such moments the citta is gentle, one will not hurt or harm someone else. There is mettaa and benevolence, one wishes happiness for everybody. When we are developing the inclination to mettaa and benevolence for others we should take care not to be absorbed in pleasant objects [35. We can prevent this by considering the foulness of the body, both of ourselves and of others [36. If we neglect considering this we may go the wrong way and have attachment and infatuation instead of pure loving kindness. In order to prevent the citta to pursue objects which are pleasant and lead to infatuation, we should recollect death which will come certainly. Nobody knows when death will come, whether it will come after a long time or very soon. If we always recollect death it will help us more and more not to be neglectful of kusala. The opportunity for birth as a human being is very rare and therefore we should develop every poassible kind of kusala. W. : Summarizing our conversation, I conclude that there are, apart from daana and siila, other ways of developing kusala, namely, those kinds of kusala which are included in bhaavanaa. When the citta is not intent on daana, siila or bhaavanaa, it is akusala citta. In daily life it is difficult to develop calm to the level of attainment concentration, which is jhaana. However, there is still a way to prevent the citta from thinking of things which cause the arising of defilements. We can think of subjects which are the condition for purity of citta. These subjects are: recollection of the excellent qualities of the Buddha, the development of mettaa, consideration of the foulness of the body and mindfulness of death. If we see the disadvantage and danger of all degrees of defilements, and if we try to develop kusala with the purpose of eliminating all these degrees of defilements, it is beneficial to consider the topics of the discussion we just had. """ Rob 29663 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 7:44pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Michael Your are inferring from your own perspective. I think we should always go down to basic whenever there is a need to reflect on Buddhism. The basic principles are always khandhas, dependent origination. Your regression assertion is never found in Buddhism, even if Nagarjuna will to pose this qn to me, he will also get the same answer. Your regression theory will mean infinite sub khandhas - how are we going to practise. As I said earlier, we will be stuck on feelings ..sub feeling etc - just imagine. We have also got to remember that Buddha is not teaching those unneccessary for us for liberation. All our suttas for practise in one way or another always refer to nama and rupas. This is a very impt point, hence if there is sub-khandhas it should be taught thoroughly bc this is about liberation. It is not something Buddha will deliberately not taught. It is something Buddha will definitely inform us bc it leads to salvation. I can never state enough of this, Buddha will not keep impt dhammas from us if it is very crucial to our liberation. Ken O 29664 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 7:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yet more discussion (and food) Hi Sarah What strikes me during our discussion is when A Sujin say it just about nama and rupa and right understanding on them. It was not even kusala and akusala nama, it is about just the basic - nama and rupa. When I think about it, what she is trying to put across is to have less thinking but more direct understanding of reality. I think whenever we try to understand the characteristic of kusala and akusala, there is a likelihood that we are thinking and not understanding reality. I thought I was very basic in my practise just noticing the reality of the six rooted cittas, she was even more basic than me. I feel this point of looking at just namas and rupas is good to share with the rest here. To me, effective - it cuts away thinking - it is just about reality Ken O 29665 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 8:13pm Subject: Re: Six Sense Bases Hi James, This is how I see it: As long as an arahant lived, he saw with eyes, heard with ears, smelled with nose, tasted with tongue, sensed with body, and thought with intellect just like everyone else. Eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and intellect are to be seen as the old kamma. The new kamma are whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect. The cessation of kamma is the cessation of bodily kamma, verbal kamma, and mental kamma: it is the release, the unbinding, the cessation of dukkha. Without the cessation of kamma, one would just keep wandering in the round of rebirth. Realizing the cessation of dukkha, the arahant would no longer do any kamma with the body, with speech, or with the intellect. Nevertheless, until the arahant passed into the total unbinding(parinibbana), he still lived in the world with the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas, with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, and consciousness, the whole aggregate of dukkha, that inevitably followed the last birth. For reference to old kamma, new kamma, and the cessation of kamma, see: Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.145 Kamma Sutta Action http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn35-145.html Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Sarah, [snip] > (297) Here the Buddha is obviously referring to Nibbana. Cp. 35:117 > on the cessation of the six sense bases. > > From my understanding, the Buddha no longer had a consciousness that > was bound by rupa, it was unbounded, however, he still had eyes and > he could still see. How? Here he is saying that he doesn't have any > eyes; surely this isn't to be taken literally. If seeing is > dependent on consciousness that arises at the eye from contact with > form, but the Buddha didn't have consciousness that arises at the > eye, how did he see? Maybe you or someone else can clear this up for > me. > > Metta, James 29666 From: Andrew Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 8:11pm Subject: Mind consciousness during sleep Hello folks! Welcome home to all the mendicant wanderers from Bangkok. I am waiting with baited breath to see if Christine finds her lost notes. Anyway, I was watching television the other day and heard a scientist say that he has shown that the brain keeps "thinking" during sleep. That is why you can wrestle with a problem all week and not solve it, then you wake up in the middle of the night and scream "Eureka!" as the answer mysteriously comes into consciousness. During sleep, the brain has continued to work on the problem and actually solved it! This gave me a very deep impression of "no control". How can I possibly control/direct my mind when I'm asleep? I have absolutely no control at all! And if that is the case during sleep, why shouldn't it be the case during waking hours even if it seems otherwise? Howard, here's a good question for you. If volition is a universal cetasika, it must be present in "sleep thinking" as well as "waking thinking". Are the things you think about when asleep "volitional" in the sense that you use the word? If not, what could the difference be between sleeping and awake cetana? Hmmm ... would love to hear anyone's thoughts on that. Best wishes Andrew PS you too, KenH, if I haven't offended you with my last post! :-) I should admit that KenH was totally correct - I WAS a lazy meditator!! 29667 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 8:20pm Subject: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Ken O, A question: Given the discourses, what do you think is the basic principle that the Buddha taught about the five aggregates(khandha)? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Michael > > Your are inferring from your own perspective. I think we should > always go down to basic whenever there is a need to reflect on > Buddhism. The basic principles are always khandhas, dependent > origination. Your regression assertion is never found in Buddhism, > even if Nagarjuna will to pose this qn to me, he will also get the > same answer. Your regression theory will mean infinite sub khandhas > - how are we going to practise. As I said earlier, we will be stuck > on feelings ..sub feeling etc - just imagine. We have also got to > remember that Buddha is not teaching those unneccessary for us for > liberation. All our suttas for practise in one way or another always > refer to nama and rupas. This is a very impt point, hence if there > is sub-khandhas it should be taught thoroughly bc this is about > liberation. It is not something Buddha will deliberately not taught. > It is something Buddha will definitely inform us bc it leads to > salvation. I can never state enough of this, Buddha will not keep > impt dhammas from us if it is very crucial to our liberation. > > > Ken O 29668 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 8:29pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Yet more discussion (and food) Hi Ken O, The approach of direct understanding of reality sounds very vague to me. Could you elucidate that approach with some passage from the discourse? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Sarah > > What strikes me during our discussion is when A Sujin say it just > about nama and rupa and right understanding on them. It was not even > kusala and akusala nama, it is about just the basic - nama and rupa. > When I think about it, what she is trying to put across is to have > less thinking but more direct understanding of reality. I think > whenever we try to understand the characteristic of kusala and > akusala, there is a likelihood that we are thinking and not > understanding reality. I thought I was very basic in my practise > just noticing the reality of the six rooted cittas, she was even more > basic than me. I feel this point of looking at just namas and rupas > is good to share with the rest here. To me, effective - it cuts away > thinking - it is just about reality > > > > Ken O 29669 From: gazita2002 Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 9:07pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body /Ken H Hello Ken, Hope the storms down your way have bypassed you, they sound wild. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi Azita, > ....snip.... Both satipatthana and > vipassana refer to the various cittas that are accompanied by the > cetasikas, right understanding, right thought, etc., and have a > dhamma as object. Vipassana can refer to all such cittas (including > those with the unconditioned dhamma as object) whereas satipatthana > refers only to those with a conditioned dhamma as object. In other > words, the mundane form of vipassana can be called satipatthana. > > That's my recollection; corrections welcome. > > Kind regards, > Ken H Well, I'm going to take the easy way out here, and fall back on a comment from Nina to me regarding memorizing v.understanding. I was unsure about mind objects, mind doors, etc. and her statement was that I need'nt concern about memorizing, when there is clear understanding then panna will know the answer. So, I'm going down that track now. Its a jungle out there [anyone remember who sang those words], full of mana, ditthi, lobha, dosa and moha and all the rest of the khandhas; occasionally there's a flash of understanding, but as Sukin wrote to Chris, its all conditioned, gone in a flash, its anatta, its impermanent, like that line drawn on water. If I don't understand then that's the reality at that moment. life can be stressful enuff without 'me' adding to it, so to speak. I'm impressed withthe amount of writing u do . Esp. knowing what a chore it was for you just a short time back to put anything on dsg. Well done, people like you who seem to have lots to say allow people like me to lurk and read at leisure. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 29670 From: gazita2002 Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 9:08pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body /Ken H Hello Ken, Hope the storms down your way have bypassed you, they sound wild. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi Azita, > ....snip.... Both satipatthana and > vipassana refer to the various cittas that are accompanied by the > cetasikas, right understanding, right thought, etc., and have a > dhamma as object. Vipassana can refer to all such cittas (including > those with the unconditioned dhamma as object) whereas satipatthana > refers only to those with a conditioned dhamma as object. In other > words, the mundane form of vipassana can be called satipatthana. > > That's my recollection; corrections welcome. > > Kind regards, > Ken H Well, I'm going to take the easy way out here, and fall back on a comment from Nina to me regarding memorizing v.understanding. I was unsure about mind objects, mind doors, etc. and her statement was that I need'nt concern about memorizing, when there is clear understanding then panna will know the answer. So, I'm going down that track now. Its a jungle out there [anyone remember who sang those words], full of mana, ditthi, lobha, dosa and moha and all the rest of the khandhas; occasionally there's a flash of understanding, but as Sukin wrote to Chris, its all conditioned, gone in a flash, its anatta, its impermanent, like that line drawn on water. If I don't understand then that's the reality at that moment. life can be stressful enuff without 'me' adding to it, so to speak. I'm impressed withthe amount of writing u do . Esp. knowing what a chore it was for you just a short time back to put anything on dsg. Well done, people like you who seem to have lots to say allow people like me to lurk and read at leisure. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 29671 From: Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 9:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Sukin, Thanks for your well considered reply; I think I understand your view better now. However, I still disagree. If the study of right view is only abstract concepts without application to any experience then nothing will be understood. To wait for things to happen in their own time seems to me to be deliberately cultivating tranquility at the expense of insight. I agree that if you really think you are doing the wrong thing by deliberately cultivating insight, then you should probably stop and consider what is going on. But it seems to me a good sign if you detect desire. I would say look closer and see if it is really desire or just a concept. Larry 29672 From: Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 9:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta Icaro: "Don't fear thinking, Larry... it Doesn't hurt!!!!!" Hi Icaro, I agree; but thinking is always questionable. Thanks for your scholarly and wide ranging reply (Noah Chomsky???) :))) I think we will have more to say on this word (sankhara) in the fullness of time. How are you doing with Buddhaghosa? We will be starting up on the Visuddhimagga again in a week or two. Larry 29673 From: gazita2002 Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 9:27pm Subject: oh ooh!! Hello dsg members, didn't really mean to send 2 of the same, pretending I'm not a lurker. BTW, sounds like Bkk was beneficial to most people. KenO, I like your remark about A. Sujin keeping it simple with just Nama and Rupa. It is her style of teaching and her knowledge, actually I could say lots of good things about her, she has the ability to teach well and clearly. Nama and rupa is all there is and for me it is simple when all is condensed into those 2 words. Makes my jungle seem less dense. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 29674 From: gazita2002 Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 9:57pm Subject: Re: Six Sense Bases --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: ....snip.... > From my understanding, the Buddha no longer had a consciousness that > was bound by rupa, it was unbounded, however, he still had eyes and > he could still see. How? Here he is saying that he doesn't have any > eyes; surely this isn't to be taken literally. If seeing is > dependent on consciousness that arises at the eye from contact with > form, but the Buddha didn't have consciousness that arises at the > eye, how did he see? Maybe you or someone else can clear this up for > me. > > Metta, James Dear James, While the Buddha still lived, he was Nama and rupa. He was citta, cetasika and rupa. Seeing consciousness, citta, arose at the eye base, rupa, and saw visible object, rupa. He saw, he smelt, he heard etc. The cittas that see, smell, hear etc arose at the respective bases to perform their function and then fell away again. Above, you wrote the Buddha didn't have consciousness that arose at the eye; what makes you think he didn't?? Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 29675 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 10:28pm Subject: Re: Six Sense Bases Hi Azita, It occurs to me that the idea that the Buddha was nama-and-rupa springs from one's self-identity view. If you see your self as nama-and-rupa, please consider the following questions: Is nama-and-rupa permanent or impermanent? Is what is impermanent dukkha? Is what is impermanent, dukkha, subject to change fit to be seen thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > wrote: [snip] > > Dear James, > While the Buddha still lived, he was Nama and rupa. He was > citta, cetasika and rupa. Seeing consciousness, citta, arose at the > eye base, rupa, and saw visible object, rupa. > He saw, he smelt, he heard etc. The cittas that see, > smell, hear etc arose at the respective bases to perform their > function and then fell away again. > Above, you wrote the Buddha didn't have consciousness that > arose at the eye; what makes you think he didn't?? > > Patience, courage and good cheer, > Azita. 29676 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 11:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta Hi Larry & Icaro, A good discussion....Icaro, Nina will be glad to see you and your humour back in good flow when she returns next week too;-) --- icarofranca wrote: L: > "If I may, I would like to ammend a convention. I think it might be > > better to call sankhara khandha "mental fabricators" instead > > of "mental fabrications". The reason for this is that the cetasikas > > that are categorized in this khandha are no more fabricated than the > > other mental factors. Also, this khandha is particularly associated > > with the conditioning of kamma, so in that sense they are > > fabricators. I wonder if they might also have something to do with > > the proliferation of concepts as well." > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > I: > A good remark, Larry: Khandhas are aggregates, so at the > standpoint of a medium level Bhikkhu's mind doesn't matter either if > they fabricate their cetasika's concomitants or are a fabricated > result by them through Kamma. ..... S: Perhaps the stress is on the formed nature of the khandhas. I don't know if these quotes help. sa"nkhaara - formations which are sa"nkhata - conditioned. Khandha - collection of conditioned formations. "Nibbana is nowhere (to be found) amidst conditioned (sa"nkhata) things, since it has as its own nature that which is antithetical to all formations (sa"nkhaara)......for the collocation of things conditioned and unconditioned is (a thing) not witnessed." (Udana comy, Paa.tali Villagers). "Formations also are like a plantain stem in the sense of being insubstantial; likewise in the sense of being ungraspable. For just as one cannot take anything from a plantan stem and bring it away, even as much as a rafter, and what is brought away alters, so also formations cannot be taken as permanent - and even if so taken they alter. And just as a plantain stem is a combination of many sheaths, so also the formations aggregate is a combination of many states. And just as a plantain stem has many characteristics; for one has the appearance of an outer sheath of leaf, but there is another within and another within that; so indeed the formations aggregate also, by combining one characteristic of impression and other characteristics of volition and so on, is called the formations aggregate; thus also the formations aggregate is like a plantain stem." (Vibh-A, Dispeller of Delusion. PTS, Class. of Aggregates,151) Metta, Sarah ===== 29677 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 10:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Victor I like this answer - Right Understanding. It may not sound fimilar to you but after three days with someone ;-) in the "little funny group" who always said this - one will eventually get the message. Anyway that is a correct method - being consistent and simple and back to the basic. This has been my mantra since a few years ago when I practise Buddhism, so when I heard the simple two words again and again - it strikes a chord. Anyway I was discussing about regression theory and you are asking different thing. Honestly I am afraid to discuss with you further bc you always asking for actual sutta quotes that say this or that. You are more *hardcore* than James [hope he does not butt in again just bc I mention his name ;-)]. Do forgive me if I do not further our discussion. Ken O --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Ken O, > > A question: > > Given the discourses, what do you think is the basic principle that > > the Buddha taught about the five aggregates(khandha)? > > Metta, > Victor > 29678 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 0:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Six Sense Bases Hi James, A good start to Marasamyutta. Not an easy Samyutta (but then are any?). --- buddhatrue wrote: > > It seems that I may owe you an apology, but I am not sure. I was > reading the Chachakka Sutta and according to this sutta eye > consciousness does arise because of contact between the eye and > forms. Not only that, it reads: > > "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. > Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. > Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the > nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at > the tongue. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises > consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there > arises consciousness at the intellect." > > I am not sure if the Buddha is supposed to be taken literally in this > regard. "Consciousness at the eye" is not very specific, > and "consciousness at the intellect" is even less specific. He > doesn't seem to be pinpointing location, but is just using general > terms. .... S: I think it was with RobK rather than me that you were discussing the location of eye consciousness, but either way, no apology is called for;-) We’re all just sharing and learning as we go along.... I think you’ll find more and more that there really is no conflict between what is taught in the Abhidhamma, commentaries and suttas. .... J: >Not only that, I know of many, many, many scientific > experiments, brain damage research, and drug research that show that > sensory consciousnesses arise in the brain. That is the function of > the brain. Whole areas of the brain have been mapped out that relate > to various sensory processing. .... S:I know. I once had a professor who was a split-brain expert, so remember I was brought up on all this .... However, when we are discussing science, brain and so on, we’re back to the world of concepts.... See ‘science’ in U.P., perhaps;-) I understand what you're saying. .... J: > Also, what about dreaming? When someone is dreaming it isn't just > like an idea contacting the intellect, it is a whole panorama of > sights, sounds, tastes, and touch and ideas separate from that > experience. There isn't any contact with anything. Does the Buddha > explain dreaming consciousness? I can't find a single sutta where he > does. Does the Abhidhamma explain dreaming consciousness? .... S: The Buddha described realities, paramattha dhammas as indicated in the Chachakka sutta. Apart from the khandhas, the ayatanas or the dhatus, anything else experienced now is a concept, a pannatti, including all dreams. To quote from Karunadasa as you find his writing so helpful: http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm ***** “Further, pannattis differ from dhammas in that only the latter are delimited by rise and fall; only of the dhammas and not of the pannattis can it be said, "They come into being having not been (ahutva sambhonti); and, after having been, they cease (hutva pativenti)." 119 Pannattis have no own-nature to be manifested in the three instants of arising, presence, and dissolution. Since they have no existence marked by these three phases, such temporal distinctions as past, present, and future do not apply to them. Consequently they have no reference to time (kalavimutta).120 For this self-same reason, they have no place in the traditional analysis of empirical existence into the five khandhas, for what is included in the khandhas should have the characteristics of empirical reality and be subject to temporal divisions.121 Another noteworthy characteristic of pannattis is that they cannot be described either as conditioned (sankhata) or as unconditioned (asankhata), for they do not possess their own-nature (sabhava) to be so described.122 Since the two categories of the conditioned and the unconditioned comprise all realities, the description of pannattis as exempt from these two categories is another way of underscoring their unreality.” ***** S:I agree with you about the whole panorama that seems to be existed through the senses while we dream. This is the point: we live in a fantasy land most the time, taking the dreams and imaginations for realities. The other evening when we arrived back, there were some fireworks.When I lay down to sleep later, I could still ‘hear’ and ‘see’ them very clearly, but all through the mind door. If we give importance and pay special attention to our fantasies and dreams, the proliferations merely increase. As the texts state: the arahant doesn’t dream. In the Abhidhamma commentary text I just quoted from to Larry, it clearly spells out that ‘with every kind of five-door consciousness he does not fall asleep, nor sleep, nor wake up, nor see any dreams............For while one is sleeping, when a lamp lit with a big wick is brought near his eye, eye-door advertence does not interrupt the life continuum (bhavanga) first, but mind-door advertence only interrupts it...” In other words, there is only mind-door consciousness while we dream. I could quote more, but it’s technical. This will be of interest to you, however, in real brief: “But one who sees a dream sees it owing to four reasons, namely: 1) owing to a disturbance of the elements (dhaatukkhobha), or 2) owing to what was experienced previously (anubhuutapubba), or 3) owing to provision by deities (devatopasa.mhaara), or 4) owing to a portent (pubbanimitta).” (Vibhanga-a, Classification of Knowledge, 2048f) .... J: > What got me to thinking about this is "The Farmer" in SN, > Marasamyutta 19 (9): > > "The eye is yours, Evil One, forms are yours, eye-contact and its > base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no > eye, no forms, no eye-contact and its base of consciousness—there is > no place for you there, Evil One. (297) > > (297) Here the Buddha is obviously referring to Nibbana. Cp. 35:117 > on the cessation of the six sense bases. .... S: From the same part of the Udana comy I just quoted from to Larry, we read about nibbana which ‘does no possess the own nature of being born, become and created possessed by states that are conditioned, such as name and form and so on.’ Nibbana cannot be clung to or the object of clinging either (see your witty Mara intro;-)). Only by understanding the conditioned dhammas as anatta can the unconditioned dhamma be realized. ‘...there is made known an escape from sense-desires and forms and so on that have that which surpasses them (which escape) consists of that which is their opposite (and) which as as its own nature that which is the antithesis of same, so does there have to be and escape from all conditioned states having that as their own nature...’ (Udana comy, Patali Villagers ch). .... J: > From my understanding, the Buddha no longer had a consciousness that > was bound by rupa, it was unbounded, however, he still had eyes and > he could still see. How? Here he is saying that he doesn't have any > eyes; surely this isn't to be taken literally. If seeing is > dependent on consciousness that arises at the eye from contact with > form, but the Buddha didn't have consciousness that arises at the > eye, how did he see? Maybe you or someone else can clear this up for > me. .... S: I think Victor has clarified and for once I agree with his comments;-) You gave the ‘coming back to the mountain’ analogy. I’d say to you and KenO, it all comes back to the present eye consciousness and forms which continue to arise and fall just as they’ve always done. Metta, Sarah “Having known as useless any austerity Aimed at the immortal state, That all such penances are futile Like oars and rudder on dry land....”SN4, 1 Austere Practice ?Maybe relevant to other threads ====== 29679 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 1:04am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hi Michael, --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Sarah, > > Welcome back to our routine :) ... S: Thank you. I missed the discussions with you, James & Victor too;-) It’s been good to read your posts while we’ve been away. What did you think about the sections on sabhava, lakkhana and paramattha dhammas and the conclusions in the Karunadasa article that others have been reading? Can we yet agree with his conclusion here on sabhava? “It will thus be seen that although the term sabhava is used as a synonym for dhamma, it is interpreted in such a way that it means the absence of sabhava in any sense that implies a substantial mode of being.” ... > Sarah: > In any case, the latter ‘strict tecnical sense’ as Jon wrote before, > this > ‘is simply a streamwinner progressing to the corresponsing fruition > moment.’ > > Michael: > You are confirming what I said. He is a stream-winner and continues his > practice (i.e. progressing) towards fruition. Two distinct separate > moments > that do not happen in succession. .... S: I think this ‘strict technical sense’ refers to the way that the fruition consciousness cittas follow the path consciousness citta when nibbana is realized. For the interpretation of the sutta, I understand it according to the scale I mapped out which the limited commentary note given seemed to concur with, i.e the worldling with insight on the way to becoming a sotapanna, progressing to being a sotapanna (sotapatti magga citta, followed by sotapatti phala cittas). I think the technical note Bodhi gave and my extra comments on this confused the issue. I’d like to see the Pali and a good translation of the commentary note really. In Bangkok, Num looked at the Thai version but said it didn’ t include much. .... M: >Here is another sutta for you: > > “And furthermore, just as the ocean is the abode of such mighty beings > as > whales, whale-eaters, and whale-eater-eaters; asuras, nagas, and > gandhabbas, > and there are in the ocean beings one hundred leagues long, two > hundred... > three hundred... four hundred... five hundred leagues long; in the same > way, > this Doctrine and Discipline is the abode of such mighty beings as > stream-winners and those practicing to realize the fruit of stream-entry > .. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/udana/ud5-05.html#abode ..... S:I gave the comy to this part of the passage yesterday, under the technical note. I think it clearly refers to the 8 ariya puggala, i.e the 4 pairs of magga and phala cittas that realize nibbana. ... M: > The beings that live in the ocean are clearly different individual > beings, > and the stream-winners and those practicing for the fruit are also > different > individuals, otherwise the analogy doesn’t make sense. .... S:I think the analogy is referring to all the ‘Greats’ that have discovered the ‘Great Ocean’. All the ariyans in other words. I understand the difficulty with the words, but accept that this is the way it’s expressed in the suttas and elsewhere. I know this won’t satisfy:-) Here’s a quote from the same sutta, relevant I had before with Howard, (Masefield transl): “Just as, monks, the Great Ocean progressively sloes, progressively tends, progressively inclines, is no sudden precipice at all, so in that very same way, monks, are there in this Dhamma and Discipline progressive trainings, progressive obligations, progressive practices, there being no sudden penetration of supreme knowledge. That there are, monks, in this Dhamma and Discipline progressive trainings, progressive obligations, progressive practices, there being no sudden penetration of supreme knowledge, is, mons the first thing with respec to this Dhamma and Discipline that is a marvel, that is unprecedented, upon repeatedly seeing which the monks take delight in this Dhamma and Discipline.” Metta, Sarah “There is but one moment (kha.no) and occasion (samayo), monks, for living the Brahmacariya” (A iv 227) ====================== 29680 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 1:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hi Steve, --- bodhi2500 wrote: > Hi All > Thanks to all who replied to my last post on this thread. > Here is another sutta about sotapanna that I don't understand> > > Practising..SN48;18;8 > > Bhikkhus, there are these five faculties. What five? The faculty of > Faith/energy/mindfulness/concentration and wisdom. > One who has completed and fulfilled these five faculties is an > Arahant. If they are weaker than that, one is practicing for the > fruit of Arahantship;If still weaker,one is a non-returner etc /snip/ > if still weaker, one is a stream-enterer; if still weaker, one is > practicing for the realization of the fruit of stream entry. > But Bhikhhus, I say that for one in whom these five faculties are > completely and totally absent is `an outsider, one who stands in the > faction of worldlings' ..... I would read this sutta with the wider meaning that I gave to the one from MN, Offerings, yesterday with gradual decrease in wisdom and 'five faculties' stages, the last two being the one developing satipatthana (5 indriya are developed and balanced at moments of satipatthana) on the way to becoming a sotapanna and then the last one, the 'outsider' not developing the faculties at all. ..... > Com.> In this sutta the faculties are exclusively supramundane. .... Hmmm....not sure how this fits my last comments. Can you check the Pali or let me know what you think? Otherwise Nina may help more on return. .... > Anyone know why the faculties of a "one practicing for the fruit of > Stream entry" would be weaker than a stream-enterers faculties? .... See above and the MN comy note I gave yesterday. what do you think? Metta, Sarah ====== 29681 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 1:34am Subject: Re: need help... Hi Ken (and Wen), Ken: While reading the article (Letters from Mara) posted by James, I thought about your meditations on death and repulsiveness: It occurred to me that, right now, all around the world, there are people lying on their deathbeds; their bodies bloated and pustulant, convulsed in horrendous pain. Many of these people want only to die. Do they need to be told their bodies are repulsive? Should we tell them that their troubles would be over if only they would stop seeing their bodies as desirable and beautiful? -- Or if only they would stop clinging to physical pleasures? If we did, we would be thrown out of the hospital. And rightly so! James: I think you are taking what I posted a bit out of context. Of course people in the hospital, suffering in pain, should not be told that their bodies are repulsive. I never even suggested such a thing. That would be uncompassionate to the extreme. What I posted is of course for the serious Dhamma practioner to consider, not for anyone else. For example, if I told my mother that her body is repulsive, she might just clobber me over the head! ;-)) As far as Wen, I have declined to give him any comments because he asked for advice from a Sangha member. I am thinking that he means a bhikkhu, but I will give you my input, Ken, since you bring me up in conjunction with him. I don't think that Wen should be doing any such meditation and I think he should seek the counsel of a therapist. From my understanding, this type of meditation is done only by bhikkhus and then only by those bhikkhus who harbor a strong lust for the body. Not only that, the actual body doesn't have to be present or to have photographs of it, a visualization is quite sufficient. I think for anyone to seek out pictures of diseased and bloating corpses and skeletons, and want to meditate on those pictures, it reveals a mental disorder of an insidious sort. It is an over objectification of the body that is beyond the scope of Buddhism. For example, recently a German man was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for placing an ad on the Internet for another man who was willing to be `slaughtered and consumed'. Believe it or not, someone answered that ad. This German man, with the victims consent, slaughtered and consumed the other man. This isn't Buddhism, even though the victim must have felt repulsiveness for his body to offer it for sacrifice, it is a mental disorder. Another example, there is a German (hmmm…what is it with those Germans? ;-)) (just kidding) who has a display of human bodies in various poses, like playing basketball, etc., which I also find repugnant. Here is the article I read this morning (Warning: complete with gory photographs): http://story.news.yahoo.com/news? tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040203/ap_on_en_ot/corpse_artist_3 Metta, James 29682 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 1:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yet more discussion (and food) Hi Ken O, --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Sarah > > What strikes me during our discussion is when A Sujin say it just > about nama and rupa and right understanding on them. It was not even > kusala and akusala nama, it is about just the basic - nama and rupa. > When I think about it, what she is trying to put across is to have > less thinking but more direct understanding of reality. I think > whenever we try to understand the characteristic of kusala and > akusala, there is a likelihood that we are thinking and not > understanding reality. ..... Excellent! Very sharp;-) I can't describe to others your multi-tasking abilities during discussions - reading through DSG print-outs and making comments on Abhidhamma details in posts, checking Pali terms, giving a running sub-commentary, talking to your neighbours, fiddling with cups and yet still hearing the vital but subtle reminders from A Sujin;-);-) (I look forward to what you found on the arahant's smiling consciousness, cittas with and without panna and anything else. Jhanas and samatha development - all with panna, but not satipatthana panna. Concepts as object (usually). Judgmental and Vince's comments - I think the point is that we all make judgements which may or may not be right, but it always comes back to the present namas and rupas to be known as you indicate above. Hope we can persuade Vince to join us here one day - he's like a brother to me too;-)) Another point from the discussions which may be relevant- Nina raised the 10 punna-kiriya-vatthu (meritorious deeds) which RobM has referred to and which have been discussed here. Before Nina could complete a sentence about (the value of) RobM's developing and performing of these, A Sujin interrupted with the comment: '(It's) for him'. Various reactions round the table of shock, smiles, consternation, disagreement, puzzlement and so on. Comments were made such as 'but, it's good', 'he's so kind', 'we start where we are' etc. The implication of A.Sujin's comment was that when we have the idea of 'doing good', 'developing wholesome states', 'having metta', 'increasing meritorious deeds', there is an underlying clinging to self, wanting to be the good person, the one with metta or generosity and so on. If anyone wishes to question this further, pls join us next time in Bangkok or read Sukin's or Ken H's definitions of meditation;-) Metta, Sarah ======= 29683 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 1:41am Subject: Re: Six Sense Bases Hi Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi James, > > This is how I see it: > > As long as an arahant lived, he saw with eyes, heard with ears, > smelled with nose, tasted with tongue, sensed with body, and thought > with intellect just like everyone else. Eye, ear, nose, tongue, > body, and intellect are to be seen as the old kamma. The new kamma > are whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with > the intellect. The cessation of kamma is the cessation of bodily > kamma, verbal kamma, and mental kamma: it is the release, the > unbinding, the cessation of dukkha. > > Without the cessation of kamma, one would just keep wandering in the > round of rebirth. Realizing the cessation of dukkha, the arahant > would no longer do any kamma with the body, with speech, or with the > intellect. Nevertheless, until the arahant passed into the total > unbinding(parinibbana), he still lived in the world with the eye & > forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile > sensations, intellect & ideas, with form, feeling, perception, > fabrications, and consciousness, the whole aggregate of dukkha, that > inevitably followed the last birth. > > For reference to old kamma, new kamma, and the cessation of kamma, > see: > > Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.145 > Kamma Sutta > Action > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn35-145.html > > Metta, > Victor Thank you for your input. Yes, I also considered this but the Buddha was speaking in the present tense, not after his parinibbana; and the note was also in the present tense saying that the Buddha was referring to nibbana, not parinibbana. I can accept that parinibbana is what the Buddha meant but I am not so sure. Metta, James 29684 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 2:11am Subject: Re: Six Sense Bases Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi James, > > A good start to Marasamyutta. Not an easy Samyutta (but then are any?). Thank you for the post. You have gone to a lot of effort to give me a lot of sources and I do appreciate that. I am not going to pick it apart and reply because I would just be redundant. Unfortunately, I don't really find one thing you say helpful or illuminating. It is all kinds of vague talk about `realities of the present moment' and `science is concept' and I don't sense that you have any real knowledge of what you are saying. No offense, but it is like you are a tape recorder just repeating the same old things you have been conditioned to repeat again and again. Think outside the box and tell me what you know based on what you personally experience AND on what you read. I will ponder this issue more deeply and maybe reach a conclusion myself. At this point, I am thinking that the Buddha was simply being a pragmatist and did not feel the need to go into a technical explanation of brain function, dream function, etc. That wouldn't be conducive to the end of suffering. Sorry, but I am not going to buy any of that stuff about science being a concept and the Abhidhamma being real. It is hogwash. And I am also not going to read any other posts on the matter because I don't want to be conditioned to sound like a tape recorder myself. No offense, just being honest. Metta, James 29685 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 1:49am Subject: Re: Six Sense Bases Hi Azita, > Dear James, > While the Buddha still lived, he was Nama and rupa. He was > citta, cetasika and rupa. Seeing consciousness, citta, arose at the > eye base, rupa, and saw visible object, rupa. > He saw, he smelt, he heard etc. The cittas that see, > smell, hear etc arose at the respective bases to perform their > function and then fell away again. > Above, you wrote the Buddha didn't have consciousness that > arose at the eye; what makes you think he didn't?? > > Patience, courage and good cheer, > Azita. Thank you for your reply. I am just going on what he said in the sutta. He said he didn't have eyes, ears, nose, mouth, body, or mind. He didn't say he won't have those things after parinibbana, he said he doesn't have them now. I am not putting words in his mouth, I don't think. I am simply trying to understand what he meant. Metta, James 29686 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 2:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] New Photos Hi Sukin, --- Sukinderpal Singh Narula wrote: > Hi all, > > Some new photos from the recent Bangkok meeting in the DSGMeetings > folder. ... Thanks for posting these so promptly. Also thanks to ANDY for your pic in the member album. Any more, anyone?? Metta, Sarah ===== 29687 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 3:08am Subject: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Ken O, Ken: You are more *hardcore* than James [hope he does not butt in again just bc I mention his name ;-)]. James: Huh? What? Did you mention my name? ;-)) Metta, James 29688 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 3:28am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Andy, --- Andy Wilson wrote: > Ken: K:> > They are not inspired by the Buddha bc only Buddha has > > the knowledge of Abhidhamma. They are taught by the Buddha to > > VEN Sariputta. No Arahants can teach the dhamma without > > Buddha teaching them in the first place. Not even a pacceka > > Buddha can teach the dhamma. > A:> The question of 'authorship' of abhidhamma makes me want to ask: is what > is at stake here the question of whether the buddha could be the buddha > if he did *not* have abhiddhama knowledge (ie., prior to codification / > authoring of abhidhamma texts)? .... Very good question. According to the texts, there are 30 regulations for 'all Buddhas but not shared by others'. Pls see these posts which list them: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m17773.html http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m17774.html Note this is one: 19) the teaching of Abhidhamma in the abode of the Thirty-Three; Metta, Sarah ===== 29689 From: Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 3:15pm Subject: Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism - Long Hello Ken O, and thank-you for your continued interest in ecstasy (jhana), I am sure it can only bring you a pleasant abiding in the here and now. As for your question about ancient texts, I am not sure what ancient texts you are talking about, unless you are speaking of the Pali canon. If you are speaking of the Pali canon, then I assure you I have not challenged the source material, only the translation of that source. For your third question regarding Arahants, I believe the Buddha defined an Arahant by some level of jhanic attainment, and I accept that as well. As for your third question, I have never said nor implied that mindfulness is not an intimate part of jhana. In fact I agree with you one does not arrive at jhana without a dedicated contemplative practice, thus requiring the cultivation of what you call "mindfulness." Best regards, Jeff Brooks In a message dated 2/3/04 2:22:52 AM, dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com writes: << Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:50:10 +0000 (GMT) From: Kenneth Ong Subject: Re: Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism - Long Hi Jeff Brooks You definition of jhana is not in accordance with Ancient text - are you also doubting those Arahants who wrote it???? Do you doubt that the Arahants not experiencing jhanas??? By the way you have not answer my previous qn, your definition of jhana is only esctasy but in the sutta it is both esctasy and mindfullness so how do you explain this jhanas of yours is only esctasy. Ken O >> 29690 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 5:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Six Sense Bases Hi All, A correction: --- Sarah wrote: > Hi James, >S:......Only by understanding the > conditioned dhammas as anatta can the unconditioned dhamma be realized. > ‘just as.... there is made known an escape from sense-desires and forms and so on that have that which surpasses them, (which escape) consists of that which is their opposite (and) which HAS as its own nature that which is the antithesis of same, so does there have to be AN escape from all conditioned states having that as their own nature...’ (Udana comy, Patali Villagers ch). > .... Apologies for the other typos. Sarah ===================================== 29691 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 5:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yet more discussion (and food) Dear All, Another correction: --- Sarah wrote: > Another point from the discussions which may be relevant- Nina raised > the > 10 punna-kiriya-vatthu (meritorious deeds) which RobM has referred to > and > which have been discussed here. .... In our live discussions, only issues and not names are raised or discussed. Apologies (esp. to Rob & Nina) for making it sound as though there was anything at all personal in the discussion which is not correct. Metta, Sarah ===== 29692 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 2:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, Howard, I thought you wrote the following message very well and would like to requote it for others who’ve been away and may have missed it: J:> Honestly though, I am not sure > what you mean by `shorthand truth' and `non-literal truth'. To me, > truth is truth. > ======================= H:> Actually, the thing that is literal or non-literal isn't the truth, per se, of the sentence involved, but the meaning. When we say "A person is coming for dinner," it sounds like we mean that some actual thing that we can pin down (a "person") is engaging in a well delineable activity (the "coming") that involves some other actual thing we can pin down ("dinner"). Taking it that way is to provide a literal understanding for a conventional utterance. From the Buddhist perspective, and from my perspective, the conventional meaning of the statement is a "manner-of-speaking" meaning, and it only very indirectly corresponds to the facts; and if the statement is understood quite literally, then is quite false (even when somebody IS coming to dinner ;-). However, the statement, makes perfectly good conventional sense, and it is, when understood that way, quite possibly true. Now, there is a literal meaning that the conventional formulation abbreviates - and there are levels and levels of more and more complex formulation that more and more closely express the literal meaning, but that literal meaning is pragmatically inexpressible in a direct manner, requiring a (near-)infinite complexity. Thus, to communicate, we *must* use conventional formulation. The trouble is that we are in the habit of taking our conventional formulations as bearing literal meaning. The Buddha used conventional formulations all the time, because he communicated, and they are needed to communicate, but he directly saw what is literally the case and was not taken in by convention.< end quote> Metta and good to read your other posts too:-) Sarah ======= 29693 From: Andy Wilson Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 7:00am Subject: RE: [dsg] new member Sarah S: > Do you have a pic to go in the Member album? i have added my picture for the enlightenment and edification of all :) S: > Meanwhile, RobM kindly responded and mentioned Nina's book on > Abhidhamma and CMA, I think. I bought copies of Nina's 'Cetasikas' and 'Abhidhamma in Daily Life' and very much look forward to reading them. Unfortunately they have had to join a small pile of Abhidhamma-related texts that await my attention once I finish my first reading of (Bodhi's edition of) the Abhidhammattha Sangaha. This is proceeding very slowly indeed as I find I am taking huge amounts of notes. In some sections I find myself practically transcribing the text into my notebook, it's so beautifully terse and yet bursting with implications at every line. I think this slow approach is the best way to introduce myself to the text. It does, however, mean that I'm only now approaching the close of #2 / compendium of mental factors. I don't know if that means I have too little knowledge to participate properly in this forum (which, from the posts, takes place at a high level), but perhaps my misunderstandings and impressions as a new reader from a non-buddhist background may be of some interest to others. if that turns out not to be the case, i will enjoy lurking anyway, i'm sure :) S: > Btw, we have two on-going (but currently taking short breaks) study > corners and you may find it useful to purchase the texts. One is the > Visuddhimagga - Understanding corner led by Larry. The other is the > Samyutta Nikaya (mostly using the Bodhi translation) one led by James*. Again, I now have copies of these texts and only wait for the time to give them the attention they deserve. may i ask how a 'study corner' works? i would like to take part if it is appropriate. If i can finish with what may sound like a foolish question: when people sign off 'metta' i understand that they intend 'loving-kindness', but are they reporting something about themselves or using it as a merely formal device? does it represent an aspiration to metta, a claim to it? or is it simply polite to sign off this way? As you'll have guessed, being British I'd hate to appear impolite, but on the other hand don't want to appear to be saying something about myself that either isn't true or at least isn't known by me to be true :) to a neophyte it seems a bold claim, if i understand it. tia (or, possibly, metta) andy 29694 From: Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 3:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 2/4/04 8:55:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Hi, Howard, > > I thought you wrote the following message very well and would like to > requote it for others who’ve been away and may have missed it ======================== Welcome back! Thank you for letting me know that you like this. Of course, you are free to quote any of my rantings ;-), whether you wish to express approval or disapproval. 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) 29695 From: Michael Beisert Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 9:09am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hello Sarah, Sarah: What did you think about the sections on sabhava, lakkhana and paramattha dhammas and the conclusions in the Karunadasa article that others have been reading? Can we yet agree with his conclusion here on sabhava? “It will thus be seen that although the term sabhava is used as a synonym for dhamma, it is interpreted in such a way that it means the absence of sabhava in any sense that implies a substantial mode of being.” Michael: I am still digesting the article. It will take me some time to comment. Do you think the views of the ‘abhidhamikas’ in this list very much agree with what Karunadasa writes in that article? Sarah: I think this ‘strict technical sense’ refers to the way that the fruition consciousness cittas follow the path consciousness citta when nibbana is realized. Michael: I don’t see anything you wrote to convince me that you are right. The reading from the suttas that I posted is quite obvious, magga and phala are portrayed as two distinct individuals, two separate and distinct moments of consciousness that do not happen in succession. This interpretation is also supported by the teachings I heard from a well respected and studied bhikkhu. In my mind the interpretation you gave is a blunder by Buddhaghosa. Metta Michael >From: Sarah >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno >Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:04:31 +0800 (CST) > >Hi Michael, > > --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Sarah, > > > > Welcome back to our routine :) >... >S: Thank you. I missed the discussions with you, James & Victor too;-) >It’s been good to read your posts while we’ve been away. What did you >think about the sections on sabhava, lakkhana and paramattha dhammas and >the conclusions in the Karunadasa article that others have been reading? >Can we yet agree with his conclusion here on sabhava? > >“It will thus be seen that although the term sabhava is used as a synonym >for dhamma, it is interpreted in such a way that it means the absence of >sabhava in any sense that implies a substantial mode of being.” > >... > > Sarah: > > In any case, the latter ‘strict tecnical sense’ as Jon wrote before, > > this > > ‘is simply a streamwinner progressing to the corresponsing fruition > > moment.’ > > > > Michael: > > You are confirming what I said. He is a stream-winner and continues his > > practice (i.e. progressing) towards fruition. Two distinct separate > > moments > > that do not happen in succession. >.... >S: I think this ‘strict technical sense’ refers to the way that the >fruition consciousness cittas follow the path consciousness citta when >nibbana is realized. For the interpretation of the sutta, I understand it >according to the scale I mapped out which the limited commentary note >given seemed to concur with, i.e the worldling with insight on the way to >becoming a sotapanna, progressing to being a sotapanna (sotapatti magga >citta, followed by sotapatti phala cittas). > >I think the technical note Bodhi gave and my extra comments on this >confused the issue. > >I’d like to see the Pali and a good translation of the commentary note >really. In Bangkok, Num looked at the Thai version but said it didn’ t >include much. >.... >M: >Here is another sutta for you: > > > > “And furthermore, just as the ocean is the abode of such mighty beings > > as > > whales, whale-eaters, and whale-eater-eaters; asuras, nagas, and > > gandhabbas, > > and there are in the ocean beings one hundred leagues long, two > > hundred... > > three hundred... four hundred... five hundred leagues long; in the same > > way, > > this Doctrine and Discipline is the abode of such mighty beings as > > stream-winners and those practicing to realize the fruit of stream-entry > > .. > > > > >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/udana/ud5-05.html#abode >..... >S:I gave the comy to this part of the passage yesterday, under the >technical note. I think it clearly refers to the 8 ariya puggala, i.e the >4 pairs of magga and phala cittas that realize nibbana. >... >M: > The beings that live in the ocean are clearly different individual > > beings, > > and the stream-winners and those practicing for the fruit are also > > different > > individuals, otherwise the analogy doesn’t make sense. >.... >S:I think the analogy is referring to all the ‘Greats’ that have >discovered the ‘Great Ocean’. All the ariyans in other words. I understand >the difficulty with the words, but accept that this is the way it’s >expressed in the suttas and elsewhere. I know this won’t satisfy:-) > >Here’s a quote from the same sutta, relevant I had before with Howard, >(Masefield transl): > >“Just as, monks, the Great Ocean progressively sloes, progressively tends, >progressively inclines, is no sudden precipice at all, so in that very >same way, monks, are there in this Dhamma and Discipline progressive >trainings, progressive obligations, progressive practices, there being no >sudden penetration of supreme knowledge. That there are, monks, in this >Dhamma and Discipline progressive trainings, progressive obligations, >progressive practices, there being no sudden penetration of supreme >knowledge, is, mons the first thing with respec to this Dhamma and >Discipline that is a marvel, that is unprecedented, upon repeatedly seeing >which the monks take delight in this Dhamma and Discipline.” > >Metta, > >Sarah > >“There is but one moment (kha.no) and occasion (samayo), monks, for living >the Brahmacariya” (A iv 227) >====================== 29696 From: Michael Beisert Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 9:23am Subject: RE: [dsg] new member Hello Andy, Andy: If i can finish with what may sound like a foolish question: when people sign off 'metta' i understand that they intend 'loving-kindness', but are they reporting something about themselves or using it as a merely formal device? does it represent an aspiration to metta, a claim to it? or is it simply polite to sign off this way? As you'll have guessed, being British I'd hate to appear impolite, but on the other hand don't want to appear to be saying something about myself that either isn't true or at least isn't known by me to be true :) to a neophyte it seems a bold claim, if i understand it. Michael: The most destructive emotion for oneself and others is anger/hatred. The Buddha once compared being angry as the same as the person throwing hot embers at the other person. It hurts both and first the person who is angry. Anger pervades the world. Loving kindness or loving friendliness (metta) is the best antidote to anger. By signing off with metta I try to remind myself of that every time, and hopefully the reader will also be reminded. Metta Michael 29697 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 10:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Six Sense Bases Hi Sarah, I gave a rather terse reply to this post which has been bothering me for a couple of hours now. You would think I would have learned not to ask you direct questions by now, since I hardly ever agree with the answers, but I guess I haven't! ;-)) I want to give a more thorough reply. Sarah: A good start to Marasamyutta. Not an easy Samyutta (but then are any?). James: Well, there are quite a few in this section easier than this one but I didn't want to bore everyone by picking an easy one to discuss. Sarah: I think you'll find more and more that there really is no conflict between what is taught in the Abhidhamma, commentaries and suttas. James: Actually, I am finding quite the opposite. I am finding that quite a lot of mental gymnastics have to be done to make the Abhidhamma and commentaries match the suttas. Frankly, I don't know why you don't see this yourself. Haven't you noticed that this group never runs out of things to disagree about?? When looking at the suttas and then the Abhidhamma and commentaries are thrown in it becomes a real mess! (like some of what I see in this post). Sarah: I know. I once had a professor who was a split-brain expert, so remember I was brought up on all this .... However, when we are discussing science, brain and so on, we're back to the world of concepts.... See `science' in U.P., perhaps;-) I understand what you're saying. James: Okay, I have read all of them and I don't see your point. Most of them are about how science doesn't have the goal of liberation but Buddhism does. Okay. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out! ;-)) The problem that I see however is that the Abhidhamma often intrudes into the territory of science. For example, I found in one of the `science' posts this quote from Nina, " The Abhidhamma teaches that at the first moment of life of a human there arise three groups of ten rupas (dasakas): one with the heartbase, one with bodysense and one with sex. But these are infinitesimally tiny. The Abhidhamma does not have science as its goal. The goal is knowing dhammas as they are." What? How is knowing that at the moment of human life there arise three groups of ten rupas, etc., etc., etc., this is pure science!!! It is not very good science, but it is science all the same. There is nothing dhamma about this information. Knowing this isn't going to lead anyone to liberation. Nina also writes in another post, "With rupas it may seem that there is a conflict between science and the teaching of the Abhidhamma, they may not see that there *is no conflict*." I don't think Nina knows science all that well because I can tell you that there are conflicts galore!! When more is known about the brain I am sure we are going to see a lot of conflicts with nama theory as well. All of this stuff from the Abhidhamma is pseudo-scientific and it doesn't really lead to liberation. Liberation as in: Don't do evil, do only good, and purify the mind. Sarah: The Buddha described realities, paramattha dhammas as indicated in the Chachakka sutta. Apart from the khandhas, the ayatanas or the dhatus, anything else experienced now is a concept, a pannatti, including all dreams. To quote from Karunadasa as you find his writing so helpful: http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm ***** "Further, pannattis differ from dhammas in that only the latter are delimited by rise and fall; only of the dhammas and not of the pannattis can it be said, "They come into being having not been (ahutva sambhonti); and, after having been, they cease (hutva pativenti)." 119 Pannattis have no own-nature to be manifested in the three instants of arising, presence, and dissolution. Since they have no existence marked by these three phases, such temporal distinctions as past, present, and future do not apply to them. Consequently they have no reference to time (kalavimutta).120 For this self-same reason, they have no place in the traditional analysis of empirical existence into the five khandhas, for what is included in the khandhas should have the characteristics of empirical reality and be subject to temporal divisions.121 Another noteworthy characteristic of pannattis is that they cannot be described either as conditioned (sankhata) or as unconditioned (asankhata), for they do not possess their own-nature (sabhava) to be so described.122 Since the two categories of the conditioned and the unconditioned comprise all realities, the description of pannattis as exempt from these two categories is another way of underscoring their unreality." James: Yes, Karunadasa's writing is very helpful, but he is simply describing Abhidhamma theory: which I don't agree with. I don't see where the Buddha taught the concepts of paramattha dhammas and pannatti in the same way which it is done in the Abhidhamma: saying one is real and the other isn't. The senses bring in information from the outside world and the brain forms concepts from that sensory input (consciousness which arises at the intellect). It is illusionary to think that the mind knows paramattha dhammas directly but not pannatti. Paramattha dhammas are only known as concept as well. The only exception to this, I believe, is during deep meditation when the mind is focused on a single object in a jhanic state or vipassana state and there is `pure awareness'. Anyway, this doesn't answer my question as to the LOCATION of the arising of the consciousness (this is why I wrote that no matter what I ask you I seem to always get the same answer). Sarah: In other words, there is only mind-door consciousness while we dream. James: The dreams are begun and continued by mind-door consciousness but they involve perceptual consciousness as well: "Dreaming reverses the normal sequence of perceptual events. When awake we perceive something from the outside and then process the information in the cortex. In dreams, there are internally generated images, which are fed backwards as if coming from the outside and abstract thoughts are converted into concrete perceptions. That is why there is a cessation of dreaming when there is damage to the gray cortex at the back of the brain (occipito-temporo-parietal junction) which is where the brain performs the highest level of processing of perceptual information." http://www.apsa.org/pubinfo/remqa.htm This is why I say that consciousness doesn't actually arise at the various sense organs but in the brain. Now, I don't think that the `brain' and the `mind' are the same thing; but we can save that discussion for another time. Anyway, the Abhidhamma is obviously entering scientific territory when it describes the location of the arising of consciousness. I don't think the Buddha actually described location; he spoke in more general terms in the suttas (or at least I hope so or I have a disagreement with the Buddha, which doesn't make me comfortable and maybe why I am so agitated about this subject…sorry for taking it out on you, Sarah). Sarah: From the same part of the Udana comy I just quoted from to Larry, we read about nibbana which `does no possess the own nature of being born, become and created possessed by states that are conditioned, such as name and form and so on.' Nibbana cannot be clung to or the object of clinging either (see your witty Mara intro;- )). Only by understanding the conditioned dhammas as anatta can the unconditioned dhamma be realized. James: This doesn't answer my question. It is like we are ships passing in the night. ;-)) Sarah: You gave the `coming back to the mountain' analogy. I'd say to you and KenO, it all comes back to the present eye consciousness and forms which continue to arise and fall just as they've always done. James: Again, not directly related to what I wrote. We are missing contact. Metta, James 29698 From: bodhi2500 Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 3:42pm Subject: Re: Sotaapanno Hi Sarah and all, > > Practising..SN48;18;8 > > > > Bhikkhus, there are these five faculties. What five? The faculty of > > Faith/energy/mindfulness/concentration and wisdom. > > One who has completed and fulfilled these five faculties is an > > Arahant. If they are weaker than that, one is practicing for the > > fruit of Arahantship;If still weaker,one is a non-returner etc /snip/ > > if still weaker, one is a stream-enterer; if still weaker, one is > > practicing for the realization of the fruit of stream entry. > > But Bhikhhus, I say that for one in whom these five faculties are > > completely and totally absent is `an outsider, one who stands in the > > faction of worldlings' > ..... Sarah: > I would read this sutta with the wider meaning that I gave to the one from > MN, Offerings, yesterday with gradual decrease in wisdom and 'five > faculties' stages, the last two being the one developing satipatthana (5 > indriya are developed and balanced at moments of satipatthana) on the way > to becoming a sotapanna and then the last one, the 'outsider' not > developing the faculties at all. > ..... That is how I understood it as well. > > Com.> In this sutta the faculties are exclusively supramundane. > .... Sarah: > Hmmm....not sure how this fits my last comments. Can you check the Pali or > let me know what you think? Otherwise Nina may help more on return. > .... The Pali is > imasmi.m sutte lokuttaraaneva indriyaani kathitaani. In this Sutta lokuttaraaneva indriyaani is spoken (of) > > Anyone know why the faculties of a "one practicing for the fruit of > > Stream entry" would be weaker than a stream-enterers faculties? > .... > See above and the MN comy note I gave yesterday. what do you think? I think the com. notes stating the faculties are lokuttara dont support a reading that "one practicing for the realization of the fruit of stream entry" is being used in the wider sense, as a worldling developing satipatthana. Pali for the Sutta, Atthakatha and Tika> 8. Pa.tipannasutta.m 488. "Pa~ncimaani, bhikkhave, indriyaani. katamaani pa~nca? saddhindriya.m …pe… pa~n~nindriya.mimaani kho, bhikkhave, pa~ncindriyaani. imesa.m kho, bhikkhave, pa~ncanna.m indriyaana.m samattaa paripuurattaa araha.m hoti, tato mudutarehi arahattaphalasacchikiriyaaya pa.tipanno hoti, tato mudutarehi anaagaamii hoti, tato mudutarehi anaagaamiphalasacchikiriyaaya pa.tipanno hoti, tato mudutarehi sakadaagaamii hoti, tato mudutarehi sakadaagaamiphalasacchikiriyaaya pa.tipanno hoti, tato mudutarehi sotaapanno hoti, tato mudutarehi sotaapattiphalasacchikiriyaaya pa.tipanno hoti. yassa kho, bhikkhave, imaani pa~ncindriyaani sabbena sabba.m sabbathaa sabba.m natthi, tamaha.m `baahiro puthujjanapakkhe .thito'ti vadaamii"ti. a.t.thama.m. Atthakatha 488. A.t.thame tato mudutarehiiti maggaphalavasena nissakka.m veditabba.m. ta.m paa.liya.m vuttameva. baahiroti imehi a.t.thahi puggalehi bahibhuuto. puthujjanapakkhe .thitoti puthujjanako.t.thaase .thito. imasmi.m sutte lokuttaraaneva indriyaani kathitaani. Tika 488. Tanti maggaphalavasena nissakka.m. paa.liya.m vuttameva "arahattaphalasacchikiriyaaya pa.tipanno hotii"ti- aadinaa. a.t.thahiiti catuuhi phalehi catuuhi ca maggehiiti a.t.thahi. bahibhuuto na antobhaavo. lokuttaraaneva indriyaani kathitaani maggaphalacittuppaadapariyaapannattaa. Steve 29699 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 7:00pm Subject: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Ken, I am not sure what it means by Right Understanding. Does it mean Right View (samma-ditthi)? Please don't get intimidating with my questioning. Sometimes I ask question to seek clarification on what others are talking about. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Victor > > I like this answer - Right Understanding. It may not sound fimilar > to you but after three days with someone ;-) in the "little funny > group" who always said this - one will eventually get the message. > Anyway that is a correct method - being consistent and simple and > back to the basic. This has been my mantra since a few years ago > when I practise Buddhism, so when I heard the simple two words again > and again - it strikes a chord. > > Anyway I was discussing about regression theory and you are asking > different thing. Honestly I am afraid to discuss with you further bc > you always asking for actual sutta quotes that say this or that. > You are more *hardcore* than James [hope he does not butt in again > just bc I mention his name ;-)]. Do forgive me if I do not further > our discussion. > > > > Ken O > > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Ken O, > > > > A question: > > > > Given the discourses, what do you think is the basic principle that > > > > the Buddha taught about the five aggregates(khandha)? > > > > Metta, > > Victor 29700 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 7:04pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body /Ken H Hi Azita and Andrew, -------------- Az: > Hope the storms down your way have bypassed you, they sound wild. > ---------------- They pretty well bypassed me, thanks Azita, (although I thought for a while the frog house was a goner). Some of my in-laws in Brisbane had a gum tree fall on their roof. On the subject of satipatthana and vipassana; we were both having trouble remembering the difference: ----------------- Az: > Well, I'm going to take the easy way out here, when there is clear understanding then panna will know the answer. ----------------- I think you are being too modest. When you wrote that, there was an understanding of anatta – which is not at all `easy.' :-) ------------------ Az: > If I don't understand then that's the reality at that moment. life can be stressful enuff without 'me' adding to it, so to speak. ------------------ I agree, in principle, that we shouldn't `stress out' over our own ignorance; but in practice, I stress out over just about everything. ------------------ Az: > I'm impressed with the amount of writing u do. ------------------ Thank you. You are more tactful than our friend Andrew. Mind you, he remembers me from my meditation days when I tried to restructure the Cooran meetings along the lines of a Goenka retreat. On one occasion, I actually drew up a schedule for when we could use the toilet and bathroom: This was so we wouldn't have to break noble silence by asking, "Is anyone in there?" :-) Oh dear, don't remind me! Maybe I have good reason to be stressed:-) Kind regards, Ken H 29701 From: Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 6:35am Subject: Why is Ignorance-Conditioned Sankhara a Condition for Consciousness? Hi, all - It would seem, on the face of it, that consciousness/discernment/awareness is a neutral function that is not, in and of itself, problematical. Yet, there remains the question that is the title of this post. One possible answer is that 'vi~n~nana' does not refer to experience in general, but to a special, dualistic, subject-bound mode of experiencing that amounts to experience infected by the sense of self/subject and individuality. In this regard, one might consider the beginning of the definition of 'vi~n~nana' in the Pali Text Society dictionary: ___________________________ Vinnana (p. 618) (nt.) [fr. vi+jna; cp. Vedic vijnana cognition] (as special term in Buddhist metaphysics) a mental quality as a constituent of individuality, the bearer of (individual) life, life--force (as extending also over rebirths), principle of conscious life, general consciousness (as function of mind and matter), regenerative force, animation, mind as transmigrant, as transforming (according to individual kamma) one individual life (after death) into the next. --------------------------------------- During my one extended "no-self" experience, the flow of experience continued, but there was no sense of subject, no knowing self, and what was experienced, correspondingly didn't appear as object of knowing, but just as being present. Did that experiencing constitute vi~n~nana? I think perhaps not. So, the question is: Is the "vi~n~nana" of dependent origination and of the khandhas experience in general, or is it defiled, self-bound experience? I suspect the latter. 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) 29702 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 7:16pm Subject: Re: Six Sense Bases Hi James, I was a bit puzzled as I checked the reference, SN35.117, and the quote you provided but did not find that the Buddha said about whether he has eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, intellect or not. Could you quote what the Buddha said on not having eyes from the discourse? I am not sure if I missed it. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > Hi James, > > > > This is how I see it: > > > > As long as an arahant lived, he saw with eyes, heard with ears, > > smelled with nose, tasted with tongue, sensed with body, and > thought > > with intellect just like everyone else. Eye, ear, nose, tongue, > > body, and intellect are to be seen as the old kamma. The new kamma > > are whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with > > the intellect. The cessation of kamma is the cessation of bodily > > kamma, verbal kamma, and mental kamma: it is the release, the > > unbinding, the cessation of dukkha. > > > > Without the cessation of kamma, one would just keep wandering in > the > > round of rebirth. Realizing the cessation of dukkha, the arahant > > would no longer do any kamma with the body, with speech, or with > the > > intellect. Nevertheless, until the arahant passed into the total > > unbinding(parinibbana), he still lived in the world with the eye & > > forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & > tactile > > sensations, intellect & ideas, with form, feeling, perception, > > fabrications, and consciousness, the whole aggregate of dukkha, > that > > inevitably followed the last birth. > > > > For reference to old kamma, new kamma, and the cessation of kamma, > > see: > > > > Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.145 > > Kamma Sutta > > Action > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn35-145.html > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > Thank you for your input. Yes, I also considered this but the Buddha > was speaking in the present tense, not after his parinibbana; and the > note was also in the present tense saying that the Buddha was > referring to nibbana, not parinibbana. I can accept that parinibbana > is what the Buddha meant but I am not so sure. > > Metta, James 29703 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 7:10pm Subject: Re: need help.../James Hi James, ------------- J: > I think you are taking what I posted a bit out of context. Of course people in the hospital, suffering in pain, should not be told that their bodies are repulsive. I never even suggested such a thing. > ----------------- Of course you didn't. I should have explained that I wasn't attributing that meaning to you. ----------------- J: > That would be uncompassionate to the extreme. What I posted is of course for the serious Dhamma practioner to consider, not for anyone else. For example, if I told my mother that her body is repulsive, she might just clobber me over the head! ;-)) ------------------ I can believe that! There have been times when I've wanted to clobber you over the head. :-) But I think you have missed the point I was trying to make. I was thinking that no amount of conventional right understanding is going to make an iota of difference. Those poor people, whose bodies have become hideously diseased, know, as well as any of us, that the body is not worth clinging to. Does that bring them enlightenment? No. To gain enlightenment, we have to understand ultimate reality: There is rupa (body), body object, body consciousness, body-contact and body-contact-feeling. In the present moment, while these fleeting phenomena (the five khandhas) exist, they are `the all' (the loka). In another, succeeding moment, there may be pannatti, (thinking, conceptualising): There may be the concept of a human body that feels, hears, sees and lies on a bed. That concept is of something other than ultimate reality – it is not what the Buddha taught. We, uninstructed worldlings, take our concepts of body as real: we are ignorant of the loka (the five khandhas) and so we are trapped in samsara. That is why the "Letters from Mara" article left me unimpressed: Far from explaining the way out of samsara, it rehashes the same, conventional view, of the Buddha's Dhamma, that prevails in the world today. Get off the bandwagon, James! :-) Just kidding; there is no more a James than there is a bandwagon: As mere, mental phenomena, different kinds of understanding come and go according to conditions. There is no control. Kind regards, Ken H 29704 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 10:37pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hi Michael, --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Michael: > I am still digesting the article. It will take me some time to comment. > Do > you think the views of the ‘abhidhamikas’ in this list very much agree > with > what Karunadasa writes in that article? ..... I can’t speak for anyone else and I’m not sure who the ‘abhidhamikas’ are, apart from Suan perhaps:-) I’ve only read parts of the article and not followed the references carefully as I’d like to (there’s a lot of meat in it). In brief, I don’t care much for his introductions (here and the time and space one), because of the emphasis on ‘theory’and ‘philosophical cornerstone’ and his comments about Abhidhamma arising out of the ‘need to make sense out of experiences in meditation’ etc and many other comments too. For many of us, the Abhidhamma and Dhamma are not a ‘theory’ that has ‘evolved’ or ‘one of the earliest forms of the dhamma theory’. Seeing it as such, a construct separate from practice and present moment realities, means the paramattha dhammas will never be known. Seeing, visible forms, hearing, sounds and so on are paramattha dhammas which can be directly known at the present moment. It doesn’t matter what they’re called. They are not theoreticl constructs but realities or actualities to be understood as KenO stressed. What I like is all the accurately quoted textual detail. While I think there are errors in some of his comments(such as on space in the other article and possibly here under ayatanas and dhatus, for example), the discussions on puggala, paramattha, sabhava, pannatti,lakkhana seem pretty good with a lot of very useful material. I’d be happy to discuss any of it further (maybe one section at a time), though, as I stress and James rightly concurs, I’m not an expert in Abhidhamma theory or practice;-) ..... > Michael: > I don’t see anything you wrote to convince me that you are right. The > reading from the suttas that I posted is quite obvious, magga and phala > are > portrayed as two distinct individuals, two separate and distinct > moments of > consciousness that do not happen in succession. .... It is obvious to you, but not to B.Bodhi,some of us here, Buddhaghosa or even Sariputta who was supposed to have taught the Patisambhidamagga and Abhidhamma. .... This interpretation is > also > supported by the teachings I heard from a well respected and studied > bhikkhu. In my mind the interpretation you gave is a blunder by > Buddhaghosa. ..... Can the bhikkhu give any textual support which clearly states 1) not all defilements are eradicated by lokuttara magga cittas, but some by the (vipaka) phala cittas and 2)that the lokuttara phala cittas do not follow immediately after the magga cittas? Metta, Sarah p.s Did you see the ‘timely’ momentary reminder yesterday? I’ve been reflecting on it a lot today after receiving the news about a tragic family death yesterday evening. ========================================= 29705 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 11:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hi Steve & All, Thankyou for giving me the Pali and your extra comments to SN48:18:8 ‘Practising’ --- bodhi2500 wrote: > > > Practising..SN48;18;8 <....> > I think the com. notes stating the faculties are lokuttara dont > support a reading that "one practicing for the realization of the > fruit of stream entry" is being used in the wider sense, as a > worldling developing satipatthana. .... In that case I think we’re both stuck at the same point and I can't help. We can see if Nina adds anything further too;-) However, I looked at the three suttas before this one, S48:15,16 and 17 which seem consistent with the way we read this one originally - stages, but without the intervening ‘practising for the fruit of’ stages. They all have an unenlightened Dhamma-follower with weaker faculties and then a still weaker ‘faith-follower’. I’ve looked at the commentary notes you gave below but can’t translate them - my Pali is very limited. However, could they be saying that: Atthakatha 1. If the faculties (indriya) are weaker, the (lokuttara) magga and phala cittas cannot arise to experience nibbana. 2. For worldlings, there will be continued and numerous becomings. 3. In this regard, in the sutta, lokuttara level faculties (wisdom etc) are being referred to. Tika 4. Full mastery of magga and phala cittas is meant by "one practicing for the realization of the fruit of arahantship" 5. There are 4 sets of magga and phala cittas 6. For these (the arahants), there is no more becoming 7. Lokuttara faculties are being spoken of as support/nourishment for magga and phala cittas here. Or is this a nonsensical ‘stretch’ or contortion to fit our reading???? Metta, Sarah ======= > Pali for the Sutta, Atthakatha and Tika> > > 8. Pa.tipannasutta.m > Atthakatha > 488. A.t.thame tato mudutarehiiti maggaphalavasena nissakka.m > veditabba.m. ta.m paa.liya.m vuttameva. baahiroti imehi > a.t.thahi puggalehi bahibhuuto. puthujjanapakkhe .thitoti > puthujjanako.t.thaase .thito. imasmi.m sutte lokuttaraaneva > indriyaani kathitaani. > > Tika > 488. Tanti maggaphalavasena nissakka.m. paa.liya.m > vuttameva "arahattaphalasacchikiriyaaya pa.tipanno hotii"ti- > aadinaa. a.t.thahiiti catuuhi phalehi catuuhi ca maggehiiti > a.t.thahi. bahibhuuto na antobhaavo. lokuttaraaneva indriyaani > kathitaani maggaphalacittuppaadapariyaapannattaa. 29706 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 11:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Six Sense Bases Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I gave a rather terse reply to this post which has been bothering me > for a couple of hours now. You would think I would have learned not > to ask you direct questions by now, since I hardly ever agree with > the answers, but I guess I haven't! ;-)) I want to give a more > thorough reply. .... I greatly appreciate this and will consider your comments further when I have a chance. I understand my brief comment on science sounded flippant and unhelpful and I quite see that the points and references didn't 'connect'. The typos wouldn't have helped either. <...> > James: Actually, I am finding quite the opposite. I am finding that > quite a lot of mental gymnastics have to be done to make the > Abhidhamma and commentaries match the suttas. Frankly, I don't know > why you don't see this yourself. Haven't you noticed that this group > never runs out of things to disagree about?? .... Oh well, perhaps that's the secret of a busy list;-) For me, the suttas just get deeper and deeper in meaning. Long gone are the days I can read them like a novel . Really, I think this is the great joy of the Teachings - the depth and wisdom. We're hardly scratching the surface, even with all those gymnastics;-) .... <...> >I don't think the Buddha actually > described location; he spoke in more general terms in the suttas (or > at least I hope so or I have a disagreement with the Buddha, which > doesn't make me comfortable and maybe why I am so agitated about this > subject…sorry for taking it out on you, Sarah). .... That's OK. I'll try to step a little more sensitively here. Thanks for this comment and really I don't mind being the punch-bag;-) ..... <...> > James: This doesn't answer my question. It is like we are ships > passing in the night. ;-)) <...> > James: Again, not directly related to what I wrote. We are missing > contact. .... OK, let's try better next time.... I'm a little distracted right now. Metta, Sarah ===== 29707 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 0:03am Subject: RE: [dsg] new member Hi Andy, Thx for the pic and I’m very impressed by all your reading. I’ll make sure Nina sees your letter too when she returns. --- Andy Wilson wrote: > Sarah On CMA: > I think this > slow approach is the best way to introduce myself to the text. It does, > however, mean that I'm only now approaching the close of #2 / compendium > of mental factors. I don't know if that means I have too little > knowledge to participate properly in this forum (which, from the posts, > takes place at a high level), but perhaps my misunderstandings and > impressions as a new reader from a non-buddhist background may be of > some interest to others. if that turns out not to be the case, i will > enjoy lurking anyway, i'm sure :) .... Pls don’t lurk - too many lurkers already;-) You’re already making good contributions and truly, there’s never a case of ‘too little knowledge to participate properly in this forum’. Often the simplest comments and impressions are the best too. Pls share anything from CMA as you go along. I admire those who can systematically study these texts. I find I can only read like a grass-hopper. ... > Again, I now have copies of these texts and only wait for the time to > give them the attention they deserve. may i ask how a 'study corner' > works? i would like to take part if it is appropriate. .... You’ll like Larry’s Vism corner (following an Abh in Daily Life and then a Satipatthana sutta commentaries corner), beause he keeps it running methodically. He posts extracts in order from the last section of the Vism (Understanding) in order and anyone can ask qus, raise points or comments. Nina translates much of the accompanying Tika (sub-commentary). We’ll be continuing from X1V,61 I think in the next couple of weeks after lots of controversy over heart-basis;-) The Samyutta corner is newer and less predictable. We’ve just started self-reading the 4th section, Marasamyutta. If you or anyone else would like to introduce a sutta or verse from this section or any comments, we’d be glad. Chris, Victor, anyone.... Also, anyone may wish to look at various meanings of Mara in UP under ‘Mara’ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts I’m sure you’ll have realized by now that there’s more controversy than agreement on any threads;-) .... > tia (or, possibly, metta) .... I liked Michael’s explanation on why he uses metta. for me it’s probably part formality, part reminder, part genuine well-wishing, part copycat, part ignorance;-) tia is fine too. Metta, Sarah ======= 29708 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 0:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body /Ken H Hi KenH, Azita & Andrew, Chris and I laughed at Bangkok airport - she was dressed for return to the big heat and I was dressed for return to freezing wet conditions here;-) --- gazita2002 wrote: > Hello Ken, > Hope the storms down your way have bypassed you, they sound > wild. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" > wrote: > Both satipatthana and > > vipassana refer to the various cittas that are accompanied by the > > cetasikas, right understanding, right thought, etc., and have a > > dhamma as object. Vipassana can refer to all such cittas > (including > > those with the unconditioned dhamma as object) whereas satipatthana > > refers only to those with a conditioned dhamma as object. In other > > words, the mundane form of vipassana can be called satipatthana. .... I'm also taking an easy route. Sounds fine. vi-passana - clear seeing or wisdom. Nina wrote a post on the meaning (see vipassana in U.P).As you say, mundane or supramundane wisdom is included. Satipatthana - 3 meanings (also in U.P. under satipatthana). Awareness with clear comprehension (wisdom) and other factors. Azita, I think that any moments of right understanding of realities are satipatthana, however weak. It has to develop before 1st vipassana nana. Usually, I think, vipassana isn't used in the texts to refer to these kindergarden moments of satipatthana and as KenH suggests, I also think satipatthana only refers to the development of mundane factors. As you've also said, neither refers to a 'position', a 'location', 'quiet' or anything other than wisdom etc and the objects of such wisdom and so on. Andrew - no need to go soft on your friend - I'm sure it would take a lot more than your gentle and kindly meant ribbing to offend him;-) Funny how those same accumulations shine through, Ken H. I remember a friend who'd heard me harping on about politics and community issues at length and so when it all turned to Buddhism and she was still a friend, she sighed and asked if we had to go through the same process and mini-lectures all over again;-) (Btw, I assured Nina that you were really the best of friends in real life;-)) Metta, Sarah ===== 29709 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 1:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Larry, > Thanks for your well considered reply; I think I understand your view > better now. However, I still disagree. If the study of right view is > only abstract concepts without application to any experience then > nothing will be understood. To wait for things to happen in their own > time seems to me to be deliberately cultivating tranquility at the > expense of insight. I agree that if you really think you are doing the > wrong thing by deliberately cultivating insight, then you should > probably stop and consider what is going on. But it seems to me a good > sign if you detect desire. I would say look closer and see if it is > really desire or just a concept. What is it to "wait for things to happen in their own time"? Is the need to have patience a consequence of having concluded that development of wisdom takes time and that one's understanding by comparison is still very low? Yes one often thinks along these lines, and I agree that when this is so, it would be more like developing tranquility at the expense of insight ;-). Though such considerations can be a form of kusala thinking, I don't think it is very useful as far as following the Buddha's teachings on Satipatthana is concerned. And I must admit that most of my reflections on dhamma is of such sort, the immediate result of which is just `calm acceptance'. Sometimes however, when I consider about the conditioned nature of the present moment, I also see that it is anatta and that there is no control. Sometimes there is a little insight into the difference between sense door and the thinking process (still purely on the thinking level though). There may be the recognition of ignorance of sense door and instead being caught in `thinking about' it. At other times there may be the intellectual realization that moha, lobha and dosa is so pervasive. Sometimes one see that one's interpretation of experiences is within the narrow limits of one's own conditioning, and often no matter how hard one tries, there is no insight into the moment. One concludes that enough panna hasn't been accumulated and *nothing can be done* except listen and consider more (as descriptive ;-)). Yes the so called detecting of desire is only "thinking"!! But what does one do except recognize that it is so?! There is no escape from thinking, and there is nothing wrong with it. The thoughts are reflections of our underlying views and this is what needs to be questioned and corrected. Just because we feel an urgency to develop understanding doesn't mean we get carried away by a line of thought which may have wrong view as an underlying factor. Looking at this post, does it seem like there is `passive waiting for things to happen'? That this is "only abstract concepts without application" and "I" choose this? I think that the line between theory and practice is hard to pin point. Certainly the "self" can't decide on where to make the distinction. And when there is a `self' who practices, it is more likely that there is none, imho. Looking forward to your response. I think you ask the best questions Larry ;-). Metta, Sukin. 29710 From: Andrew Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 2:14am Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body /Ken H Hi Sarah You wrote: > Andrew - no need to go soft on your friend - I'm sure it would take a lot > more than your gentle and kindly meant ribbing to offend him;-) [snip] (Btw, I assured Nina that you were really the best of friends in real > life;-)) The internet is quite a hard medium to communicate in. I sometimes forget that most readers don't know that Ken H and I have known each other for many years and live in the same area. For the record, I think Ken H is terrific and I have learnt alot from him over the years. He is very sincere and a deep thinker. We don't always agree, mind you, but that's samsara, isn't it. I can also attest to the fact that Ken H was a very diligent meditator - so whatever his current views on "meditation practice" can be attributed to, laziness is not amongst them. Just thought I'd clear that up for Nina and any others I may have confused. Here on the farm at Cooran, I look outside and the female wallaby that lives around the house garden is out grazing. She has recently weaned a joey and sent it off to fend for itself and now she has a new joey in her pouch. Its head is stretching out to nibble at the grass. The wheel of life rolls on! Best wishes to all! Andrew 29711 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 2:16am Subject: Re: need help.../James Hi Ken, Ken: I can believe that! There have been times when I've wanted to clobber you over the head. :-) James: Good, good. To me, this is progress. If I placate you continually you will continue to cling to fixed views. As I said when I joined this group, I have a strong Zen streak. Zen folks are known to be non-conformists and intentionally irritating. (But I guess this precludes my participation in any Bangkok meetings. There would be a melee with you and Ken O leading the pack! ;-)) Ken: But I think you have missed the point I was trying to make. I was thinking that no amount of conventional right understanding is going to make an iota of difference. Those poor people, whose bodies have become hideously diseased, know, as well as any of us, that the body is not worth clinging to. Does that bring them enlightenment? No. James: What? Those people don't know that the body isn't worth clinging to anymore than you or I. What makes you think they do? If they knew this they would be enlightened. If doesn't matter how diseased, horrible, festering, rotten, ugly, etc. a person's body is, there is still a clinging to it: a clinging for existence, sometimes for non-existence, but still a clinging. Ken: To gain enlightenment, we have to understand ultimate reality: James: Well, here is where you and I differ. I believe that to gain enlightenment one needs to purify the mind of defilements, understanding ultimate reality will come as a consequence of that. It seems to me that you are putting the cart before the horse. (Of course, there are some able to `understand' their way to enlightenment, but they are rare, and they need to start from ground zero. After all, my reality isn't your reality. To get to ultimate reality you have to start with subjective reality.) Ken: There may be the concept of a human body that feels, hears, sees and lies on a bed. That concept is of something other than ultimate reality – it is not what the Buddha taught. James: Denying the existence of the human body, in my opinion, isn't going to lead to a realization of anatta. Anatta can only be reached when the body is not seen as `me or mine'. Ken: We, uninstructed worldlings, take our concepts of body as real: weare ignorant of the loka (the five khandhas) and so we are trapped in samsara. James: No, we cling to the five khandhas, this is what causes samsara. This is a very subtle difference between what the two of us are saying but I believe it is a very important one. Allow me to quote from the Dhammapada, "Knowing that this body is like foam, and comprehending its mirage-nature, one should destroy the flowershafts of sensual passions (Mara), and pass beyond the sight of the King of Death." Knowing that the body has a mirage nature, constantly changing, isn't enough. One must destroy clinging to the body to complete the path. Ken: That is why the "Letters from Mara" article left me unimpressed: Far from explaining the way out of samsara, it rehashes the same, conventional view, of the Buddha's Dhamma, that prevails in the world today. Get off the bandwagon, James! :-) James: LOL! You know, history is replete with examples of people thinking they have come up with `New and Improved' ways of doing things. The Buddhadhamma is no exception. But, really, there are no shortcuts. The tried and true method: Don't do evil, do only good, and purify the mind. It is so easy to understand but so difficult to follow. Your conceit of being `special and unique' on the path blocks your view of the truth. I am not special. I try to be as ordinary as a stone. Ken: There is no control. James: I read your recent post to Azita and Andrew (29700) and it seems to me that you like this mantra a lot because of your overwhelming stress. Maybe you think if you repeat it enough your stress will go away. Since you have gotten somewhat personal in this post, I feel that I can do the same (for your benefit): It seems to me that you are up, you are down, you are left, you are right, you are high, you are low, you are everywhere except in the present moment. Stop letting your mind run the show, get control of it! To quote again from the Dhammapada "The mind is hard to check. It is swift and wanders at will. To control it is good. A controlled mind is conducive to happiness." Metta, James 29712 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 3:30am Subject: Re: Six Sense Bases Hi Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi James, > > I was a bit puzzled as I checked the reference, SN35.117, and the > quote you provided but did not find that the Buddha said about > whether he has eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, intellect or not. > > Could you quote what the Buddha said on not having eyes from the > discourse? I am not sure if I missed it. > > Metta, > Victor Hmmm...I am not sure where you are in the SN. I was referring to SNI,4,19(9). SNI refers to Book I: The Book of Verses (Sagathavagga), 4 refers to Chapter 4: Marasamyutta, 19 refers to sutta 19: "The Farmer", (9) refers to sutta 9 of the subchapter II: "Rulership" (which the subchapter may not match your addition of the SN). I will type out the entire sutta later; I have some errands to do today. I am running behind schedule as it is. I think I might have figured out this sutta's meaning, but I will get to that later. Metta, James 29713 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 5:14am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hi Michael Please look at the sutta that you have quoted carefully. Definitely is about different individual but it is about DANA and not about MAGGA or PHALA cittas. I think this sutta is straight forward enough - one practise to be on the fruit of Stream Entrant is different than who is a already a Stream Entrant. One practise to be one is only of Mahakusala cittas and even close to magga yet. Only one that is stream entrant - one has in magga / phala cittas. Without even going to details of commentaries, I am very confident to say that there sn't any tiny minute difference between the SUTTA you quote and the ABDHIDHAMMA. I welcome any comments on this from you Ken O 29714 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 5:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism - Long Hi Jeff Brooks I am definitely interested in jhanas (even though I know it may be countless lives away before I experience ;-0). Definitely jhanas bring a different level of pleasant abiding than what we experience as plesant in non-jhanas momemts. I glad that you have strong faith in the Pali Cannon in Pali - If my memory does not fail me there is a method of dry insight where one does not need jhanas to be enlighted. Beside this point lets talk about jhanas. But first of all, I have not experience jhanas in my whole life and also I have not read much about jhanas bc to me this is still not a practical thing for me now. If you are interested in this, I like to explore further this with you. I like to explore the mindfullness portion with you - how do you define mindfullness. Do you think when one that is mindful, will one still long for the experience of the ecstasy of jhanas? When one is mindful, can one say let me now go to the jhanas - is it possible without the right conditions?. What do you mean by dedicated contemplative practice, what are the conditions, what are the methods? Are those said in the sutta where one must be withdraw from sensual desire first before going to the jhanas? Or one have to the right conditions as stated in the Visud before a jhanas can happen? Thats all I can think now for you kind comments please Ken O In fact I agree with you one does > not arrive > at jhana without a dedicated contemplative practice, thus requiring > the > cultivation of what you call "mindfulness." > > Best regards, > > Jeff Brooks > > In a message dated 2/3/04 2:22:52 AM, > dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com writes: > > << Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:50:10 +0000 (GMT) > From: Kenneth Ong > Subject: Re: Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism - Long > > Hi Jeff Brooks > > You definition of jhana is not in accordance with Ancient text - > are > you also doubting those Arahants who wrote it???? Do you doubt > that > the Arahants not experiencing jhanas??? > > By the way you have not answer my previous qn, your definition of > jhana is only esctasy but in the sutta it is both esctasy and > mindfullness so how do you explain this jhanas of yours is only > esctasy. > > > > Ken O >> > > > > > > > > > > 29715 From: Michael Beisert Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 6:02am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hello Sarah, Sarah: Can the bhikkhu give any textual support which clearly states 1) not all defilements are eradicated by lokuttara magga cittas, but some by the (vipaka) phala cittas and 2)that the lokuttara phala cittas do not follow immediately after the magga cittas? Michael: There is a misunderstanding in relation to your point 1. The argument is that lokuttara magga citta occurs with the elimination of the first defilement and subsequent to that the sotapanna continues to develop his practice and eliminates the other two fetters and after the three fetters have been eliminated you have the vipaka phala citta. It would not be possible for the defilements to be eliminated by a vipaka citta. Point 2 is where our main difference is. I will try to get clarification. Metta Michael 29716 From: Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 2:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: need help.../James Hi, Ken (anfd James) - In a message dated 2/5/04 1:58:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hi James, > > ------------- > J: >I think you are taking what I posted a bit out of context. Of > course people in the hospital, suffering in pain, should not be told > that their bodies are repulsive. I never even suggested such a > thing. > > > ----------------- > > Of course you didn't. I should have explained that I wasn't > attributing that meaning to you. > > ----------------- > J: >That would be uncompassionate to the extreme. What I posted is > of course for the serious Dhamma practioner to consider, not for > anyone else. For example, if I told my mother that her body is > repulsive, she might just clobber me over the head! ;-)) > ------------------ > > I can believe that! There have been times when I've wanted to > clobber you over the head. :-) > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: ;-)) You have a great sense of humor, Ken! -------------------------------------------------- > > But I think you have missed the point I was trying to make. I was > thinking that no amount of conventional right understanding is going > to make an iota of difference. Those poor people, whose bodies have > become hideously diseased, know, as well as any of us, that the body > is not worth clinging to. Does that bring them enlightenment? No. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I very much agree with you on this, Ken. All that the conventional understanding will do - but this is important - is make one clearly aware that things are not "just fine", to point one in the direction of seeking a way out from suffering, and to serve to make one realize the urgency of the matter. --------------------------------------------------- > > To gain enlightenment, we have to understand ultimate reality: There > is rupa (body), body object, body consciousness, body-contact and > body-contact-feeling. In the present moment, while these fleeting > phenomena (the five khandhas) exist, they are `the all' (the loka). > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, "but". The "but" is that this understanding must not be an encyclopedic, intellectual knowledge, which is near worthless, but a direct seeing of things as they are, resulting from establishing the proper conditions. And this requires putting into practice the Buddha's program of cultivation of s ila, samadhi, and pa~n~na, and that is done on a basis of conventional understanding. --------------------------------------------------- > > In another, succeeding moment, there may be pannatti, (thinking, > conceptualising): There may be the concept of a human body that > feels, hears, sees and lies on a bed. That concept is of something > other than ultimate reality – it is not what the Buddha taught. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, a perusing of the suttas will clearly show that the Buddha taught both. ------------------------------------------------------- > > We, uninstructed worldlings, take our concepts of body as real: we > are ignorant of the loka (the five khandhas) and so we are trapped > in samsara. > > That is why the "Letters from Mara" article left me unimpressed: Far > from explaining the way out of samsara, it rehashes the same, > conventional view, of the Buddha's Dhamma, that prevails in the > world today. Get off the bandwagon, James! :-) > > Just kidding; there is no more a James than there is a bandwagon: > As mere, mental phenomena, different kinds of understanding come and > go according to conditions. There is no control. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Some comments on this last paragraph, Ken: 1) Merely saying or believing that there literally is no "James" is of little value. Experiencing no-self is something else. 2) Yes, different kinds of understanding come and go according to conditions. What is the point? 3) If 'control' means "My wish is my command," then I agree - no control. But there *can* be effective influence, and were there not, then Buddhism wouldn't be worth even a nanosecond of anyone's time. --------------------------------------------------------- > > 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) 29717 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 8:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yet more discussion (and food) Hi Sarah The smiling cittas is from the commentary to the Summary of the Topics of Abhidhamma chapter six number 34 <<(34) The thirteen: four from the wholesome, form from the unwholesome, and five from the kiriya, making thirteen. Of these, ordinary persons smile with eight wholesome and unwholesome consciousness, trainees with the same excluding those accompanied by view, those in no need of training with the five kiriya. And in the case of the last [some] argue that Buddhas smile only with the four kiriya consciounesses with motivation, and not with the one without motivations; this follows from the statement that when Blessed Buddhas attain unobstructed knowledge of the past, etc., and possess these three accomplishments, all their bodily actions are preceded by knowledge, or involve knowledge, so that for Buddhas the arising of a smile without knowledge consisting in examination is not appropriate. However, when a smile occurs for Buddhas with the [kiriya] smile-producing consciounesss it still involves knowledge since it is consequent upen the knowledges of previous existences, the future or omniscience. In consideration of this fact, it is stated in the [Abhidhamma] Commentary that the consciousness which causes smiles arises at the consclusion of these knowledges. Therefore it is not possible to exclude the occurrence of this consiousness in the case of the Buddhas. >> Ken O 29718 From: Michael Beisert Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 8:35am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hello KenO, >From: Kenneth Ong >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno >Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:14:58 +0000 (GMT) > >Hi Michael > >Please look at the sutta that you have quoted carefully. Definitely >is about different individual but it is about DANA and not about >MAGGA or PHALA cittas. Yes, thank you for remind me. It is a beautiful sutta about dana. We should always remember dana. Why not inspired by the sutta do some dana for the Sangha today. Let's just do it :) I think this sutta is straight forward enough >- one practise to be on the fruit of Stream Entrant is different >than who is a already a Stream Entrant. Thanks for confirming what I said. The sutta portrays them as different individuals, i.e. one has attained stream entry ( has experienced magga citta) and the other is practicing for the fruit of stream entry (after experiencing magga citta continues to develop his practice and will eventually experience phala citta). One practise to be one is >only of Mahakusala cittas and even close to magga yet. Only one that >is stream entrant - one has in magga / phala cittas. > > >Without even going to details of commentaries, I am very confident to >say that there sn't any tiny minute difference between the SUTTA you >quote and the ABDHIDHAMMA. I welcome any comments on this from you > > Well, then you haven't read what you wrote. The Abhidhamma does not agree with the sutta. Just refer to the previous posts. Metta Michael >Ken O 29719 From: Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 4:39am Subject: Right Speech On Right Speech It seems that I continue to receive some very confrontational and even offensive messages from people who are incensed that I would criticize their unflawed, perfect and righteous tradition. Please understand I have no intention to belabor debate. When I criticize various traditions and religions (including Theravadan Buddhism) for assumptions, beliefs or practices that I find unproductive for the greater good, or the journey to nibbana, I invariably encounter some criticism. The typical argument is based upon invoking the Noble Eight Fold Path, by questioning whether my criticism is a violation of Right Speech (samma-vaca). What the Abhaya Sutta, MN 58, says on the issue of speaking out, when an issue seems to be harming to the dhamma, I found very interesting. I recommend reading the whole sutta, it is only a few pages. But I will not burden you with the whole thing here. I will just quote a few stanzas. Please note the Buddha was speaking from his point of view, so please do not assume that I am saying that I am a Tathagata . I only want to point out, that anyone in the greater sangha has a right and a responsibility to challenge beliefs and practices in the sangha that they do not believe follow the dhamma. Abhaya Sutta, MN 58 "Now at that time a baby boy was lying face-up on the prince's lap. So the Blessed One said to the prince, "What do you think, prince: If this young boy, through your own negligence or that of the nurse, were to take a stick or a piece of gravel into its mouth, what would you do?" "I would take it out, lord. If I couldn't get it out right away, then holding its head in my left hand and crooking a finger of my right, I would take it out, even if it meant drawing blood. Why is that? Because I have sympathy for the young boy." "In the same way, prince: [3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them." [6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings..." "Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show 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, and to the Sangha of monks. May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge, from this day forward, for life." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn058.html Please understand I am not invoking the authority of a Tathagata. I am only saying that anyone in the greater sangha has a right and a responsibility to "place upright what was overturned," or to speak out on beliefs and practices of their tradition or religion that they perceive as unproductive to the dhamma and sangha. I do not however believe that gives anyone the right to endlessly filibuster for their agenda. Because there is a right time and place for everything. Access To Insight has a excellent discourse on Right Speech (Samma-Vaca) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/samma-vaca.html May you become enlightened in this very lifetime, Jeff Brooks 29720 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 10:09am Subject: paticcasamuppada (dependent co-arising) Hi all, Some reflection on paticcasamuppada (dependent co-arising) I would like to share with the group. What is dependent co-arising? The Buddha taught that: 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. This is how I understand it: The conditioning in the formulation of dependent co-arising has the form: when this as a requisite condition comes that. The condition `this' and the conditioned `that' in dependent co-arising is presented in a linear way. That is, except aging & death, the conditioned `that' of one conditioning becomes the condition `this' in the next. Each of the conditionings in dependent co-arising with the form "when this as requisite condition comes that" parallels with some other conditionings. Nevertheless, these parallel relations among the conditionings are not apparent in the linear presentation of dependent co-arising. With these relations among the conditionings in consideration, the formulation of dependent co- arising is not only and simply linear, but also recursive and complex. If dependent co-arising is like a three-dimensional building, then the formulation of dependent co-arising is like the two-dimensional blueprints for this building. With the two- dimensional blue prints, one can relate the blue print for each floor to other blue prints to form a three-dimensional image of the building. Likewise, the recursive and complex nature of dependent co-arising is seen with the association of parallel relations of the conditionings as presented in the formulation of dependent co- arising. I will try to present the association of these conditionings as following: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications: From ignorance of the four noble truths, come the bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, mental fabrications. Fabrications, or kamma, are the manifestations of craving and clinging/sustenance. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness: 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. And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming- forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth. In other words, with fabrications, consciousness inevitably takes place after birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death. And these conditionings take place from birth to death: 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. Without full understanding/comprehension (parinna), namely, without the destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion [1], from feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming after death. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. Hence another round of rebirth. Like the Buddha said, dependent co-arising is deep and deep in implications. [2] Metta, Victor [1] Samyutta Nikaya, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi. SN22.23, p. 872. [2] Ibid. SN12.60, p. 594. 29721 From: dwlemen Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 10:27am Subject: Companionship Hi all. I have a more practical question that I've been wrestling with for some time. That is, how do you deal with the "lonelyness" of being a Buddhist in a western / Christian society? Here in Indiana, we are rather "bible-belt" and there is very little in the way of Buddhist organizations or anything. Are there others who might be in a similiar situation that might have some advice or encouraging words! I suppose there is not much that can be done but move or deal with it. Anyway, just curious what others might have to offer. Thanks. Peace, Dave 29722 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 11:07am Subject: Re: Right Speech Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > On Right Speech > > It seems that I continue to receive some very confrontational and even > offensive messages from people who are incensed that I would criticize their > unflawed, perfect and righteous tradition. Please understand I have no intention to > belabor debate. > > When I criticize various traditions and religions (including Theravadan > Buddhism) for assumptions, beliefs or practices that I find unproductive for the > greater good, or the journey to nibbana, I invariably encounter some criticism. > The typical argument is based upon invoking the Noble Eight Fold Path, by > questioning whether my criticism is a violation of Right Speech (samma-vaca). > > What the Abhaya Sutta, MN 58, says on the issue of speaking out, when an > issue seems to be harming to the dhamma, I found very interesting. I recommend > reading the whole sutta, it is only a few pages. But I will not burden you with > the whole thing here. I will just quote a few stanzas. > > Please note the Buddha was speaking from his point of view, so please do not > assume that I am saying that I am a Tathagata . I only want to point out, > that anyone in the greater sangha has a right and a responsibility to challenge > beliefs and practices in the sangha that they do not believe follow the dhamma. > > Abhaya Sutta, MN 58 > > "Now at that time a baby boy was lying face-up on the prince's lap. So the > Blessed One said to the prince, "What do you think, prince: If this young boy, > through your own negligence or that of the nurse, were to take a stick or a > piece of gravel into its mouth, what would you do?" > > "I would take it out, lord. If I couldn't get it out right away, then holding > its head in my left hand and crooking a finger of my right, I would take it > out, even if it meant drawing blood. Why is that? Because I have sympathy for > the young boy." > > "In the same way, prince: > > [3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, > beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper > time for saying them." > > [6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, > beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time > for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living > beings..." > > "Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was > overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show 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, and to the > Sangha of monks. May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone > to him for refuge, from this day forward, for life." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn058.html > > Please understand I am not invoking the authority of a Tathagata. I am only > saying that anyone in the greater sangha has a right and a responsibility to > "place upright what was overturned," or to speak out on beliefs and practices > of their tradition or religion that they perceive as unproductive to the dhamma > and sangha. I do not however believe that gives anyone the right to > endlessly filibuster for their agenda. Because there is a right time and place for > everything. > > Access To Insight has a excellent discourse on Right Speech (Samma- Vaca) > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/samma-vaca.html > > May you become enlightened in this very lifetime, > > Jeff Brooks 29723 From: Michael Beisert Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 2:51pm Subject: RE: paticcasamuppada (dependent co-arising) Hello Victor, I like very much the analysis of dependent co-arising made by Thanissaro Bhikkhu in his book 'The Wings to Awakening.' Below is an excerpt of what he wrote: Dependent co- arising is often presented in the texts as an expansion of the general principle of this/that conditionality, which we have already discussed in the Introduction. Here we will recapitulate some of the essential points. This/that conditionality is expressed in a simple formula: "(1) When this is, that is. (2) From the arising of this comes the arising of that. (3) When this isn't, that isn't. (4) From the stopping of this comes the stopping of that." This formula is non-linear, an interplay of linear and synchronic principles. The linear principle-taking (2) and (4) as a pair-connects events over time; the synchronic principle-(1) and (3)-connects objects and events in the present moment. The two principles intersect, so that any given event is influenced by two sets of conditions, those acting from the past and those acting from the present. Because this is the pattern underlying dependent co-arising, it is a mistake to view dependent co-arising simply as a chain of causes strung out over time. Events in anyone category of the list are affected not only by past events in the categories that act as their conditions, but also by the ongoing, interacting presence of whole streams of events in those categories. All categories can be present at once, and even though two particular conditions may be separated by several steps in the list, they can be immediately present to each other. Thus they can create the possibility for unexpected feedback loops in the causal process. Metta Michael 29724 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 3:27pm Subject: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" At Savatthi. Now on that occasion the Blessed One was instructing, exhorting, inspiring, and gladdening the bhikkhus with a Dhamma talk concerning Nibbana. And those bhikkhus were listening to the Dhamma with eager ears, attending to it as a matter of vital concern, applying their whole minds to it. Then it occurred to Mara the Evil One: "This ascetic Gotama is instructing, exhorting, inspiring, and gladdening the bhikkhus…who are applying their whole minds to it. Let me approach the ascetic Gotama in order to confound them." Then Mara the Evil One manifested himself in the form of a farmer, carrying a large plough on his shoulder, holding a long goad stick, his hair disheveled, wearing hempen garments, his feet smeared with mud. He approached the Blessed One and said to him: "Maybe you've seen oxen, ascetic?" "What are oxen to you, Evil One?" "The eye is mine, ascetic, forms are mine, eye-contact and its base of consciousness are mine. (296) Where can you go, ascetic, to escape from me? The ear is mine, ascetic, sounds are mine…The nose is mine, ascetic, odours are mine…The tongue is mine, ascetic, tastes are mine… The body is mine, ascetic, tactile objects are mine…The mind is mine, ascetic, mental phenomena are mine, mind-contact and its base of consciousness are mine. Where can you go, ascetic, to escape from me?" "The eye is yours, Evil One, forms are yours, eye-contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no eye, no forms, no eye-contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One. (297) The ear is yours, Evil One, sounds are yours, ear-contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no ear, no sounds, no ear- contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One. The nose is yours, Evil One, odours are yours, nose- contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no nose, no odours, no nose-contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One. The tongue is yours, Evil One, tastes are yours, tongue-contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no tongue, no tastes, no tongue-contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One. The body is yours, Evil One, tactile objects are yours, body-contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no body, no tactile objects, no body contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One. The mind is yours, Evil One, mental phenomena are yours, mind-contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no mind, no mental phenomena, no mind- contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One." [Mara:] "That of which they say `It's mine,' And those who speak in terms of `mine'— If your mind exists among these, You won't escape me, ascetic." [The Blessed One:] "That which they speak of is not mine, I'm not on of those who speak [of mine]. You should know thus, O Evil One: Even my path you will not see." Then Mara the Evil One…disappeared right there. Note 296: I follow Spk, which resolves cakkhusamphassavinnanayatana thus: cakkhuvinnanena sampayutto cakkhusamphasso pi vinnanayatanam pi; "eye-contact associated with eye-consciousness and also the base of consciousness." Spk says that "eye-contact" implies all the mental phenomena associated with consciousness; "the base of consciousness," all types of consciousness that have arisen in the eye door beginning with the adverting consciousness (avajjanacitta). The same method applies to the ear door, etc. But in the mind door, "mind" (mano) is the bhavangacitta together with adverting; "mental phenomena" are the mental objects (arammanadhamma); "mind-contact," the contact associated with bhavanga and adverting; and "the base of consciousness," the javanacitta and tadarammanacitta, i.e., the "impulsion" and "registration" consciousness. For an account of the types of consciousness (fundamental to Pali Abhidhamma), see CMA 3:8. Mara's reply, and the Buddha's rejoinder, hinge on the practice of using Pali words for cattle metaphorically to signify the sense faculties. See GD, pp. 141-42, n. to 26-27. Note 297: Here the Buddha is obviously referring to Nibbana. Cp. 35:117 on the cessation of the six sense bases. 29725 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 4:38pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hi Michael M> Thanks for confirming what I said. The sutta portrays them as > different > individuals, i.e. one has attained stream entry ( has experienced > magga > citta) and the other is practicing for the fruit of stream entry > (after > experiencing magga citta continues to develop his practice and will > > eventually experience phala citta). k: Please dont misread me, I have stated very clearly, one has attain stream entry is one with magga cittas thereafter phala cittas. Then one who is still practisiing to stream entry is just mahakusala not even magga cittas (I think the other email there was a type error on my message, I forget the NOT word.). M > Well, then you haven't read what you wrote. The Abhidhamma does not agree with the sutta. Just refer to the previous posts. k: Nope, there is no difference bc to me you have not read carefully. One who is a stream entrant MAGGA/PHALA, one who is on the path is just MAHAKUSALA. Ken O 29726 From: Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 4:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Sukin, Well said. I agree, and find myself in the same situation as well. It looks to me that you are not just studying the concepts without applying them to your life, as I had thought earlier. Rather, it looks like you are looking at your experience all the time. There is only one point I would like to revisit. When I asked you to look at desire and see if it is really desire or just concept, what did you find? You said the detecting of desire is only "thinking". Did you mean that there really wasn't any desire after all? Larry 29727 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 4:46pm Subject: Re: paticcasamuppada (dependent co-arising) Hi Michael, Yes, I like Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu's analysis of dependent co- arising in 'The Wings to Awakening' as well. The book itself as a whole is great too!! Thanks for typing out the excerpt. Great reminder!! Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > Hello Victor, > > I like very much the analysis of dependent co-arising made by Thanissaro > Bhikkhu in his book 'The Wings to Awakening.' Below is an excerpt of what he > wrote: > > Dependent co- arising is often presented in the texts as an expansion of the > general principle of this/that conditionality, which we have already > discussed in the Introduction. Here we will recapitulate some of the > essential points. This/that conditionality is expressed in a simple formula: > > "(1) When this is, that is. > (2) From the arising of this comes the arising of that. > (3) When this isn't, that isn't. > (4) From the stopping of this comes the stopping of that." > > This formula is non-linear, an interplay of linear and synchronic > principles. The linear principle-taking (2) and (4) as a pair- connects > events over time; the synchronic principle-(1) and (3)-connects objects and > events in the present moment. The two principles intersect, so that any > given event is influenced by two sets of conditions, those acting from the > past and those acting from the present. Because this is the pattern > underlying dependent co-arising, it is a mistake to view dependent > co-arising simply as a chain of causes strung out over time. Events in > anyone category of the list are affected not only by past events in the > categories that act as their conditions, but also by the ongoing, > interacting presence of whole streams of events in those categories. All > categories can be present at once, and even though two particular conditions > may be separated by several steps in the list, they can be immediately > present to each other. Thus they can create the possibility for unexpected > feedback loops in the causal process. > > Metta > Michael > 29728 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 4:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Speech Hi Jeff We cannot prevent how others talk, however we can be aware of what we are experiencing on sound rupas. Most of the time when I am here, pple are ok, only very rarely pple are not in the right speech, one of the very rarely pple includes me(occasional outburst). Feel free to express your view here, but be prepared to be challenged your belief or what you are written. It should be seen in this light and not one of a confrontational. And also dont worry, we have Jon and Sarah behind our back. If they are very dedicated, during our Bkk discussions, they are still moderating ;-). Ken O 29729 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 4:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Larry Detecting desire is have the possibility of deliberate action, hence usually conditioned by discursive thinking(moha). Detection of desire or mindfulness when is arise should be a naturally induced process not a deliberate one. One who is constantly considering/reflecting and study dhamma will induce the development of sati and panna. Anyway by the time we experience that desire, it is not at the paramatha level, it is more of a concept level (or thinking level). But practise of understanding of the nature of concepts viz nama and rupas is the start of practising. There is also no need to fret over our practise now are just concept levels, not real satipatthana, this is how one practise right understanding at the most basic level (pannati). Then when more right understanding develop, then the practise will develop more towards satipatthana at the paramatha level. Ken O 29730 From: Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 5:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Why is Ignorance-Conditioned Sankhara a Condition for Consciousness? Hi Howard, I think the answer to this question is that ignorance of the 4 noble truths conditions kamma causing consciousness, "sankhara", (e.g. desire), which conditions kamma resultant consciousness, "consciousness", (e.g. seeing consciousness). This is according to CMA. However, I'm not very clear on this. Maybe someone else could explain it. Larry 29731 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 5:19pm Subject: [dsg] Personal thoughts on life reminders Hi All By reading posts in this list, it has been very beneficial to me as it is always a constant reminder and condition reflections in my life. Sometimes, I was so carried away by life especially the goals that I have inevitably set by myself, these mails are so crucial to bring me back to the momemt of right understanding. During my life, I am always carried away with life goals, suffering arise throughout and it will be a force to reckon with, if left unchecked by right understanding. Also so carried away by life goals that I thought all these ordinary lives are so real and forget that I am still in samasara. Also sometimes, it is extremely difficult to see the dukkha in sensual pleasure, I always felt, there is always a need to have more sensual pleasure. A need to feel I want this and that or to make my life more materially better or have more pleasure. Hard is to have right understanding of conceptual life goals. So fast is the the conditioning of latency that even after a few days of discussion in Bkk, I have realise that I have been once again entrall by my life goals and sensual pleasure needs. Gosh, it is hard to have right understandings and not to be so caught up. Even when after I write this and send it out, I know very well, I am still a wordlings caught up in the net. Conditional life is indeed suffering. Ken O 29732 From: Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 5:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Ken O: "Anyway by the time we experience that desire, it is not at the paramatha level, it is more of a concept level (or thinking level)." Hi Ken, Is there desire in your life, or not? How do you know? Larry 29733 From: Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 5:21pm Subject: Yahoo "spam guard" Hi Sarah, Yahoo is labeling a lot of dsg messages "spam" because of odd subject lines or names. Is there any way to turn it off? Larry 29734 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 6:30pm Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Victor and Azita, Here is the section I was referring to: --- "The eye is yours, Evil One, forms are yours, eye-contact and its > base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no > eye, no forms, no eye-contact and its base of consciousness—there is > no place for you there, Evil One. (297) The ear is yours, Evil One, > sounds are yours, ear-contact and its base of consciousness are > yours; but, Evil One, where there is no ear, no sounds, no ear- > contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you > there, Evil One. The nose is yours, Evil One, odours are yours, nose- > contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where > there is no nose, no odours, no nose-contact and its base of > consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One. The tongue > is yours, Evil One, tastes are yours, tongue-contact and its base of > consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no tongue, no > tastes, no tongue-contact and its base of consciousness—there is no > place for you there, Evil One. The body is yours, Evil One, tactile > objects are yours, body-contact and its base of consciousness are > yours; but, Evil One, where there is no body, no tactile objects, no > body contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you > there, Evil One. The mind is yours, Evil One, mental phenomena are > yours, mind-contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, > Evil One, where there is no mind, no mental phenomena, no mind- > contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you > there, Evil One." > > [Mara:] > "That of which they say `It's mine,' > And those who speak in terms of `mine'— > If your mind exists among these, > You won't escape me, ascetic." > > [The Blessed One:] > "That which they speak of is not mine, > I'm not on of those who speak [of mine]. > You should know thus, O Evil One: > Even my path you will not see." > > Then Mara the Evil One…disappeared right there. > > Note 296: I follow Spk, which resolves cakkhusamphassavinnanayatana > thus: cakkhuvinnanena sampayutto cakkhusamphasso pi vinnanayatanam > pi; "eye-contact associated with eye-consciousness and also the base > of consciousness." Spk says that "eye-contact" implies all the mental > phenomena associated with consciousness; "the base of consciousness," > all types of consciousness that have arisen in the eye door beginning > with the adverting consciousness (avajjanacitta). The same method > applies to the ear door, etc. But in the mind door, "mind" (mano) is > the bhavangacitta together with adverting; "mental phenomena" are the > mental objects (arammanadhamma); "mind-contact," the contact > associated with bhavanga and adverting; and "the base of > consciousness," the javanacitta and tadarammanacitta, i.e., > the "impulsion" and "registration" consciousness. For an account of > the types of consciousness (fundamental to Pali Abhidhamma), see CMA > 3:8. > Mara's reply, and the Buddha's rejoinder, hinge on the practice of > using Pali words for cattle metaphorically to signify the sense > faculties. See GD, pp. 141-42, n. to 26-27. > > Note 297: Here the Buddha is obviously referring to Nibbana. Cp. > 35:117 on the cessation of the six sense bases. What do you guys make of this? When I first read it it sounded like the Buddha was saying he didn't have any eyes, ears, nose, etc. But then I realized that it also says that there aren't even the objects of those sense bases. Odd. Then I couldn't tell if he was speaking of himself or of the location: Nibbana, since he continues to state, "but, Evil One, where there is no eye, no forms, no eye- contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One". There?? I have something of an idea of what he means, that maybe those sense bases aren't 'his' because he no longer believes that he 'owns' them, but my thinking isn't very concrete in this regard. Just because he doesn't believe he owns them does this make it so that Mara doesn't own them either? Also, I didn't know how to find, as it states in Note 297, Cp. 35:117, information to learn more details about cessation of the six sense bases. Do either of you? Overall, I don't feel confident that I know what this sutta is saying. Metta, James 29735 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 6:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Larry I will know and so do you. It has been to be understood that the moment when we felt lobha in this present mind moment that we are experiencing it is already a snow ball effect of the countless lobha-mula akusala citta that arise. What we practise now is only the snow-balled effect and not the momentary lobha-mula cittas. How do I now all these? As usual, study, listening and considering, sooner or later the message will get across. If you prefer a quick way, then you have to join us for discussion for three days (sounds like a retreat ;-)). Ken O 29736 From: Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 7:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Ken O: "How do I now all these? As usual, study, listening and considering," Hi Ken, If you can't really find desire in your experience when carefully looking, what about unhappiness? Can you find unhappiness? Larry 29737 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 7:22pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body /Ken H Hi Sarah, Sorry to hear about the death in your family. Thanks for soldiering- on at dsg. You wrote to Andrew: ------------------ - no need to go soft on your friend - I'm sure it would take a lot more than your gentle and kindly meant ribbing to offend him;-) > -------------------------------- That's true. It is interesting that Andrew even suspected his jokes might have gone too far. Has he contracted my anxiety problem? Is there something in the water in our part of the world? :-) ----------------------------- S: > Funny how those same accumulations shine through, Ken H. I remember a friend who'd heard me harping on about politics and community issues at length and so when it all turned to Buddhism and she was still a friend, she sighed and asked if we had to go through the same process and mini-lectures all over again;-) ---------------- In my case, but not in yours, there has always been a tendency to be a `little bit' opinionated. I'm sure no one has noticed it here though. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 29738 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 8:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Yahoo "spam guard" Larry I haven't quite figured out the basis on which some messages are being identified as spam. Below is Yahoo's anouncement on the new measures. More info can be obtained from the links on the Yahoo Groups website. I hope this helps. Jon A. Dear Yahoo! Groups Members, Yahoo! Groups is proud to announce that we've introduced SpamGuard, an advanced spam-control system. Yahoo! Groups routes messages sent to your group through SpamGuard. If we detect that a message is spam, we will notify you and include the message as an attachment. If you use a Yahoo! Mail email address for your group, these messages will automatically get routed to your Bulk folder. If you do not use Yahoo! Mail, or if you use POP access to read your Yahoo! Groups messages in your email client (e.g., Outlook), you can set up filters to route these messages to an appropriate folder, such as "spam" or "bulk." The introduction of SpamGuard demonstrates Yahoo!'s commitment to fighting spam abuse. We hope that you enjoy this new feature! The Yahoo! Groups Team B. What is SpamGuard? SpamGuard is our spam-detection system. Yahoo! Groups routes messages sent to your group through SpamGuard. If we detect that a message is spam, we will notify you and include the message as an attachment. The notification you will receive should look as follows: -------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups SpamGuard has detected that the attached message to the Yahoo! Group [your group name here] is likely to be spam. For more information about SpamGuard, please visit: http://groups.yahoo.com/local/spamguard.html -------------------------------------------------------- If you use a Yahoo! Mail email address for your group, these messages will automatically get routed to your Bulk folder. If you do not use Yahoo! Mail, or if you use POP access to read your Yahoo! Groups messages in your email client (e.g., Outlook), you can set up filters to route these messages to an appropriate folder, such as "spam" or "bulk." Learn more about filters for POP mail. --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Yahoo is labeling a lot of dsg messages "spam" because of odd > subject lines or names. Is there any way to turn it off? > > Larry 29739 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 8:28pm Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi James, Thanks for typing out the discourse. I read it and this is how I understand it: In the part of the discourse starting with "The eye is yours The eye is yours, Evil One, forms are yours, eye- contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no eye, no forms, no eye-contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One." to "The mind is yours, Evil One, mental phenomena are yours, mind- contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no mind, no mental phenomena, no mind-contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One." the Buddha, as I understand it, was delineating the domain of Mara the Evil One. And the domain of Mara the Evil One is: the eye, forms, eye-contact and its base of consciousness, the ear, sounds, ear-contact and its base of consciousness, the nose, odours, nose-contact and its base of consciousness, the tongue, tastes, tongue-contact and its base of consciousness, the body, tactile objects, body-contact and its base of consciousness, the mind, mental phenomena, mind-contact and its base of consciousness. In that sense, each of them is Mara's. They are his domain. Nibbana, the cessation of dukkha, is the cessation of the eye, forms, eye-contact and its base of consciousness, the ear, sounds, ear-contact and its base of consciousness, the nose, odours, nose- contact and its base of consciousness, the tongue, tastes, tongue- contact and its base of consciousness, the body, tactile objects, body-contact and its base of consciousness, the mind, mental phenomena, mind-contact and its base of consciousness. The Buddha said: but, Evil One, where there is no eye, no forms, no eye-contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One. I understand it as that the domain of Mara the Evil One does not extend to nibbana, the cessation of dukkha. In that sense, there is no place for Mara the Evil One in where eye, forms, eye-contact and its base of consciousness cease, the cessation of dukkha, nibbana. The Buddha said "That which they speak of is not mine, I'm not on of those who speak [of mine]. I understand it as not because the Buddha no longer believed that which they speak of is his. He spoke of it (that which they speak of) as it actually is: "That which they speak of is not mine." As I see it, that which they speak of refers to the eye, forms, eye- contact and its base of consciousness, the ear, sounds, ear-contact and its base of consciousness, the nose, odours, nose-contact and its base of consciousness, the tongue, tastes, tongue-contact and its base of consciousness, the body, tactile objects, body-contact and its base of consciousness, the mind, mental phenomena, mind- contact and its base of consciousness. Finally, it (that which they speak of) is impermanent. What is impermanent is dukkha. What is dukkha is not self. What is not self 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." As I see it, saying "That which they speak of is not mine," the Buddha was speaking of the characteristic of that which they speak of being not self. That is how I understand it. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Victor and Azita, > > Here is the section I was referring to: --- > "The eye is yours, Evil One, forms are yours, eye-contact and its > > base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no > > eye, no forms, no eye-contact and its base of consciousness— there > is > > no place for you there, Evil One. (297) The ear is yours, Evil > One, > > sounds are yours, ear-contact and its base of consciousness are > > yours; but, Evil One, where there is no ear, no sounds, no ear- > > contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you > > there, Evil One. The nose is yours, Evil One, odours are yours, > nose- > > contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, > where > > there is no nose, no odours, no nose-contact and its base of > > consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One. The > tongue > > is yours, Evil One, tastes are yours, tongue-contact and its base > of > > consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no tongue, > no > > tastes, no tongue-contact and its base of consciousness—there is no > > place for you there, Evil One. The body is yours, Evil One, > tactile > > objects are yours, body-contact and its base of consciousness are > > yours; but, Evil One, where there is no body, no tactile objects, > no > > body contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for > you > > there, Evil One. The mind is yours, Evil One, mental phenomena are > > yours, mind-contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, > > Evil One, where there is no mind, no mental phenomena, no mind- > > contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you > > there, Evil One." > > > > [Mara:] > > "That of which they say `It's mine,' > > And those who speak in terms of `mine'— > > If your mind exists among these, > > You won't escape me, ascetic." > > > > [The Blessed One:] > > "That which they speak of is not mine, > > I'm not on of those who speak [of mine]. > > You should know thus, O Evil One: > > Even my path you will not see." > > > > Then Mara the Evil One…disappeared right there. [snip] > What do you guys make of this? When I first read it it sounded like > the Buddha was saying he didn't have any eyes, ears, nose, etc. But > then I realized that it also says that there aren't even the objects > of those sense bases. Odd. Then I couldn't tell if he was speaking > of himself or of the location: Nibbana, since he continues to > state, "but, Evil One, where there is no eye, no forms, no eye- > contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you > there, Evil One". There?? I have something of an idea of what he > means, that maybe those sense bases aren't 'his' because he no longer > believes that he 'owns' them, but my thinking isn't very concrete in > this regard. Just because he doesn't believe he owns them does this > make it so that Mara doesn't own them either? Also, I didn't know > how to find, as it states in Note 297, Cp. 35:117, information to > learn more details about cessation of the six sense bases. Do either > of you? Overall, I don't feel confident that I know what this sutta > is saying. > > Metta, James 29740 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 9:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Yahoo "spam guard" Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Yahoo is labeling a lot of dsg messages "spam" because of odd subject > lines or names. Is there any way to turn it off? ... A little more to add to Jon's note. Obviously Yahoo doesn't think its moderators are tough enough (it obviously doesn't follow us here;-)). Two days ago in my in box it had classified all messages from Victor as spam in my yahoo in box for this account where I get mail!! I paused and then clicked at the top on 'this is not spam'. It then took me to two boxes already ticked with 'report.. to yahoo' and 'deliver all messages from Victor's account'. I just ticked 'send' and since then Victor's messages have been 'un-spammed'. Just now, I find it's doing the same with James's, so I've followed the same procedure. I found nothing in the subject lines.....maybe it's anyone who repeatedly contradicts the moderators on DSG;-);-) Yahoo's very slow at the moment with all its spamworks. Still, as I was telling Chris in Bkk, I've never had a single spam or junkmail in this account (which I just use for DSG mail and occasional off-list mail), so they're doing something right. If you worry you may have missed anything, check the homepage which is not affected. Metta, Sarah p.s in another circular I didn't keep and can't find now, it said to avoid phrases such as 'hi', 'hello' and 'test' in subject lines which will be picked up as spam. ================== 29741 From: Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 4:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Why is Ignorance-Conditioned Sankhara a Condition for Consciousness? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/5/04 10:53:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I think the answer to this question is that ignorance of the 4 noble > truths conditions kamma causing consciousness, "sankhara", (e.g. > desire), which conditions kamma resultant consciousness, > "consciousness", (e.g. seeing consciousness). This is according to CMA. > However, I'm not very clear on this. Maybe someone else could explain > it. > > Larry > > ========================= The thing is: Ignorance-conditioned sankhara is a requisite condition for vi~n~nana, and that in turn conditions, in steps, all the remaining links of paticcasamupada, leading to eventual rebirth. But a living arahant, just as a worldling, has experience. If that experience is vi~n~nana, then that vi~n~nana is condition for namarupa, and that for salayatana, and so on down the line, leading to rebirth!! But an arahant is not reborn. Now, in fact, the negative reading of paticcasamupada is that with the cessation of ignorance, there is the cessation of fabrications, and thence the cessation of vi~n~nana, etc. Now, the Buddha had full and final cessation of ignorance, hence of fabrications, and hence of vi~n~nana. So, the Buddha, even the living Buddha, was freed of vi~n~nana. But clearly he wasn't unconscious! So, it seems to me that vi~n~nana must be a *defiled* awareness, an awareness infected by the sense of self. (And that makes sense, arising as it does with ignorance-conditioned sankhara as condition.) It must be an awareness in which there is the seeming of a knowing subject, and, correspondingly, a known object. (A knowing subject is an "I".) It seems to me that patticcasamupada describes the conditioned life of a non-arahant and the mechanism for the arising of suffering in such a being. It also shows the means of escape from suffering by such a being, the breaking of the chain of dependent arising fully and for good, which likewise marks the radical transformation from non-arahant to arahant. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 29742 From: Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 4:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, Larry (and Ken) - In a message dated 2/6/04 12:23:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Ken O: "How do I now all these? As usual, study, listening and > considering," > > Hi Ken, > > If you can't really find desire in your experience when carefully > looking, what about unhappiness? Can you find unhappiness? > > Larry > =================== I must say: This is starting to be a bit amusing! Er, at least I *think* I find it amusing - I'll have to study what the ancient texts say to be sure. (Sorry - just couldn't resist! ;-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 29743 From: Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 4:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Yahoo "spam guard" Hi, Jon - In a message dated 2/6/04 12:36:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Larry > > I haven't quite figured out the basis on which some messages are > being identified as spam. > > Below is Yahoo's anouncement on the new measures. More info can be > obtained from the links on the Yahoo Groups website. > > I hope this helps. > > Jon > ========================= There seem to be alternative criteria. One criterion seems to be a dislike for typing errors that involve insertion of symbols like ) or # in the middle of an English phrase. Also, the spam filter clearly takes to heart the Buddha's instruction to teach in the vernacular - there is a clear aversion to long Pali expressions! ;-)) 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) 29744 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 10:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Companionship Hi Dave, It’s good to hear from you and I always find your practical questions refreshing. I hope Christine gives a response to this one as your comments remind me of ones she used to make when she first joined DSG. I’m sure many others would say just the same. I’m also wondering what’s happened to Nori who also made similar comments. --- dwlemen wrote: > Hi all. > > I have a more practical question that I've been wrestling with for > some time. That is, how do you deal with the "lonelyness" of being a > Buddhist in a western / Christian society? .... I think many of us have been through this and there could be answers on many levels. Sticking to ‘practical’ solutions for now, I think that you might consider: a) making far more use of DSG for Qs and support. It’s what we’re all here for after all. When many of us first became interested in Buddhism and were living in ‘western /Christian society’, there was no internet and we just had to rely on occasional snail mail letters. b) check out the nearest temples, groups, internet Buddhist chat groups. c) why not consider a get together with other DSGers like Howard, Larry or those in Penn who are not too far from you. Maybe you could meet in NY sometime - even if just once a year for a day. If a few people were interested, I’d even consider coming over from HK, now we have direct (but loooong flights), as I’ve never been before. Rob Ep always said he’d come up from Washington DC too. When we met with all the Australians in Noosa a couple of years and more ago, it was really great. .... >Here in Indiana, we are > rather "bible-belt" and there is very little in the way of Buddhist > organizations or anything. > > Are there others who might be in a similiar situation that might have > some advice or encouraging words! I suppose there is not much that > can be done but move or deal with it. .... Ken O will just say ‘right understanding’ and it’s true. In the end we’re all alone and the difficulties, problems, loneliness follow us around. So often it’s the comparing or thinking others are better off that’s the problem, when often we really don’t know. Again Christine was telling me how helpful she found some discussions with Jon on the Sangha issue in this regard. I hope she’ll share more with you as well. I’m also thinking of Num who used to have time to read and post a lot when he was working in hospital in Ohio(?) a couple of years back. He moved back to Thailand to be near family, Thai teachers and so on, but his job and working conditions are so demanding that he’s been under continuous stress and pressure ever since he returned and told me how much simpler life was for him in the States and easier for exercise, study and DSG. (Btw, James, Num told me he’ll be visiting Cairo with his parents, but I have a feeling he stopped posting before you joined DSG??). ... > Anyway, just curious what others might have to offer. Thanks. .... ...And it really does come back to the present moment and knowing those realities. ‘Seeing’ in Indiana is the same as ‘seeing’ in Bangkok.....’attachment’, ‘aversion’ and so on have just the same characteristics. This is why the Buddha’s teaching is universal and applicable to all. Metta, Sarah p.s would you consider kindly add your pic (maybe with the statue RobM helped with) to the member album? I think this is also a way of having a little more personal contact. ======= 29745 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 10:58pm Subject: More contemplation on death (was Contemplation On Own Body /Ken H) Hi KenH & All, --- kenhowardau wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Sorry to hear about the death in your family. Thanks for soldiering- > on at dsg. ..... I was actually pretty shaken up and still can hardly bear to say more about it - I’m now typing in slow motion - but think I may as everyone here goes through these things in their families sooner or later as we've often discussed before here. In brief (well, brief for me), while we were on holiday, unknown to us until the evening before last, my brother’s sister-in-law, in her early 40s, took her life by jumping from the (white) cliffs at Dover(England) while visiting her parents. I never met her, but of course I knew a lot about her and I think I may have made a reference to a previous attempt at suicide on list. Of course by brother (the one who recently visited us here) and his family have had a very tough time and the parents are really struggling. My nieces are also finding it difficult as they were very close to their aunt and she was always very kind to them. She had a very good job, house in London and so on and was very popular (well over 100 colleagues attended the funeral in Dover, at least a couple of hours away). I’ve had a long chat with my sister in law, sent a card with ‘The Salla sutta’ inside* and one or two other things, but one can really only help or say anything if people are ready or wish to hear or speak. We did have some discussion about the uselessness of guilt or thinking we could have helped more and the uselessness of pride when one’s concerned with what others will think as the teenage children are apparently. We also discussed how sometimes we all need to ask for and seek professional and friendly help and again shouldn’t let pride get in the way at such times. My sister-in-law has actually been a tower of strength helping her parents and other friends and family members. No one is getting much sleep. In this regard, whilst we all may often and regularly disagree on aspects of the Teachings, at least we can hear, consider and give each other support from them in our difficulties. As I mentioned to Michael, as I wrote the following words, it was a special reminder for me. We never know what will happen next. “There is but one moment (kha.no) and occasion (samayo), monks, for living the Brahmacariya” (A iv 227) Metta, Sarah *http://www.vipassana.com/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp3-8.php =========== 29746 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 11:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yet more discussion (and food) Hi KenO. For others - Ken O was having a discussion with A.Sujin about whether these and some other cittas in the arahant arose with panna. Ken O, I don't have time to check carefully now, but do you think it might be suggesting these particular kiriya cittas are conditioned by, rather than arising with panna? What did it say in CMA? What about other cittas not arising with panna in the arahant (are we only talking about kiriya ones??). I have students coming now and tomorrow so I don't have time to check myself now. For others - these may seem like obscure points, but sometimes they stem from particular views we may have, such as an arahant having wisdom at each moment or not seeing and hearing as we do now or something else which may affect our ideas about practice. We also had a discussion about the arahant's sila while brushing his teeth. For the ariyan disciples, no more virati sila or any inclination to break the precepts but many other kinds of sila.... Metta, Sarah ===== --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Sarah > > The smiling cittas is from the commentary to the Summary of the > Topics of Abhidhamma chapter six number 34 29747 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 11:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Personal thoughts on life reminders Hi Ken O, --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi All > > By reading posts in this list, it has been very beneficial to me as > it is always a constant reminder and condition reflections in my > life. Sometimes, I was so carried away by life especially the goals > that I have inevitably set by myself, these mails are so crucial to > bring me back to the momemt of right understanding. .... Very good reflections again. When Vince asked us about our retirement plans, I didn't wish to answer but soon was lost in all the stories and attachments as you indicated. >Gosh, it is hard to > have right understandings and not to be so caught up. ... Any wishing for more rt und or wishing not to be 'so caught up'? What about understanding while 'carried with life goals' instead of any (subtle or not so subtle) ideas that it would be better not like this? .... Even when > after I write this and send it out, I know very well, I am still a > wordlings caught up in the net. Conditional life is indeed > suffering. .... ;-) You got it! Metta, Sarah ====== 29748 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 11:44pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hi Michael, --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Michael: > There is a misunderstanding in relation to your point 1. The argument is > > that lokuttara magga citta occurs with the elimination of the first > defilement and subsequent to that the sotapanna continues to develop his > > practice and eliminates the other two fetters and after the three > fetters > have been eliminated you have the vipaka phala citta. It would not be > possible for the defilements to be eliminated by a vipaka citta. Point 2 > is > where our main difference is. I will try to get clarification. ... I think we have a difference on all these points and I look forward to any further clarification on any of them. Metta, Sarah ======= 29749 From: Sarah Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 1:37am Subject: Fwd: Fw: An Apology Hi Chuck, You asked for this to be f/w to all attendees. As there were several from DSG, I'm f/w it to the list. Glad you're well and thx for the explanation - I was a little concerned after trying to call both your numbers several times with no answer. I know Sukin was trying too. Metta, Sarah > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Charles Thompson > To: Nina van Gorkom ; Khun Sukind > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 12:27 AM > Subject: An Apology > > > Good Dhamma Friends, > > Please forgive me for not attending the recent Dhamma discussions in > Bangkok. I trust you all will understand. > > Unfortunately, Thursday and Friday were dental appointment days for my > wife and me. On Saturday, I was to be three places at about the same > times. First, with you my Dhamma friends; second, at the 50 Day Death > Remembrances for my late Abbot of Wat Ampheran in the Dusit area of > Bangkok; and, third, attending a "new Abbot's kuti" ceremony with my > wife and her sister in the Chachoansao Province. They had major > monetary contributions for the construction. I chose be with my wife. > I hope you all understand. > > If you can, please forward this message to all attendees with my sincere > apologies. > > Your's in the Dhamma, > > Chuck 29750 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 3:09am Subject: Re: More contemplation on death (was Contemplation On Own Body /Ken H) Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi KenH & All, > > --- kenhowardau wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > > Sorry to hear about the death in your family. Thanks for soldiering- > > on at dsg. > ..... > I was actually pretty shaken up and still can hardly bear to say more > about it - I'm now typing in slow motion - but think I may as everyone > here goes through these things in their families sooner or later as we've > often discussed before here. My condolences to you and your family for your loss. I want you to know that this morning I meditated upon a wish of loving-kindness for you and your family to face this difficult time with peace and equanimity. I also placed a wish (mental intention) for your brother's sister-in-law's karma stream to meet more favorable and happy circumstances in the future. May we all know the end to life's suffering; may all beings be happy. Metta, James 29751 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 3:13am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Victor, Thank you for your thorough explanation of this sutta. Unfortunately, hardly none of it is hitting home with me. I think, at least for me, this is one of those types of suttas that no matter how hard I try, I cannot understand it just intellectually. It requires a deeper understanding that I do no possess at the moment. I will place it aside until a later time, when the moment is ripe. Metta, James --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi James, > > Thanks for typing out the discourse. I read it and this is how I > understand it: > 29752 From: gazita2002 Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 3:16am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" dear James, Have just purchased my first book of suttas "A Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya" by Bh. Bodhi, so am able to read from a book rather than the off the Net, much better, I think: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Victor and Azita, > > Here is the section I was referring to: --- > "The eye is yours, Evil One, forms are yours, eye-contact and its > > base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no > > eye, no forms, no eye-contact and its base of consciousness—there > is > > no place for you there, Evil One. (297) , - ...a large snip... > > What do you guys make of this? When I first read it it sounded like > the Buddha was saying he didn't have any eyes, ears, nose, etc. But > then I realized that it also says that there aren't even the objects > of those sense bases. Odd. Then I couldn't tell if he was speaking > of himself or of the location: Nibbana, since he continues to > state, "but, Evil One, where there is no eye, no forms, no eye- > contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you > there, Evil One". There?? I have something of an idea of what he > means, that maybe those sense bases aren't 'his' because he no longer > believes that he 'owns' them, but my thinking isn't very concrete in > this regard. I think you're right here, James. I believe the Buddha knows that he owns none of these things - consciousness, sense bases, forms which are objects of the consciousness - bc an arahat's wisdom and knowledge [not to mention a Buddha] is so highly developed that they really know without any doubt at all, that all these conditioned phenomena are impermanent and cannot be 'owned'. Mara, on the other hand, does not have this degree of knowledge, if any, and therefore believes that he does own these things, does have a belief in permanence. In fact, it is my belief that the Buddha knows that these conditioned phenomena are the very things that cause us all to believe in a self, a lasting thing. Because we don't yet have the knowledge, we are ignorant and therefore cling to what we think of as lasting entities. Just because he doesn't believe he owns them does this > make it so that Mara doesn't own them either? Also, I didn't know > how to find, as it states in Note 297, Cp. 35:117, information to > learn more details about cessation of the six sense bases. Not too sure what you are asking here about cessation of sense bases, but I assume that somewhere in the future when Nibbana is finally reached eg. death of arahat then there is final cessation of sense bases. IN the meantime, the rupa [oops I forgot you don't believe in rupa ;) but I'll continue my rave] which we call sense bases arises and falls constantly therefore in a sense, there is a kind of cessation happening all the time. Do either > of you? Overall, I don't feel confident that I know what this sutta > is saying. > > Metta, James Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 29753 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 3:18am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Larry (and Ken O), You asked: > When I asked you to look at desire and see if it > is really desire or just concept, what did you find? You said the > detecting of desire is only "thinking". Did you mean that there really > wasn't any desire after all? I really liked Ken O's answer to this when he said: "Detecting desire is have the possibility of deliberate action, hence usually conditioned by discursive thinking(moha)." I think this is what happens with any deliberate `looking' and I believe your point is that we may be carried away by a concept and *think* that we experience `desire', but in reality it may be something else altogether. Am I right? I believe the level of ignorance in most of us is tremendous. However I think we can still learn something from conceptual manifestations, only we must be careful to realize that it is just that. So by "thinking" I also mean making inferences from vague feelings and ideas about experiences. And here reading about the characteristics of Paramattha dhammas help. I believe that this little by little conditions understanding, becoming gradually more and more precise and leading to possibility of having insight later on. Hence I also like Ken's advice to keep it simple. Otherwise there is room not only for misapprehension but also for lobha to feed upon. It is hard to remember this, since the desire to latch on some form of security (an explanation about one's experiences) is so great. K. Sujin often reminds us about lobha being both the leader and the follower. By "thinking" I also mean that when one apprehends a sense door object, be it sound or visible object, it happens so fast and falls away instantly, that by the time we realize it, it is only `a thought', and that too the product of trains and trains of it. We have so many ideas about the study and practice of the Buddha's teachings, but should we be propelled to follow any particular practice? The idea of differentiating between theory and practice is fine, but what reality is "study" and what "practice"? I think the only sure distinction is made when satipatthana arises and one knows that this is only a dhamma and no words are needed to describe it. But how can this be made to arise? `Who' practices `what'?!! It is useful to know the difference, but if `theory' is all we experience now, it is already a great blessing. Certainly there is no one who `lets go' of theory and choosing instead to application. Our ideas about such things are mostly very vague, often associated with `attachment for results' and often we tend to be quite idealistic too, no!? Panna lets go by the very fact that it `sees'. So why struggle! ;-) Forgot what else I wanted to say :-/, so will just end here. Metta, Sukin 29754 From: Sarah Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 4:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More contemplation on death (was Contemplation On Own Body /Ken H) Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > My condolences to you and your family for your loss. I want you to > know that this morning I meditated upon a wish of loving-kindness for > you and your family to face this difficult time with peace and > equanimity. I also placed a wish (mental intention) for your > brother's sister-in-law's karma stream to meet more favorable and > happy circumstances in the future. May we all know the end to life's > suffering; may all beings be happy. > > Metta, James ..... This is a beautiful message and I greatly appreciate your friendship and kind wishes. Thank you - it's given me inspiration to consider further ways to offer assistance to her family and a wish that her 'karma stream' may appreciate some of the good deeds being performed in her memory. Metta, Sarah p.s I'll try to share your message too. ======= 29755 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 4:47am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Azita, Azita: Have just purchased my first book of suttas "A Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya" by Bh. Bodhi, so am able to read from a book rather than the off the Net, much better, I think: James: Congratulations! Isn't it a wonderful feeling? Yes, it is much better to read them out of the book than off the Internet. Not only is it more `personal', you don't waste bandwidth and don't suffer as much eye fatigue! ;-)) Hopefully you will join actively in the SN corner now. (Christine and Howard seem to have ditched the group or something??) Azita: I think you're right here, James. I believe the Buddha knows that he owns none of these things - consciousness, sense bases, forms which are objects of the consciousness - bc an arahat's wisdom and knowledge [not to mention a Buddha] is so highly developed that they really know without any doubt at all, that all these conditioned phenomena are impermanent and cannot be 'owned'. James: I'm glad that you agree. It took a lot of concentrated thought for me to come up with that!! ;-)) Actually, it hit me spontaneously after my concentrated thought went nowhere. Azita: Mara, on the other hand, does not have this degree of knowledge, if any, and therefore believes that he does own these things, does have a belief in permanence. James: This is an excellent point!! I didn't think of that. Sometimes we think that Mara is almost the antithesis of the Buddha; he knows everything the Buddha knows but is just opposed to it because he is evil. But that isn't the case at all. He is just as ignorant as the rest of us. I have been reading in a few sources that eventually Mara becomes a disciple of the Buddha and is reborn in a god realm and will eventually become a future Buddha…but I don't know if this is textually accurate or not. Azita: Not too sure what you are asking here about cessation of sense bases, but I assume that somewhere in the future when Nibbana is finally reached eg. death of arahat then there is final cessation of sense bases. James: Yes, I assumed that also but there must be a textual reference for that somewhere, a description of it. I would like to read that if anyone could point me in the right direction. Azita: IN the meantime, the rupa [oops I forgot you don't believe in rupa ;) but I'll continue my rave] James: LOL! Actually, this isn't true anymore. I do believe in rupa; it just depends on whose rupa you are referring to. I believe in a phenomenological rupa but not an ontological rupa…if that makes sense. Metta, James ps. Why don't you introduce a sutta from the Marasamyutta that you find interesting? 29756 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 5:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Larry Maybe it is a bit difficult to explain. When the momemt you experience a desire or unpleasant feelings (unhappiness is to be a bit vague so I have used unpleasant), the momentary feelings of our experience of such cittas will have arise and cease a million times. By the time when we experience (we do experience it) its already a conceptual or thinking level. The practise we now have is only conceptual/thinking level, it is still not satipatthana where it works only in paramttha level. But every journey there should be a start, so our "satipatthana" is all still conceptual level. You cannot purposedly find unhappiness, anyway by the time we know it, it is already a conceptual level. No one can deliberately find anything cittas or cetasikas bc they are all anatta - so dont bother to find it. Just like a woman is only many momentary visible rupas that form this woman "rupa", hence the satipatthana we see is only "rupa" of woman and not the millions of momentary visible rupas. But this "rupa" is the start of right understanding at conceptual level which eventually lead to paramattha level where we are able to see the million of momentary visible rupas. Just having right understanding of rupas and namas help a lot and it has broke down conceptual level. Once I realise that woman are just "rupa" the likelihood of the arisen of lobha mula cittas reduce tremenduously. I used to have such experience before but did not understand it, now after hearing from A Sujin and considering it, it makes a lot of sense. Hence the learning of Abhidhamma is crucial for right understanding of the characteristics of nama and rupas, and most impt it built a lot of confidence on the path of liberation. I think I cannot said enough, right understanding of characteristics is impt and prevent ambuigity in our practise, it provide a concise meaning in the path of salvation, Learning Abhidhamma has so many benefits and it will only be known when one start using it in their daily lives, and even i will to write for another day, I would not write finish the benefits one will experience with Abhidhamma. Larry, dont push youself too hard. It takes time to learn and understand Abhidhamma and to me there is no such thing as overnight "Buddha". Have confidence in it bc one day I believe that you will understand. One day, you will exclaim "it is just conditions" or "it is just namas and rupas". Till then as Azita always said good cheer. Ken O 29757 From: ashkenn2k Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 5:24am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi James James: I have something of an idea of what he means, that maybe those sense bases aren't 'his' because he no longer believes that he 'owns' them, but my thinking isn't very concrete in this regard. Azita:I think you're right here, James. I believe the Buddha knows > that he owns none of these things - consciousness, sense bases, forms which are objects of the consciousness - bc an arahat's wisdom and knowledge [not to mention a Buddha] is so highly developed that they really know without any doubt at all, that all these conditioned > phenomena are impermanent and cannot be 'owned'. k: James if you have learn the Abhidhamma, you will understand whats is being said in the sutta. This sutta becomes very clear. I always believe that learning Abhdidhamma bring concise and clarity in our studying of Suttas. Suttas may sound inconsistent at times and by just study Abhidhamma, we will realise that there is no inconsistency. Just my thoughts (sound like a salesman here) Ken O 29758 From: icarofranca Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 5:54am Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta Dear Larry: "I agree; but thinking is always questionable. Thanks for your scholarly > and wide ranging reply (Noah Chomsky???) :))) I think we will have more > to say on this word (sankhara) in the fullness of time." ------------------------------------------------------------------- A lot of problems here to deal on! Monday I ought to travel on assignment of my office... and robbers had stolen all Phone cables of mi neighbourhood: so, I won't have Internet at home for a while!!! But, as Good Rob Moult wrote at his essay, the only burden at our mind it's realy the Ego - that somewhat artifitial structure that manages our comprehension of external world. When you relieve its pressure on brains, a deeper stracta of consciousness buddeth forth. If you do it without the recurse of hammering on your skull with clubs and warhammers, so it won't hurt anyway thinking about it! Noah Chomsky was the first scholar to point out the necessity of build up a general grammar for English and other languages, as done at the classical Arnault & Lancelot's "Grammarie du Port-Royal"! ------------------------------------------------------------------ How are you > doing with Buddhaghosa? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wonderful!!! I've read the first chapter of Visuddhimagga in English. Many doubts and obscurities on Buddhaghosa's treatment of Pali Language and Buddhistic Doctrine had been clarified: - Yes!!! That's the Answer! - But... What's the question ??? - Stay Tuned for more Visuddhimagga chapters!!! --------------------------------------------------------------------- "We will be starting up on the Visuddhimagga > again in a week or two." ------------------------------------------------------------------ When the Phone Company fix the stolen cables for new ones, I will get back internet at home!! Mettaya, Ícaro 29759 From: icarofranca Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 6:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta Typos: > had stolen all Phone cables of mi neighbourhood: Mi casa su casa... but the right word is "my" the Ego - that somewhat artifitial structure Artificial strucuture (I really hope clean out all these mistakes when reach Nibbana!) Mettaya, Ícaro 29760 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 7:29am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Ken O, Ken: James if you have learn the Abhidhamma, you will understand whats is being said in the sutta. This sutta becomes very clear. I always believe that learning Abhdidhamma bring concise and clarity in our studying of Suttas. Suttas may sound inconsistent at times and by just study Abhidhamma, we will realise that there is no inconsistency. James: I appreciate your concern and well-wishing for me, but really, there is no reason to keep proselytizing the Abhidhamma to me. I don't believe that the Abhidhamma is the `magic pill' for everyone. I hope you aren't going to chime in every time I express confusion over a sutta with, "If you just knew the Abhidhamma you would understand it!" LOL! That would get very tiresome. As for myself, what I believe I lack at the moment is Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration. I have gone as far as I can go with vipassana meditation so now I am beginning the process to kick it up into high gear with Jhana meditation. Ken, did you know that it was from Jhana meditation that the Buddha gained enlightenment? Amazing but true!! ;-) It was from the fourth level of Jhana that he developed the psychic ability to know his numerous past lives, the passing away and reappearance of other beings according to their kamma, and then finally the knowledge of the taints and their destruction (MN 36). Now, developing Jhana isn't everything; take Jeff for example. He doesn't have Right View and Right Understanding so he has taken Jhana to only the second level and believes that ecstasy is the whole goal (he also mistakenly believes he has achieved all four jhanas when he has only further perfected the second jhana.) The key that you seem to be missing is to purify the mind and let knowledge arise on its own. Knowing the Abhidhamma with a defiled mind is like driving at high speed in the fog: you may think you're going somewhere but pretty soon you're going to crash. Metta, James 29761 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 8:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi James > Ken, did you know that it was from Jhana meditation that the Buddha gained enlightenment? Amazing but true!! ;-) It was from the fourth level of Jhana that he developed the psychic ability to know his numerous past lives, the passing away and reappearance of other beings according to their kamma, and then finally the knowledge of the taints and their destruction (MN 36). k: Do you think Buddha if without panna will attain enlightment? Just by experiencing jhanas? Hey there are many ascetics during Buddha time also have jhanas - only Buddha attain enlightment and not them? how do you explain it. > The key that you seem to be missing is to purify the mind and let > knowledge arise on its own. Knowing the Abhidhamma with a defiled > mind is like driving at high speed in the fog: you may think you're > going somewhere but pretty soon you're going to crash. k: Dont you and I have the same problem, how about those pple who study suttas with a defile mind, would it also mean like driving high speed in the fog also? Ken O 29762 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 10:32am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi James, No problem. Sometimes things just don't make sense and I think putting this particular discourse aside for a while and come back to it later is helpful. In the mean time, necessary prior knowledge to understand the discourse might be acquired or assumption that is not in accord with what is being said in the discourse might be exposed and examined. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Thank you for your thorough explanation of this sutta. > Unfortunately, hardly none of it is hitting home with me. I think, > at least for me, this is one of those types of suttas that no matter > how hard I try, I cannot understand it just intellectually. It > requires a deeper understanding that I do no possess at the moment. > I will place it aside until a later time, when the moment is ripe. > > Metta, James > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > Hi James, > > > > Thanks for typing out the discourse. I read it and this is how I > > understand it: > > 29763 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 11:22am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: < snip > The key that you seem to be missing is to purify the mind and let knowledge arise on its own. Knowing the Abhidhamma with a defiled mind is like driving at high speed in the fog: you may think you're going somewhere but pretty soon you're going to crash. Metta, James KKT: Going to crash, yes. But the same conglomeration of paramattha dhammas is still there. (by the principle of conservation of energy :-)) Only the form of this conglomeration changes :-)) Hope nobody feels offense. No harm is intended here. I cannot resist giving this comment just for joke :-)) Metta, KKT 29764 From: Eddie Lou Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 1:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Dear KKT, Interesting, I thought I am but one of the few that will relate Dhamma with Physical Law like - the principle of conservation of energy :-). I frequently think all these we are thinking about Dhamma are somehow, energy-related. Like, Karmic energy. I once asked of some one knowledgeable in Dhamma he said yes, it is or like energy. United Field Theory ??? - that unfinished masterpiece by Dr. Albert Einstein. Hope I do not get all these mixed up. Hope to learn more from you relating to such linkage or analogy. Metta, Eddie Lou. --- phamdluan2000 wrote: < snip > > > KKT: Going to crash, yes. > > But the same conglomeration of > paramattha dhammas is still there. > (by the principle of > conservation of energy :-)) > Only the form of this > conglomeration changes :-)) < snip > > Metta, > > > KKT 29765 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 1:09pm Subject: Sensing feeling where it arises and where it vanishes ( 07 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, The Dhamma practitioner is training his mind to be well tamed. He trains his mind in many different ways. At the very first attempt, he started with breathing meditation. Origionally his mind is so wild that it frequently escaped from watching. With diligent practice, moving of mind far outside of the origional object of meditation can well be controlled and his mind is then mostly in his breathing process at least while he is doing sitting meditation and also at other time whenever it is practicable. When he changes his body position he notes that changes and he well knows his bodily position. He knows while he sits. He knows while he stands. He knows while he walks. He knows while he lies in bed and he knows his body position well. He knows whenever he does anything like bending, stretching, moving, stopping, carrying, dropping, dressing, undressing, washing, brushing, eating, drinking, and anything that is related to his body is watched thoroughly and he notes that he knows all these well. He contemplates on his own body and he goes on each part and recognizes that there is nothing to attach with all these body parts. At a time, he contemplates on 4 elements that compose the whole body and he notices that there is nothing but these 4 basic elements and there is nothing to attach. The body where he has to depend is just a body and when he has to leave it it will becomes a corpse and he contemplates on the process of decomposition till all body parts become dust and with that practice he realizes that there is nothing to attach to his body. At a time he contemplates on feeling. When a pleasant feeling arises, he notes that the pleasant feeling arise. When it falls away, he notices that he knows the feeling falls away. When unpleasant feeling arises, he notes that unpleasant feeling arises. When it falls away, he recognizes that he knows that unpleasant feeling falls away. When neither pleasant nor unpleasant feeling arises, he notices its arising and he also knows that he knows when it falls away. At a time, a feeling with sensual pleasure arises. He notes that a feeling with sensual pleasure arises. When falls away, he notices that he knows it falls away. When a feeling with sensual displeasure arises he notes that arises and when falls away he also notices its falling away. When a feeling with neither sensual pleasure or sensual displeasure arises, he notes that arising and when falls away, he recognizes that he knows its falling away. In this way, he recognizes all happenings around him when they arise as arising and when they fal away as falling away. He well manages where feeling arises and where it vanishes and when it arises and when it vanishes. This recognition makes him that there is no self, no permanance and all are sufferings. May all beings be able to contemplate on feeling whenever it arises and wherever it arises. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 29766 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 3:26pm Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Ken O, Ken: Do you think Buddha if without panna will attain enlightment? James: I'm afraid you would have to explain EXACTLY what you mean by `panna' before I could answer this question (and it would be pure conjecture anyway). `Panna' is one of those slippery Pali words with multiple meanings. Ken: Hey there are many ascetics during Buddha time also have jhanas - only Buddha attain enlightment and not them? how do you explain it. James: Because those ascetics were operating under the false assumption that they had a `self' which they were trying to unite with Brahman. As a consequence, they only lessened the defilements during Jhana, or suppressed them, they didn't eliminate them. The Buddha used the Jhanas to clearly understand the defilements, didn't operate under the false assumption of the other ascetics, and discovered that there isn't a self to unite with anything. Therefore he was able to completely eliminate the defilements and become enlightened. He then went to those ascetics who had practiced Jhana (those with little dust in their eyes) and gave them this vital information. They were then able to achieve enlightenment quite quickly after that. Face it Ken, Jhana or Vipassana meditation is a part of the Buddha's path. He defined Right Concentration specifically as the Four Jhanas and he extolled his bhikkhus on numerous occasions to practice Jhana. (What is the problem here? Why do I have to continue to explain this in this group??? It is getting just plain stupid to have to continue to explain this obvious fact to certain people who should know better!!!) Ken: Dont you and I have the same problem, how about those pple who study suttas with a defile mind, would it also mean like driving high speed in the fog also? James: Oh yes, I am in the fog also; but I admit and accept that I am in the fog. You on the other hand don't. That is why you are going at high speed while I am cautiously inching forward step-by-step. Metta, James 29767 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 3:46pm Subject: Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 01 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, If someone wants to get through the samsara, he has to realise what the samsara is. It is nothing but continuation of pieces of the present. The present that he experiences is part of life. In temporal profile, a life constitutes starts from linking consciousness ( patisandhi ) through dying consciousness ( Cuti ). That dying consciousness is again linked by another linking consciousness by means of existing Kamma which is never seen by ordinary beings. Life after life constitutes a circle of life of wheel of life and that endless circle of life is called the samsara. To get through the samsara one has to realise what are composed of life and why they are arising. Compositions are nothing but pieces of nama dhamma and rupa dhamma co-existing together and they are viewed wrongly as beings, lives and so on. These nama dhamma and rupa dhamma have to arise due to dictation of kamma. This kamma again is not created by outside but by the kamma owners. Kamma owners own kamma because they are acting, committing actions with craving or Tanha. This Tanha has to arise because of Avijja or Moha. To cut through all these, before the final eradication, what the mind constitues should be known and understood. What the mind constitues? To see all these is to watch the mind. To contemplate on the mind. To know all mind movement and to follow wherever the mind go and whener it moves. When it moves, the origional place was void of it and so on. This is impermanence. To see this is to watch the mind. May all beings contemplate on their mind whenever it moves. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 29768 From: Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 4:43am Subject: Cultivating Absorption Leads to Cessation Hello Ken O, it is once again a pleasure to hear from you, and thank-you for your excellent question. Cultivating Absorption (jhana/dhyana) Leads to Cessation (Nibbana) Yes, I have a deep faith in the teachings of the historic Buddha, as revealed in the Pali canon, because I have direct experience in the efficacy of those teachings. However, I have found the present level of translation seems to be rather unskillful, because there are a few key areas that do not reflect the experiences that I acquired through following the practices that are revealed in the canon, and therefore those few unskillful translations must be challenged. Actually, there is no evidence to support a belief that the Buddha ever taught it took "countless lives" to either arrive at a "pleasant abiding in the here and now" (jhana), which are the absorption states (jhanas); or their fruition in cessation (nibbana). He said it was indeed possible to become enlightened in this very lifetime. Maha-satipatthana Sutta, DN 22.22 "Now, if anyone would develop these Four Cornerstones of Awareness (frames of reference, or foundations of mindfulness) in this way for seven years, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis (Arahantship) right here & now, or -- if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance -- non-return." I am certain that if you want to become enlightened in this very lifetime, then all you need do is follow the Noble Eightfold Path to its logical conclusion, which is cessation. An essential part of that path is right awareness (samma-sati), which is cultivated through the practice of concentration. Awareness (Sati) is defined in the Sati suttas as awareness of the breath, body, senses and mind. These are the four cornerstones of awareness (Sati). DN 22.21 "And what is right awareness (samma-sati)? There is the case where an aspirant remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & aware -- putting aside greed & unhappiness (dukkha) with reference to the world. one remains focused on feelings in & of themselves ... one remains focused on the mind in & of itself ... one remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves -- ardent, alert, & aware -- putting aside greed & unhappiness (dukkha) with reference to the world. This is called right awareness (samma-sati)." Mindfulness is the common translation of the Pali term 'Sati.' I prefer to use 'awareness' for a translation of the term 'Sati,' because that is what we are doing when we are practicing Satipatthana, developing awareness. The word 'mindfulness' refers to the mind, which is a rather vague term in the English language that can also mean the processes of cognition. It is some of these processes of cognition, (perception, thinking, reasoning and memory) that we are attempting to bring to cessation while maintaining only the awareness component of cognition for nibbana to arise. Awareness is separated out from the aggregate of cognition and developed through the practice of concentration. The cultivation of awareness is revealed in the three Sati suttas. The Sati suttas are a series of concentration exercises that lead to the development of awareness (Sati), which leads to absorption (jhana), which leads to cessation (nibbana). The Noble Eight Fold Path requires Right Absorption (sama-samadhi), which is the cultivation of absorption states (jhanas) through the development of awareness (Sati) by practicing the concentration techniques that are revealed in the three Sati suttas. Right Absorption (sama-samadhi) is defined in terms of absorption (jhana) in the Maha-satipatthana Sutta (DN 22.21). DN 22.21 "And what is right {absorption (sama-samadhi)}? There is the case where an aspirant -- quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: joy & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by applied and sustained {concentration (vitakka and vicára)}. With the stilling of applied and sustained {concentration (vitakka and vicára)}, one enters & remains in the second jhana: joy & pleasure born of tranquillity, unification of awareness free from directed applied and sustained {concentration (vitakka and vicára)} -- internal assurance. With the fading of exuberance one remains in equanimity, (aware) & alert, physically sensitive of ecstasy. One enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & (aware), one has a pleasurable abiding.' With the abandoning of (grasping and aversion for) pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier disappearance of pleasure & pain -- one enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & awareness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called right absorption." If you are intent upon enlightenment (nibbana) in this very lifetime, then cultivating absorption (jhana) should be the most important thing on your mind. That however does not mean that you have to renounce all of your material possessions and relationships to arrive at a "pleasant abiding in the here and now" (jhana). All you need do is follow the Noble Eight Fold Path, which requires that one develop right awareness (samma-sati) which leads to right absorption (samma-samdhi), which leads to cessation (nibbana). What I have found is central to the practice of giving rise to jhana: is relinquishment of all grasping and aversion; developing a daily contemplative practice regimen that is "sensitive to the arising of a pleasure that is not of sense contact;" cultivating moment-to-moment awareness (Sati); giving rise to tranquility (calm abiding); and sustaining that awareness and tranquility throughout the day. At each practice session simply sit as though it is your last act in life, and sit with no intention to end the session. The session will end itself. Then either begin your day if it is the beginning of your day, or go about your day if it is the middle of your day, or go to bed, if it is the end of the day. I know that if you practice as little as 5 minutes three times a day you will have far more success than the person who attends a 10 day retreat every year, but never meditates in between. Many Buddhist traditions seem to reject the cultivation of absorption (jhana/dhyana). The vipassana community believes there is a method called "dry insight" that leads to nibbana. I am certain a belief in a "dry insight" practice is a fiction that is a product of 2 and half Millennia of corruption by a sangha who has lost the way. There are only 3 tiny references in the Pali canon that can maybe be construed to support a belief in a 'dry' practice regimen, however those three lines in thousands of pages of text that are dedicated to the cultivation of absorption (jhana) are most probably apocryphal. And, even if the historic Buddha actual uttered them, why should one throw out 10,000 pages of text that are dedicated to the cultivation of right absorption (samma-samadhi) in support of three obscure lines that claim one can avoid one of the steps in the Noble Eight Fold Path? Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translations of the above suttas are available at these URLs: Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn118.html Satipatthana Sutta (MN 10) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn010.html Maha-satipatthana Sutta (DN. 22) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn22.html The alternate translations that I used are available at this URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas/files/ May you become enlightened in this very lifetime. Jeff Brooks In a message dated 2/5/04 8:03:16 PM, dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com writes: << From: Kenneth Ong Subject: Re: Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism - Long Hi Jeff Brooks I am definitely interested in jhanas (even though I know it may be countless lives away before I experience ;-0). Definitely jhanas bring a different level of pleasant abiding than what we experience as plesant in non-jhanas momemts. I glad that you have strong faith in the Pali Cannon in Pali - If my memory does not fail me there is a method of dry insight where one does not need jhanas to be enlighted. Beside this point lets talk about jhanas. But first of all, I have not experience jhanas in my whole life and also I have not read much about jhanas bc to me this is still not a practical thing for me now. If you are interested in this, I like to explore further this with you. I like to explore the mindfullness portion with you - how do you define mindfullness. Do you think when one that is mindful, will one still long for the experience of the ecstasy of jhanas? When one is mindful, can one say let me now go to the jhanas - is it possible without the right conditions?. What do you mean by dedicated contemplative practice, what are the conditions, what are the methods? Are those said in the sutta where one must be withdraw from sensual desire first before going to the jhanas? Or one have to the right conditions as stated in the Visud before a jhanas can happen? Thats all I can think now for you kind comments please Ken O >> 29769 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 4:55pm Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Dear James, I've just read this Sutta you quoted. If you are familiar with Mahayana scriptures then you might not be surprised because such ideas as in this Sutta are expressed to satiety in the voluminous corpus of Mahayana scriptures called Maha-Prajnaparamita Sutras. This is the proof that those Mahayana Sutras are later developments from some ideas taking root in the original teachings of the Buddha. Here is an excerpt from the Heart Sutra with a similar description. Emptiness here is the domain of Buddha (and not Mara). http://members.ozemail.com.au/~mooncharts/heartsutra/english.html Then, through the power of the Buddha, venerable Shariputra said to noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva mahasattva, "How should a son or daughter of noble family train, who wishes to practice the profound prajnaparamita?" Addressed in this way, noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva mahasattva, said to venerable Shariputra, "O Shariputra, a son or daughter of noble family who wishes to practice the profound prajnaparamita should see in this way: seeing the five skandhas to be empty of nature. Form is emptiness; emptiness also is form. Emptiness is no other than form; form is no other than emptiness. In the same way, feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness are emptiness. Thus, Shariputra, all dharmas are emptiness. There are no characteristics. There is no birth and no cessation. There is no impurity and no purity. There is no decrease and no increase. Therefore, Shariputra, in emptiness, there is no form, no feeling, no perception, no formation, no consciousness; no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind; no appearance, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no dharmas, no eye dhatu up to no mind dhatu, no dhatu of dharmas, no mind consciousness dhatu; no ignorance, no end of ignorance up to no old age and death, no end of old age and death; no suffering, no origin of suffering, no cessation of suffering, no path, no wisdom, no attainment, and no non-attainment. Therefore, Shariputra, since the bodhisattvas have no attainment, they abide by means of prajnaparamita. Metta, KKT 29770 From: Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 6:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Why is Ignorance-Conditioned Sankhara a Condition for Consciousness? Hi Howard, I don't know how dependent arising works for an arahant. But I'm pretty sure even an arahant's body is still subject to kamma result. I suppose that all 6 sense consciousnesses are also still kamma resultant. This might tie into the sutta James is discussing. The main thing that is different is that an arahant doesn't create new kamma. Larry 29771 From: Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 6:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Ken O: "Maybe it is a bit difficult to explain. When the momemt you experience a desire or unpleasant feelings (unhappiness is to be a bit vague so I have used unpleasant), the momentary feelings of our experience of such cittas will have arise and cease a million times. By the time when we experience (we do experience it) its already a conceptual or thinking level." Hi Ken, You are saying the truth of suffering is a concept in two ways. First, it is a concept isofar as it is a theory we don't understand. Second, it is a concept insofar as what we do understand as suffering in our everyday life is itself only a conceptual construct. Is there any real suffering anywhere here? How do you know? Larry 29772 From: Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 6:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Sukin:"I believe your point is that we may be carried away by a concept and *think* that we experience `desire´, but in reality it may be something else altogether." Hi Sukin, If you can't really find desire of any kind in your experience, but instead find only a house built of concept, why look any further? Your dilemma is solved. The seeming desire is not desire. It is only something you think. Can you find that thought? Larry 29773 From: Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 3:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Why is Ignorance-Conditioned Sankhara a Condition for Consciousness? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/6/04 9:51:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I don't know how dependent arising works for an arahant. But I'm pretty > sure even an arahant's body is still subject to kamma result. I suppose > that all 6 sense consciousnesses are also still kamma resultant. This > might tie into the sutta James is discussing. The main thing that is > different is that an arahant doesn't create new kamma. > > Larry > ============================= It seems to me that a question is whether or not the 12-factor scheme of dependent origination leading to suffering applies only to non-arahants. Inasmuch as it includes rebirth and resulting suffering, and an arahant is not reborn and is freed of suffering, it must not. Yet during the final life of a not-yet-arahant, until final liberation is achieved, ignorance consistently arises as condition in the mindstream-to -be-liberated. That must renew the cycle of dependent origination. When the transition to arahant occurs, the die has already been cast it would seem. Why, then, do rebirth and suffering not result? The answer as I see is that for the positive aspect of dependent origination to occur, ignorance is a required condition at every step, and not just at the beginning. As soon as there is the cessation of ignorance, the positive cycle of dependent origination is stopped cold, because there immediately follows the cessation of fabrications (as defiled conditioning factors), and of the remaining ten factors - i.e., there is the toppling of the factors that lead suffering, like the knocking down of a line of dominoes. Once ignorance goes, it all goes, ignorance being a necessary condition all along, and not just at the outset. Thus, as soon as ignorance ceases, the cessation aspect is then operative instead, no longer the positive aspect. In particular, once ignorance ceases, vi~n~nana cannot arise. But, then, 'vi~n~nana' cannot just mean "consciousness", because arahants are not unconscious. Experience, kammically induced, will still flow, but it is no longer a flow consisting of a seeming self/subject grasping seemingly separate, independent objects. 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) 29774 From: Sarah Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 11:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Victor (& James), --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi James, > > Thanks for typing out the discourse. I read it and this is how I > understand it: .... I've only just read your post 29739 (and not the ones after it yet).I've snipped it all for now but wish to say I think it's very clearly presented and helpful and it's the second one you've written on this thread which I fully agree with (for what that's worth!!!). Welcome to the Samyutta corner;-) Metta, Sarah ====== 29775 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 0:59am Subject: Re: Companionship Hello Dave, (Sarah), and all, Two years ago I was experiencing just the same difficulties and isolation that you are going through. In my case, I had come out of decades of being a practising Christian, was involved in all the church organisations and activities, children went to denominational high schools, and most of my friends were similar. Big change. Spiritual loneliness, disorientation. I enrolled in a beginner's meditation course (seen advertised in a health store shop window) - two actually, one Zen and one Samatha- Vipassana. Liked both, but felt more affinity with the S-V. I continued with the weekly meditation, dhamma talk and chat for a year. The leader left to become a guiding teacher elsewhere, and the group fizzled out over the next months. By this time, I had felt a growing attraction for the Dhamma. Most of the people in the meditation group didn't want to do anything other than meditation, but I had a need to know the scriptures and explore a little more. Via the internet, I found I was a Thera at heart, so joined a few yahoo discussion groups and continued private study. This was good, but I still had no face to face support. Some off-list discussion with members of dsg and DL resulted in them suggesting that I attempt to meet some of the members living within a couple of hundred kilometres of my home - Brisbane, Australia - and gave help with facilitating that. Eventually, a few of us met - a couple of the others already knew each other - and now we have a 'camping in the shed' weekend together every three or four months with about eight to ten people. (Some of the group are on this list - KenH, Andrew, Steve bodhi2500, and sometimes Azita who comes over 900 kilometres.) These weekends are at Andrew's property at Cooran a couple of hours drive north of Brisbane( thank-you Andrew), Andrew gets in the provisions and everyone shares the costs of food and petrol. The discussions are 'semi-organised' - a few leading topics, photocopies of articles, plus whatever anyone wants to bring along, and the many sidetracks that we end up taking. Some are meditators, some aren't - we live and let live. :-) Someone usually brings along buddhist dictionaries or copies of the suttas, to help settle "the debates". :-) I also attend a dhamma study group one Sunday afternoon a month, which I found out about from people who attend the weekends. These meetings are worth starting up if there is nothing in your area - ask on the Lists you belong to if anyone lives in your area, or put a notice up in a local 'new-age' shop or in the local paper. Even if it starts with two or three, it will grow. If people live a few hundred kilometres away, consider the weekend get together every few months. If I could find some dhamma friends in the wilds of Queensland - I'm sure you will discover some near you eventually. I also found a few by doing a course of study - in my case, Pali. The University of Indiana may present some subject under Religious Studies that would allow you to meet other buddhists. At other times, I found sound files and books helpful. Nothing like listening to Bhikkhu Bodhi's lectures downloaded from the internet in your study. If you need any links to sound files or articles by Theravadin teachers or to places that sell buddhist books, I'd be happy to help out. When I could, and finances allowed, I went to meditation retreats in other states. Nowadays, I don't do that, but I go to Bangkok a couple of times a year for discussions with local dsg-ers (incl. Betty, Sukin, Ivan) and anyone else who can get there (this last time Nina, KenO, Sarah and Jon from dsg list). I also try to join in any pilgrimage trips others on the List are making. I've been to Sri Lanka and Myanmar with friends from dsg, and intend to go to India in October this year. It all depends on finances, stage of life, and what other obligations you have. But there is nothing like being with some people over days/weeks to make firm friendships. A couple of url's that may be helpful (or may not) or may be able to suggest other contacts: Indiana Buddhist temple - with a couple of Sri Lankan monks - may know of other groups in the area. http://members.wri.com/shirald/slsociety/temple/ Tri-State Dharma http://tristatedharma.org/pages/classes.htm Dave, you'll find dhamma friends for sure - it just needs perseverance. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Hi all. > > I have a more practical question that I've been wrestling with for > some time. That is, how do you deal with the "lonelyness" of being a > Buddhist in a western / Christian society? Here in Indiana, we are > rather "bible-belt" and there is very little in the way of Buddhist > organizations or anything. > > Are there others who might be in a similiar situation that might have > some advice or encouraging words! I suppose there is not much that > can be done but move or deal with it. > > Anyway, just curious what others might have to offer. Thanks. > > > Peace, > > > Dave 29776 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 1:16am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Larry, > If you can't really find desire of any kind in your experience, but > instead find only a house built of concept, why look any further? Your > dilemma is solved. The seeming desire is not desire. It is only > something you think. Can you find that thought? I wouldn't look further because there *is no* further!! ;-) Was there a dilemma to be solved? Just like any ultimate reality, `thinking' also has characteristics which can be known. And here too, through familiarity one can become more and more precise. And I think this is particularly useful, because it is here where the beginning of mental proliferation can be known, which is where most of our other accumulated defilements feed upon. But are you suggesting that one can have insight with concept as object? I don't think so. I think concept or `thought' can only condition more concept and thought. The insight can take place of `thinking' and not of `thought'. Am I on the right track? Metta, Sukin. 29777 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 2:54am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" James, Thanks for posting this sutta. A good choice. --- buddhatrue wrote: > > Also, I didn't know > how to find, as it states in Note 297, Cp. 35:117, information to > learn more details about cessation of the six sense bases. This is how the translator refers to suttas in his translation -- '35' is the number of the samyutta (in this case the Salayatana-samyutta of the Salayatana-vagga) and '117' is the number of the sutta in that samyutta. See p.1190 of the translation. So the present sutta would be referenced by 4:19. The sutta at 35:117 also has many points of interest. Jon 29778 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 3:04am Subject: Philip's Questions Hi Star Kid Philip! Philip: Please, I have a few more questions that I would like someone to answer, can you guys answer them? James: I hope you had a nice Christmas and New Years! You asked these questions a while back and no one answered them. Mrs. Abbott asked if I could answer them for you, which is of course my pleasure! I wanted to wait until you were back in school though. Okay, let me try to answer these questions for you: 1. How can a person turn into a god? Answer: This question is a little tricky because it depends on how you define `god'. If you mean the Christian God, who is said to have created the whole universe, then the answer is no. But if you mean a `god' as in an entity with powers beyond human beings, like the Greek and Roman gods, then the answer is yes. In Buddhism it is taught that there are higher realms where various gods exist. However, they are very much like the Greek and Roman gods: powerful but subject to petty insecurity, jealousy, hatred, stinginess, etc. They are not enlightened and they are not all good. The way to become one of these gods is to live a life where you do a lot of good deeds, gain a lot of good karma, and to have the correct thinking when you die; but there is no guarantee that you will be reborn as one of the gods. 2. What would happen to you if you do not believe in Buddhism? Answer: Believing or not believing in Buddhism isn't the most important thing; the most important thing is to live a life that encourages you to have good thoughts and a pure mind. Let me tell you a story: There was a powerful king in India named Asoka who spent almost his whole life as a devout Buddhist. He gave money to build Buddhist temples, encouraged the codification of the Buddha's teaching (including the Abhidhamma), and lived his life and ruled his kingdom according to the principles of Buddhism. However, when he was about to die he wanted to do one final act of charity for Buddhism and give a great deal of money to the community of Buddhist monks. However, when he sent word to his treasurer to release the money to the monks, the treasurer refused to do so. When the king heard this he was extremely angry at the treasurer and he died with a lot of anger in his mind, thinking "That money is mine!! That money is mine!!" Therefore, after he died he was reborn as a huge black snake that spent all of his time in the money vaults slithering around his former money. Here was a king who had done so much for Buddhism and now he was reborn as a huge snake!! There is a lesson in this that it doesn't matter if a person believes in Buddhism or not, and it doesn't matter what that person does during his life, if his mind is not purified of evil and bad thoughts, he/she is bound for a bad destination. 3. Does the Buddha have a bible? Answer: Buddhists actually have several Bibles!! There is the Pali Canon, Mahayana Scriptures, and Tibetan Scriptures. Buddhism is actually a much more complicated religion, on the whole, than Christianity. 4. What do monks do? Answer: Nowadays there are two main types of monks: Forest monks and City monks. Forest monks spend most of their time in solitude, studying the Buddha's teaching, and meditating. City monks spend most of their time performing ceremonies for lay people (Buddhists), teaching Buddhism to lay people, and accepting gifts of merit by the lay community. But these two types of monks are not completely different because Forest monks also teach and perform ceremonies, and City monks also spend time in solitude and meditate. 5. How do people pray? Answer: I don't quite understand this question. Which people? Buddhists? Anyway, the idea behind any type of praying is to have a concentrated thought that is of a pure nature and unselfish. This thought can be memorized words, visualizations, concentration on an object, etc. People in all religions like to pray because it helps to calm and purify the mind by not letting the mind go wherever it wants. 6. Is Buddhism popular amongst Caucasians? Answer: Hmmm…I'm not sure. Among many Caucasians Buddhism is quite popular but in so much that it is like a part of `pop culture'. It is popular like the newest clothes fashion is popular! Hehehe… I would say that Buddhism, as a serious path of practice, is not very popular among Caucasians…or even among other nationalities really. True Buddhists are very rare in the world. 7. What else have you to tell me about Buddhism? Answer: the simple message of Buddhism is: Don't do evil, do only good, and purify the mind. Philip: Anyway, wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year! James: To you too Philip! Hope your New Year is a happy one! Metta, James 29779 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 3:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Yahoo "spam guard" Howard Thanks for these observations. I've not had time to look into this further, having been laid low for the past 36 hours by a sudden fever (although now well on the way to recovery). Fortunately, there are no symptoms of flu (avian or otherwise), nor of other more exotic diseases that could have been picked up in recent travels ;-)) --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > > I haven't quite figured out the basis on which some messages are > > being identified as spam. ... > ========================= > There seem to be alternative criteria. One criterion seems > to be a > dislike for typing errors that involve insertion of symbols like ) > or # in the > middle of an English phrase. Also, the spam filter clearly takes to > heart the > Buddha's instruction to teach in the vernacular - there is a clear > aversion to long Pali expressions! ;-)) Certain members will be happy with this ;-)) Jon 29780 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 5:20am Subject: Re: SN I,4,19(9) "The Farmer" -- Listening, attending to, etc Howard, Larry and All One thing that struck me about this sutta that James has posted for us is the first paragraph where it refers to *listening to, attending to, and applying one's (whole) mind to* the dhamma. It is I think is obvious from the context that this listening, attending to, and applying of the mind is being spoken of approvingly, as something that is a necessary part of the development of the path. I see this as kusala volition or effort of the 'right' kind. If the true teaching has been correctly heard, understood, and reflected upon it can condition at an appropriate time a level of direct understanding. The effort and volition here is motivated by an appreciation of the importance of the dhamma, otherwise referred to in the teachings as a sense of urgency. There is no need for any kind of deliberate 'doing' or 'practice'. Indeed, even listening or attending to done as a formality and not something arising naturally through one's appreciation of the dhamma, would not be kusala or at least not the kind that conditions direct understanding of presently arising dhammas. As I see it, anyway. Jon --- buddhatrue wrote: > At Savatthi. Now on that occasion the Blessed One was instructing, > exhorting, inspiring, and gladdening the bhikkhus with a Dhamma > talk concerning Nibbana. And those bhikkhus were listening to the > Dhamma > with eager ears, attending to it as a matter of vital concern, > applying their whole minds to it. > > Then it occurred to Mara the Evil One: "This ascetic Gotama is > instructing, exhorting, inspiring, and gladdening the bhikkhus…who > are applying their whole minds to it. Let me approach the ascetic > Gotama in order to confound them." ... 29781 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 6:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Victor This post of yours came in while I was away. I hope you don’t mind a late reply! --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi James and all, ... > Given the record of the Buddha's teaching on the Four Noble Truths > in the Pali Canon, the Buddha did not say that the Four Noble > Truths are ultimate, conventional, or both. It is I think well established that the terms 'paramattha' and 'pannatti' are not found in the suttas in the meaning those terms are used in the Abhidhamma and commentaries. As I see it, the distinction between dhammas/truths in the ultimate sense and things/truths in the conventional sense is one of a number of aspects of the teachings that did not need to be spelled out to those to whom the suttas were spoken at the time, since these were on the whole persons who were ready for final enlightenment and who already had a highly developed understanding of the nature of dhammas. However, according to some, the distinction itself is there to be found in the suttas, although not labelled as such. See the entry for 'paramattha' in Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary', some extracts from which are pasted below. It is the function of the commentaries explain the teaching given in the suttas so that it can be understood also by those whose understanding is less highly developed than the understanding of those to who the suttas were spoken. Jon Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' From the entry for 'paramattha' (1) The two truths -- ultimate and conventional -- ...are implied in a sutta-distinction of 'explicit (or direct) meaning' (nítattha) and 'implicit meaning (to be inferred)' (neyyattha). (2) Further, the Buddha repeatedly mentioned his reservations when using conventional speech, e.g. in D. 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Perfect One (Tathágata) uses without misapprehending them." See also S. I. 25. (3) It is one of the main characteristics of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, in distinction from most of the Sutta Pitaka, that it does not employ conventional language, but deals only with ultimates, or realities in the highest sense (paramattha-dhammá). (4) But also in the Sutta Pitaka there are many expositions in terms of ultimate language (paramattha-desaná), namely, wherever these texts deal with the groups (khandha), elements (dhátu) or sense-bases (áyatana), and their components; and wherever the 3 characteristics (ti-lakkhana) are applied. (5) The majority of Sutta texts, however, use the conventional language, as appropriate in a practical or ethical context, because it "would not be right to say that 'the groups' (khandha) feel shame, etc." 29782 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 7:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristics Michael I haven't forgotten that I said I would look to see how 'sabhava' is used in the Visuddhimagga. In fact, I took the Vism with me to Thailand but didn't get a lot of chances to write out messages;-)). Sorry about the delay. I'd like to start with an example of 'sabhava' used (deliberately) in the Vism to mean something fixed or lasting, just to show that the compiler was alive to that possible connotation. See the passage pasted at the end of this message (and the reference to 'wrong theories'). --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Jon, ... M: If your interpretation is correct then I think the Pali commentators were really dumb in using the combination paramatha/sabhava to qualify dhammas. They certainly knew other ways of describing dhammas to avoid falling into some form of reification. J: There is no single term that would achieve this for all persons. This is because (a) our language is inextricably bound up with views of reification and (b) if a person has a strong reification view he will read reification into whatever term is used. M: But I don’t think you are correct. In my view the Pali commentators really regarded dhammas as paramatha/sabhava and the reason I believe that is the strong reaction against those ideas that was engendered by the early Mahayana commentators, in particular Nagarjuna. J: But is it appropriate to base a view of the teachings on the reactions of another individual (or group of individuals), and not on a study of the texts themselves? The problem with the views of others is that there is no way of taking account of any possible wrong view the other may have. M: One should also keep in mind the interpretations of modern Theravada commentators which clearly read paramatha/sabhava as truly existent, within a context of substantiality. J: Again, I would want to know the particular textual passages from the tipitaka and commentaries that these later commentators rely on for their conclusions. M: I also don’t agree with your argument that dhammas are not capable of further reduction but, would rather argue that they are capable of further reduction, but it is not necessary to do so in order to see the nature of things as they are, i.e., viewing the 3 characteristics of the aggregates with proper insight is enough for liberation, one does not have to dwell deeper. But that doesn’t mean this is not possible. I would rather say that the development of the path is the understanding of these dhammas because that is the most practical, not that it is the only possibility. J: I'd be interested to know what textual support there is for the view that dhammas are not capable of further reduction. M: Again, if the commentators used ‘essence’ without the intention of meaning ‘essence’ then simply they should not have used it. J: I have pasted below the complete definition of 'essence' from the 'Concise Oxford Dictionary'. As you will notice, permanence is not a necessary connotation. The meaning of 'quality which determines something's character' or 'property of something without which it would not be what it is' would fit well here. In fact of course it is not the modern-day meaning of 'essence' that is the issue, but meaning of 'sabhava' as sued in the texts. What light can you throw on this? M: I would prefer to say that features are due to the regularity of the dhamma. It is not something intrinsic to the dhamma but when that dhamma arises with its characteristics, both due to causes and conditions, the feature of regularity makes that dhamma have that characteristic. And because of regularity we are mistaken to take that characteristic as unique, being part of the essence of that dhamma. J: The Buddha never said that characteristics arise -- only that dhammas arise. Nor did he speak of the causes and conditions of characteristics -- only of dhammas. Again, there is no textual support for this, as I see it. Jon ********************* Visuddhi-Magga, XVI DESCRIPTION OF THE TRUTHS GENERAL 84. 9. 'As to knowledge's functions': the expositions should be understood according to knowledge of the truths. ... 85. When this knowledge is mundane, then ... knowledge of origin forestalls wrong theories of cause that occur as finding a reason where there is none, such as 'The world occurs owing to an Overlord, a Basic Principle, Time, Nature (Individual Essence)', etc.;[23] Footnote: [23] Those who hold the theory of Nature (sabhava -- individual essence) say, "The world appears and disappears (sambhoti vibhoti ca) just because of its nature (individual essence), like the sharp nature (essence) of thorns, like the roundness of apples, like the variedness of wild bests, birds, snakes, and so on". ********************* Concise Oxford Dictionary, 10th ed, 1999, OUP essence: 1. the intrinsic nature of something; the quality which determines something's character; [philosophy] a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is. 2. an abstract or concentrate obtained from a plant or other substance and used for flavouring or scent. ********************* 29783 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 7:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi James > James: Because those ascetics were operating under the false > assumption that they had a `self' which they were trying to unite > with Brahman. As a consequence, they only lessened the defilements > > during Jhana, or suppressed them, they didn't eliminate them. The Buddha used the Jhanas to clearly understand the defilements, > didn't operate under the false assumption of the other ascetics, and discovered that there isn't a self to unite with anything. k: James isn't it amazing that you have just define the word panna. - Hence no enlightment without panna. Even if you have a million jhanas entry in your lifetime, still no enlightment - it may provide you a very long life in your next kamma rebirth (was it 80,000 aeons - couldn't remember it very well) Face it Ken, Jhana or Vipassana meditation is > a part of the Buddha's path. He defined Right Concentration > specifically as the Four Jhanas and he extolled his bhikkhus on > numerous occasions to practice Jhana. (What is the problem here? > Why do I have to continue to explain this in this group??? It is > getting just plain stupid to have to continue to explain this > obvious fact to certain people who should know better!!!) k: Dont be angry man ;-) I am born stupid so you have to be patient with me. > James: Oh yes, I am in the fog also; but I admit and accept that I > am in the fog. You on the other hand don't. That is why you are > going at high speed while I am cautiously inching forward step-by-step. k: Hmm I didn't say I am not in the fog. Maybe my fog is thicker than you. The road travel by Abhidhamma is safer as the vehicle has anti-fog lights(the books of Abhidhamma), information on the buttion is bright so that we can know the characteristics of the various buttions of the car during the thick fog, its windscreen is constantly clean by the wiper just like considering of dhamma by studying it, it drives very slowly (in fact it is in crawling pace) bc the road of enlightement cannot be push foward as it is anatta Ken O 29784 From: Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 3:36am Subject: Addendum: [dsg] Why is Ignorance-Conditioned ... Condition for Consciousness? Hi again, Larry and all - In a message dated 2/7/04 12:01:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > It seems to me that a question is whether or not the 12-factor scheme > of dependent origination leading to suffering applies only to non-arahants. > Inasmuch as it includes rebirth and resulting suffering, and an arahant is > not > reborn and is freed of suffering, it must not. Yet during the final life of > a > not-yet-arahant, until final liberation is achieved, ignorance consistently > arises as condition in the mindstream-to -be-liberated. That must renew the > cycle > of dependent origination. When the transition to arahant occurs, the die has > > already been cast it would seem. Why, then, do rebirth and suffering not > result? > ======================== Now I proposed an answer to that question to the effect that during a person's final lifetime, the lifetime in which s/he becomes an arahant, though ignorance arises at multiple times, the moment it is uprooted, the positive cycle of dependent origination is stopped cold, and the negative/cessation cycle takes over (based on the proposition that ignorance must occur at every step - being passed along). If, for some reason, that is hard to accept, because it is felt that once the positive cycle is entered into, the full cycle of positive conditioning, running to completion, is inevitable, there is yet at least one more way to look at the matter. Another understanding of patticasamupada, other than the three-lifetime interpretation of Buddhaghosa's, is the "momentary interpretation" that considers the 12-step scheme of dependent origination to explain the rebirth of suffering and (sense of) self in a single moment or over the course of a few moments. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu understood the scheme that way *only*, and the eminent Thai scholar-monk, Venerable P.A. Payutto, also accepts that as *one* viable understanding. In this view, the positive cycle occurs repeatedly in a non-arahant until the moment that ignorance is uprooted. (So the cyclical wandering of samsara occurs again and again even within a single lifetime.) On the occasion that ignorance is fully uprooted, also momentarily, right then all the cessation steps occur, and the non-arahant attains complete and final liberation, becoming an arahant with ignorance dead and buried, never to rise again. It is this scenario that makes most sense to me - though, of course, what "makes sense to me" and what is true need bear no relation to each other! ;-) It should be noted that in this scenario as well, without ignorance as condition, vi~n~nana could not arise. So, still, 'vi~n~nana' cannot mean just "awareness", for the living arahant is most definitely aware. 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) 29785 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 8:53am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Ken O, Ken: James isn't it amazing that you have just define the word panna. James: I did not just define the word `panna'. A definition is a concise statement conveying the fundamental meaning of a word. I didn't make any such statement. What is amazing is that you think I did! ;-)) Ken: Hence no enlightment without panna. Even if you have a million jhanas entry in your lifetime, still no enlightment - it may provide you a very long life in your next kamma rebirth James: Whatever. I am tired of explaining it to you. Ken: Dont be angry man ;-) I am born stupid so you have to be patient with me. James: Ken, I am not angry. As the Buddha said, "And if I were to teach the Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me." I think I know what he meant. Also, I shouldn't have used the word `stupid'. I wasn't describing you as stupid. Right before writing that post I had gone to the movies with an Egyptian friend who doesn't use English very well and whenever I joked, which is quite often ;-), he would say, "You're stupid" to which I would reply, "I'm not stupid, you're stupid." And then we would both laugh. So I had that word `stupid' in my mind from so much usage and put it in the post I wrote afterwards. That was most regrettable and I apologize. Ken: Hmm I didn't say I am not in the fog. Maybe my fog is thicker than you. The road travel by Abhidhamma is safer as the vehicle has anti-fog lights(the books of Abhidhamma), information on the buttion is bright so that we can know the characteristics of the various buttions of the car during the thick fog, its windscreen is constantly clean by the wiper just like considering of dhamma by studying it, it drives very slowly (in fact it is in crawling pace) bc the road of enlightement cannot be push foward as it is anatta James: LOL! Okay, this metaphor I invented is starting to get outta hand! ;-)) Let's just drop it. Metta, James 29786 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 9:03am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi KKT, Yes, this Mahayana sutta is very similar. Most Mahayana suttas are at a very high level of understanding and seem to be in reaction to incorrect thoughts of previous generations of Buddhists. It is hard to learn from them solely and can lead to misunderstanding (like that there are no defilements or defilements are enlightenment). I know a Mahayana monk, from Vietnam, who has his own temple in Arizona who I used to meditate with on occasion. One time I went to visit him and he was so excited because he had recently been reading suttas from the Pali Canon and consequently so many things in the Mahayana suttas were becoming clearer for him. He told me that he found the Pali suttas much better and deeper in meaning than the Mahayana ones! LOL! Metta, James --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > > Dear James, > > I've just read this > Sutta you quoted. > > If you are familiar > with Mahayana scriptures > then you might not be > surprised because such > ideas as in this Sutta > are expressed to satiety > in the voluminous corpus of > Mahayana scriptures called > Maha-Prajnaparamita Sutras. > 29787 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 9:16am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > James, > > Thanks for posting this sutta. A good choice. > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > > > Also, I didn't know > > how to find, as it states in Note 297, Cp. 35:117, information to > > learn more details about cessation of the six sense bases. > > This is how the translator refers to suttas in his translation -- > '35' is the number of the samyutta (in this case the > Salayatana-samyutta of the Salayatana-vagga) and '117' is the number > of the sutta in that samyutta. See p.1190 of the translation. So > the present sutta would be referenced by 4:19. > > The sutta at 35:117 also has many points of interest. > > Jon Thank you so much for explaining this to me! I will check it out. (Perhaps I have been referencing the suttas in the SN incorrectly then. I will start to use this method. It is much easier to understand. However, I am not sure if it will match everyone's edition of the SN??) Metta, James 29788 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 11:06am Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/Jon Hi Jon, Not a problem at all. Let me point out the assumption as I see it in your message: 1. The distinction between dhammas/truths in the ultimate sense and things/truths in the conventional sense is one of a number of aspects of the teachings. Many discussions in DSG are based on the acceptance of this assumption. I have abandoned it. Let me quote SN 1.25 The Arahant: "If a bhikkhu is an arahant, Consummate, with taints destroyed, One who bears his final body, Would he still say, 'I speak'? And would he say, 'They speak to me'?" "If a bhikkhu is an arahant, Consummate, with taints destroyed, One who bears his final body, He might still say, 'I speak,' And he might say, 'They speak to me.' Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions." "When a bhikkhu is an arahant, Consummate, with taints destroyed, One who bears his final body, Is it because he has come upon conceit That he would say, 'I speak,' That he would say, 'They speak to me'?" "No knots exist for one with conceit abandoned; For him all knots of conceit are consumed. Though the wise one has transcended the conceived, He still might say, 'I speak,' He might say too, 'They speak to me.' Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions." [1] The deva asked the Buddha the first question: "If a bhikkhu is an arahant, Consummate, with taints destroyed, One who bears his final body, w Would he still say, 'I speak'? And would he say, 'They speak to me'?" The Buddha's reply was that: "If a bhikkhu is an arahant, Consummate, with taints destroyed, One who bears his final body, He might still say, 'I speak,' And he might say, 'They speak to me.' Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions." The deva asked a direct question. The Buddha gave a direct answer. The deva then asked the second question: "When a bhikkhu is an arahant, Consummate, with taints destroyed, One who bears his final body, Is it because he has come upon conceit That he would say, 'I speak,' That he would say, 'They speak to me'?" The Buddha reply as following: "No knots exist for one with conceit abandoned; For him all knots of conceit are consumed. Though the wise one has transcended the conceived, He still might say, 'I speak,' He might say too, 'They speak to me.' Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions." In reply to the deva's second question, the Buddha did not reply that when a bhikkhu is an arahant, consummate, with taints destroyed, one who bears his final body, whether or not it is because he has come upon conceit that he would say, 'I speak,' that he would say, 'They speak to me.' The second question has an implicit assumption: Even when a bhikkhu is an arahant, consummate, with taints destroyed, one who bears his final body, he still has come upon conceit. The Buddha did not take up that assumption and answer the deva's question directly. Rather, the Buddha started the reply with saying that: "No knots exist for one with conceit abandoned; For him all knots of conceit are consumed." Without taking up the assumption in the second question, the Buddha continued in his reply: "Though the wise one has transcended the conceived, He still might say, 'I speak,' He might say too, 'They speak to me.' Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions." One observation I would make is that the Buddha ended his replies to both questions with: "Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions." Nevertheless, he did not suggest any other particular manner of speaking, nor is it implied in this discourse. That is how I understand it. Your comments are welcome. Metta, Victor [1] Samyutta Nikaya, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi, p.102 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > This post of yours came in while I was away. I hope you don't mind a > late reply! > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > > Hi James and all, > ... > > Given the record of the Buddha's teaching on the Four Noble Truths > > in the Pali Canon, the Buddha did not say that the Four Noble > > Truths are ultimate, conventional, or both. > > It is I think well established that the terms 'paramattha' and > 'pannatti' are not found in the suttas in the meaning those terms are > used in the Abhidhamma and commentaries. > > As I see it, the distinction between dhammas/truths in the ultimate > sense and things/truths in the conventional sense is one of a number > of aspects of the teachings that did not need to be spelled out to > those to whom the suttas were spoken at the time, since these were on > the whole persons who were ready for final enlightenment and who > already had a highly developed understanding of the nature of > dhammas. > > However, according to some, the distinction itself is there to be > found in the suttas, although not labelled as such. See the entry > for 'paramattha' in Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary', some > extracts from which are pasted below. > > It is the function of the commentaries explain the teaching given in > the suttas so that it can be understood also by those whose > understanding is less highly developed than the understanding of > those to who the suttas were spoken. > > Jon > > Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' > From the entry for 'paramattha' > (1) The two truths -- ultimate and conventional -- ...are implied in > a sutta-distinction of 'explicit (or direct) meaning' (nítattha) and > 'implicit meaning (to be inferred)' (neyyattha). > > (2) Further, the Buddha repeatedly mentioned his reservations when > using conventional speech, e.g. in D. 9: "These are merely names, > expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the > world, which the Perfect One (Tathágata) uses without misapprehending > them." See also S. I. 25. > > (3) It is one of the main characteristics of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, > in distinction from most of the Sutta Pitaka, that it does not employ > conventional language, but deals only with ultimates, or realities in > the highest sense (paramattha-dhammá). > > (4) But also in the Sutta Pitaka there are many expositions in terms > of ultimate language (paramattha-desaná), namely, wherever these > texts deal with the groups (khandha), elements (dhátu) or sense- bases > (áyatana), and their components; and wherever the 3 characteristics > (ti-lakkhana) are applied. > > (5) The majority of Sutta texts, however, use the conventional > language, as appropriate in a practical or ethical context, because > it "would not be right to say that 'the groups' (khandha) feel shame, > etc." 29789 From: Harry Mueller Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 9:56am Subject: A few questions As a relative newcomer to Buddhism I've encountered a few issues that I haven't been able to put away. I hope that someone in the group can help me address these questions. As I understand it there exist at this time at least a few enlightened beings. If this is true, and I understand that these beings would have a perfect understanding of the Buddha's intent in all his teachings, why don't they provide the true contemporary interpretation of the Buddha's words. This could effectively put an end to the confusion that exists between the many different interpretations of the best path to enlightenment today. I have read some authors that suggest that the sutras were written shortly after the Buddha's death while others suggest that the Buddha's words were not preserved in written form until hundreds of years after his death. Does any proof exist about when the Buddha's words were put to paper? I've read a bit about the five aggregates and have seen the order of them presented differently by different authorities. Is there any inherent importance in the order, or are they merely signposts within the process of being. Thanks, Harry 29790 From: Htoo Naing Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 1:16pm Subject: Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, Mind here is just a reference to a phenomena that can be aware of any object. Object here include sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch ( temperature, solidity, compressivity ) and consciousness and its associated mental factors like hatred, craving, ignorance, etc etc, some subtle materials which cannot be sensed through 5 primary sense doors. Subtle materials are paramattha rupa. For example maleness cannot be sensed through 5 doors but through mind-door. Maleness here refers to Purisattabhava Rupa. There are 16 such materials. 5 Pasada or 5 sense organs cannot be sense through 5 doors but through mind-door. Other objects are Pannatta or concept and Nibbana or absolute peace. Mind always takes an object. In the first post of this series, events were refered to material events which are quite evident and apparent to viewers. So, I used ' a mind' voids and when it voided, its place is empty. Actually mind has no form and some think this is not that right. Anyway, clarity, intelligibility. and understandability will works for all levels, I do hope. The Dhamma practitioner, meditator has been practising Mahasatipatthana ( Vipassana ) for a long time and he acquires a good concentration. Now he is able to see all mental phenomena whenever they arise. Now he is contemplating on mind and mind phenomena. 'Moving of mind' means arising of mind which takes a different object as compared to the lost mind who took other objects. This shifting of object is just refered to as movement of mind. Actually no mind can move, travel, walk, run, rush, hit, etc as they do not have any form. Each arises and immediately passes away. The meditator is very attentive to mental phenomena. He is practisinfg Mahasatipatthana. He is on breathing meditation. An object arises. He takes that object. From that object, he may deviate from his origional meditative object. This may go far unnoticed. But as soon as he notices that he has been distracted, he reorientates to his primary meditational object and at the same time, he notes that a mind with greed or Raga arose and passed away. He is practising Cittanupassana Satipatthana. He is contemplating on mind. While he is meditating, sometimes distraction occurs. But as soon as he notices that he reapproaches to his origional object and notes that a mind with greed arise. And when he has been back to his origional meditational object, he notices that the present mind is free from greed or Raga and he notes that a mind without greed or Raga arises. May all beings be able to practise contemplation on mind. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 29791 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 3:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" James --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Jon, ... > Thank you so much for explaining this to me! I will check it out. > (Perhaps I have been referencing the suttas in the SN incorrectly > then. I will start to use this method. It is much easier to > understand. However, I am not sure if it will match everyone's > edition of the SN??) You're welcome. I appreciate the good work you're doing with the SN corner. This form of referencing matches the ATI one but not the PTS one. However, I think it has become the general standard, so it's OK to go with it. Perhaps we can give the PTS reference occasionally (eg when posting a new sutta for the first time). Jon 29792 From: Ajahn Jose Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 3:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Companionship Hello Dave, My name is Ajahn Jose , I am American but live in Australia, I am a Buddhist monk, never feel lonely, Christine is a wonderful person and she will always give you the right advice, I am here to be for any help you need, it doesn't matter whow trivial it is. We all have to start somewhere. Metta. Ajahn Jose christine_forsyth wrote:Hello Dave, (Sarah), and all, Two years ago I was experiencing just the same difficulties and isolation that you are going through. In my case, I had come out of decades of being a practising Christian, was involved in all the church organisations and activities, children went to denominational high schools, and most of my friends were similar. Big change. Spiritual loneliness, disorientation. 29793 From: Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 4:26pm Subject: Re: Addendum: [dsg] Why is Ignorance-Conditioned ... Condition for Consciousness? Hi Howard, I think we'll have to wait until Nina gets back to sort this out. One point I still disagree with though: H: "It should be noted that in this scenario as well, without ignorance as condition, vi~n~nana could not arise. So, still, 'vi~n~nana' cannot mean just "awareness", for the living arahant is most definitely aware." I think the consciousness link refers to resultant consciousness and it continues as before for an arahant as a result of previous volition. Otherwise, what would condition it? Larry 29794 From: Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 11:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] A few questions In a message dated 2/7/2004 12:14:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, mexico_harry@h... writes: > As a relative newcomer to Buddhism I've encountered a few issues > that I haven't been able to put away. I hope that someone in the > group can help me address these questions. > > As I understand it there exist at this time at least a few > enlightened beings. If this is true, and I understand that these > beings would have a perfect understanding of the Buddha's intent in > all his teachings, why don't they provide the true contemporary > interpretation of the Buddha's words. This could effectively put an > end to the confusion that exists between the many different > interpretations of the best path to enlightenment today. > Hi Harry 1) I'm not aware of any current enlightened beings personally. There may or may not be such people. 2) An enlightened being may or may not have the ability to teach the Buddha's teaching. Even if they have the ability to teach the Buddha's teaching, they are not equal to the scope of the Buddha's understanding. The highest enlightened disciple in terms of wisdom in recorded history...Sariputta, was considered a 'lightweight' compared to the Buddha. 3) I know of no reason to assume that the Buddha's teaching, as they currently exist in the Suttas, could be better presented or understood with a modern interpretation. It might be that they would just get more muddled. The Buddha's teachings are hard to understand and there's probably no getting around it. > I have read some authors that suggest that the sutras were written > shortly after the Buddha's death while others suggest that the > Buddha's words were not preserved in written form until hundreds of > years after his death. Does any proof exist about when the Buddha's > words were put to paper? > A better scholar than myself is needed to answer this with any certainty. But 200 to 400 years after seems to be seems to be a general consensus from a variety of scholars. However, they were committed to memory very systematically from the start. > I've read a bit about the five aggregates and have seen the order of > them presented differently by different authorities. Is there any > inherent importance in the order, or are they merely signposts > within the process of being. > The 5 Aggregates are usually written in this order: 1) Form 2) Feeling 3) Perception 4) Mental Formations 5) Consciousness I think the primary reason for this order is for 'ease of analysis.' However, it would be possible to come up with many (dozens I would think) suitable explanations that would justify the order as having an 'internal logic.' > Thanks, Harry > TG 29795 From: Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 4:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Sukin, All I'm saying is the next time you have a problem with suffering or desire, try to find that suffering or desire. If you don't have such problems, then, good for you. Whether these problems are real or imaginary, if you can't find them after a careful search, then they are no longer problems. However just saying "there are no problems" doesn't do the trick. You have to really investigate. Larry 29796 From: Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 4:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SN I,4,19(9) "The Farmer" -- Listening, attending to, etc Hi Jon, I agree with this: Jon: "The effort and volition here is motivated by an appreciation of the importance of the dhamma, otherwise referred to in the teachings as a sense of urgency." L: but I don't understand this: J: "There is no need for any kind of deliberate 'doing' or 'practice'. Indeed, even listening or attending to done as a formality and not something arising naturally through one's appreciation of the dhamma, would not be kusala or at least not the kind that conditions direct understanding of presently arising dhammas." L: I agree that ultimately there is no need for volition, if that is what you are saying. That is basically a path consciousness. However, I think all wholesome consciousness is volitional. Larry 29797 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 5:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/Jon Victor Thanks for your reply and for the interesting sutta. As I see it, the sutta explains how it can be that arahants who are without an idea of self still speak using words such as "I". I do not see this as in any sense inconsistent with the distinction between conventional and ultimate. To be honest I rather see this sutta as supporting that distinction ;-)). It explains that while for the arahant dhammas are seen as they truly are (at the absolute/ultimate level), his/her speech may still use conventional modes of expression. Apologies if I've misssed your point! The footnotes to the translation contain some interesting passages from the commentary ('Spk'). I have copied them below. Jon > Let me quote SN 1.25 The Arahant: Q.1 > "If a bhikkhu is an arahant, > Consummate, with taints destroyed, > One who bears his final body, > Would he still say, 'I speak'? > And would he say, 'They speak to me'?" Spk: This deva, who dwelt in a forest grove, heard the forest bhikkhus using such expressions as "I eat, I sit, my bowl, my robe," etc. Thinking, "I had imagined these bhikkhus to be arahants, but can arahants speak in ways that imply belief in a self?" he approached the Buddha and posed his question. A.1 > "If a bhikkhu is an arahant, > Consummate, with taints destroyed, > One who bears his final body, > He might still say, 'I speak,' > And he might say, 'They speak to me.' > Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, > He uses such terms as mere expressions." Spk: Although arahants have abandoned talk that implies belief in a self, they do not violate conventional discourse by saying, `The aggregates eat, the aggregates sit, the aggregates' bowl, the aggregates' robe'; for no one would understand them. Q.2 > "When a bhikkhu is an arahant, > Consummate, with taints destroyed, > One who bears his final body, > Is it because he has come upon conceit > That he would say, 'I speak,' > That he would say, 'They speak to me'?" Spk: At this point the deva thought that while arahants may not speak thus because they hold a view of self, they might still do so because they have conceit (i.e., asmimaana, the conceit 'I am'). Hence he asked the second question, and the Buddha's reply indicates arahants have abandoned the ninefold conceit. A.2 > "No knots exist for one with conceit abandoned; > For him all knots of conceit are consumed. > Though the wise one has transcended the conceived, > He still might say, 'I speak,' > He might say too, 'They speak to me.' > Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, > He uses such terms as mere expressions." Spk explains that he has transcended the threefold conceiving due to craving, views and conceit. 29798 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 5:07pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Companionship Dear Bhante, Thank you for your kind words :-) and nice to see you on this List again. Thailand seems so long ago, though it is only a week or so since we were there. I'm just coming out of my usual post-Bangkok malaise, brought on by the change from having dhamma friends all around to getting back to the same old daily grind. Did you get any photos of Dhammanando Bhikkhu's Ordination that would be suitable for the dsg photo section? I'm sure it was a lovely ceremony, though, no doubt, you go to many of them. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ajahn Jose wrote: > Hello Dave, My name is Ajahn Jose , I am American but live in Australia, I am a Buddhist monk, never feel lonely, Christine is a wonderful person and she will always give you the right advice, I am here to be for any help you need, it doesn't matter whow trivial it is. We all have to start somewhere. Metta. Ajahn Jose > > christine_forsyth wrote:Hello Dave, (Sarah), and all, > > Two years ago I was experiencing just the same difficulties and > isolation that you are going through. In my case, I had come out of > decades of being a practising Christian, was involved in all the > church organisations and activities, children went to denominational > high schools, and most of my friends were similar. Big change. > Spiritual loneliness, disorientation. > > 29799 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 5:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/Jon Hi Jon, No problem, and thank you for bringing the discourse to my attention in the first place. I've presented how I understand this discourse, and I know your point of view. It is ok if you missed my point. Let me know if I can further clarify how I understand the discourse for you. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > Thanks for your reply and for the interesting sutta. > > As I see it, the sutta explains how it can be that arahants who are > without an idea of self still speak using words such as "I". I do > not see this as in any sense inconsistent with the distinction > between conventional and ultimate. > > To be honest I rather see this sutta as supporting that distinction > ;-)). It explains that while for the arahant dhammas are seen as > they truly are (at the absolute/ultimate level), his/her speech may > still use conventional modes of expression. > > Apologies if I've misssed your point! > > The footnotes to the translation contain some interesting passages > from the commentary ('Spk'). I have copied them below. > > Jon > > > Let me quote SN 1.25 The Arahant: > Q.1 > > "If a bhikkhu is an arahant, > > Consummate, with taints destroyed, > > One who bears his final body, > > Would he still say, 'I speak'? > > And would he say, 'They speak to me'?" > > Spk: This deva, who dwelt in a forest grove, heard the forest > bhikkhus using such expressions as "I eat, I sit, my bowl, my robe," > etc. Thinking, "I had imagined these bhikkhus to be arahants, but > can arahants speak in ways that imply belief in a self?" he > approached the Buddha and posed his question. > > A.1 > > "If a bhikkhu is an arahant, > > Consummate, with taints destroyed, > > One who bears his final body, > > He might still say, 'I speak,' > > And he might say, 'They speak to me.' > > Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, > > He uses such terms as mere expressions." > > Spk: Although arahants have abandoned talk that implies belief in a > self, they do not violate conventional discourse by saying, `The > aggregates eat, the aggregates sit, the aggregates' bowl, the > aggregates' robe'; for no one would understand them. > > Q.2 > > "When a bhikkhu is an arahant, > > Consummate, with taints destroyed, > > One who bears his final body, > > Is it because he has come upon conceit > > That he would say, 'I speak,' > > That he would say, 'They speak to me'?" > > Spk: At this point the deva thought that while arahants may not > speak thus because they hold a view of self, they might still do so > because they have conceit (i.e., asmimaana, the conceit 'I am'). > Hence he asked the second question, and the Buddha's reply indicates > arahants have abandoned the ninefold conceit. > > A.2 > > "No knots exist for one with conceit abandoned; > > For him all knots of conceit are consumed. > > Though the wise one has transcended the conceived, > > He still might say, 'I speak,' > > He might say too, 'They speak to me.' > > Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, > > He uses such terms as mere expressions." > > Spk explains that he has transcended the threefold conceiving due to > craving, views and conceit. 29800 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 9:36pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Larry, > All I'm saying is the next time you have a problem with suffering or > desire, try to find that suffering or desire. If you don't have such > problems, then, good for you. Whether these problems are real or > imaginary, if you can't find them after a careful search, then they are > no longer problems. However just saying "there are no problems" doesn't > do the trick. You have to really investigate. I thought you meant problem with *detecting* the desire and suffering. Of course I do have great problem with desire and suffering (as I understand it conceptually that is,). However there have never been conditions to look as deeply to the level you seem to imply. If ever the conditions arise and I discover something interesting, I'll let you know. ;-) But perhaps your suggestion to "careful search" and "really investigate" means what it does conventionally. Do you think insight can be reached by such means? Metta, Sukin 29801 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 9:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SN I,4,19(9) "The Farmer" -- Listening, attending to, etc Larry Thanks for sharing your thoughts. --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon, ... > L: I agree that ultimately there is no need for volition, if that > is what you are saying. That is basically a path consciousness. > However, I think all wholesome consciousness is volitional. Well, there is volition, in the form of the mental factor of that name, accompanying every moment of consciousness, so in that sense of the word it cannot be said that 'ultimately there is no need for volition', although, yes, it can be said that all wholesome consciousness is volitional. In the sense of volition as a kind of *deliberate intention that precedes a given mind-state*, however, I do not read the teachings as saying that all wholesome consciousness is volitional. That would mean that without the deliberate intention to 'have kusala' there could not be wholesome consciousness. I think it is clear that kusala can arise without this kind of self-prompting (see especially the passage on prompted and unprompted mental states from CMA that you gave in a post recently). It is also confirmed by our own experience in life, don't you find? As regards the kind of self-prompting that can condition kusala, however, I do not think this includes undertaking some form of 'practice' with the intention of calming the mind or observing dhammas. First, this is nowhere stated or inferred in the texts, as far as I can see, and secondly, based on my own experience, it would be more likely to be a form of attachment: attachment to wanting more kusala/understanding, or to somehow be other than we are. (Of course, for one in whom such kind of kusala has already been developed to a high level, the situation may be different.) It could however, include reflecting on the true dhamma read/heard where such reflection is motivated by a sense of urgency, the kind of thing I understand to be referred to in the sutta in this thread when it talks about *listening to, attending to, and applying one's (whole) mind to* the dhamma. Jon 29802 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 10:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/Jon Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, ... > I've presented how I understand this discourse, and I know your > point of view. It is ok if you missed my point. Let me know if I > can further clarify how I understand the discourse for you. Sorry if I missed your point, and yes, by all means let's contintue the discussion. I think we have agreed that there is no direct reference in the suttas to 'paramattha' and 'samutti' truths/speech. To my understanding, however, the world as seen by the ariyan is a different world to the one seen by the worldling, and the terms paramattha and samutti are used in the commentaries to describe this difference. The term samutti is also used to describe the frame of reference of speech of all persons, both enlightened and unelightened, although when used by the ariyan it is used without any misunderstanding of the ultimate truths (unlike in the case of the wordling). I think that summarises how I see it. Jon 29803 From: Sarah Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 10:11pm Subject: Re: Addendum: [dsg] Why is Ignorance-Conditioned ... Condition for Consciousness? Hi Howard & Larry, You’re having a useful discussion. Just butting in on passing... --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > H: "It should be noted that in this scenario as well, without ignorance > as condition, vi~n~nana could not arise. So, still, 'vi~n~nana' cannot > mean just "awareness", for the living arahant is most definitely aware." > L: > I think the consciousness link refers to resultant consciousness and it > continues as before for an arahant as a result of previous volition. > Otherwise, what would condition it? ... Ignorance can be said to be the direct or indirect condition for all sankhara dhammas (conditioned realities), including those of the arahant. Without ignorance there would have been no birth in the first place. Like Larry says, consciousness (i.e seeing, hearing and so on, aka all cittas) continue on as they do now, regardless of the degree of wisdom accumulated, while there are still conditions during the present life-time. We have to be careful with the word ‘awareness’ I think, because for many people it is used as a translation of sati which only accompanies beautiful moments of consciousness (vi~n~nana. In the Sammaadi.t.thi Sutta, it defines ignorance as the not knowing or fully understanding the Four Noble Truths. “When a noble disciple has thus understood ignorance, the origin of ignorance, the cessation of ignorance, and the way leading to the cessation of ignorance....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. “And what is ignorance.......? Not knowing about suffering, not knowing about the origin of suffering, not knowing about the cessation of suffering, not knowing about the way leading to the cessation of suffering - this is called ignorance.” The commentary gives a lot more detail on this. It also indicates in terms of various conditions how ignorance conditions formations and so on. For example, it says “...With the arising of ignorance (avijjaasamudayaa): 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.” In other words, ignorance from yesterday, from last life, from aeons ago can act as a decisive support condition for not only subsequent ignorance, attachment and other kilesa (unwholesome states), but also for birth and wholesome states(or kiriya states in the case of an arahant) as well. It also acts as ‘conascent condition’ for present unwholesome states arising with it. Here’s a quote from Vibh-a (Dispeller of Delusion), Structure of Conditions, 642 on ignorance which I find helpful: “....Clear comprehension is understanding. It understands rightly the Dhamma of the four truths with each meaning and each reason. But ignorance when it arises does not allow it to understand that quality, thus it is non-clear-comprehension (asampaja~n~na). Delusion (moha) is by deluding. Bewilderment (pamoha) is by bewildering. Confusion (sammoha) is by way of confusing. “It finds what should not be found” (avindiya.m vindati) is ignorance (avijjaa). “It engulfs, causes to sink in the process [of existence]” is the flood of ignorance (avijjogha). “It yokes to the process [of existence]” is the yoke of ignorance (avijjaayoga). Because of arising again and again through not being abandoned, it is the inherent tendency to ignorance (avijjaanusaya). “Like robbers that beset travellers on the road, it besets profitable consciousness, seizes it, plunders it” is the besetting of ignorance (avijjaapariyu.t.thaana).....” ***** Metta, Sarah p.s James & KenO, also under ignorance, just before this passage above, applicable to all of us for most of the day,I’d think: “....’It [ignorance] has nothing that is clarified, and it is itself action done without reflecting’ is non-clarification (appaccakkha-kamma). Stupidity (dummejjha) is due to the state of one who is stupid. Folly (baalya) is due to the state of a fool.” ====== 29804 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 10:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Larry > Here's an example of concept as object of desire. In this case read > "idea" as "concept": The sutta you quote below is from the Salaayatan-samyutta ('Six sense-bases' samyutta) of SN. To my understanding, dhammayatana, here translated as 'ideas', does not include concepts. (This has been discussed extensively before -- see under 'ayatana' in UP. Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' is incorrect on this point.) Jon --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Victor, ... > "In whatever monk or nun there arises desire, passion, aversion, > delusion, or mental resistance with regard to sounds cognizable via > the > ear... aromas cognizable via the nose... flavors cognizable via the > tongue... tactile sensations cognizable via the body... ideas > cognizable via the intellect, he/she should hold the mind in check. > [Thinking,] > 'It's dangerous & dubious, that path, thorny & overgrown, a > miserable > path, a devious path, impenetrable. It's a path followed by people > of no > integrity, not a path followed by people of integrity. It's not > worthy > of you,' he/she should hold the mind in check with regard to ideas > cognizable via the intellect." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn35-205.html 29805 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 11:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sotaapanno Michael I don't think the sutta reference is to the phala citta. I agree it is easy to assume so, given the mention of 'fruition', but the commentary to the sutta seems to indicate otherwise -- see footnote 1298 to para 6 of the sutta (in which the order of the various persons is reversed to that in para 5 quoted in your post) which indicates that the results of the giving to the various classes of person is in *ascending order of magnitude*. Thus the 'one practicing for the realization of stream entry fruition' must refer to a person who has not yet attained sotapattimagga citta. This is I think the same point as made by Sarah in an earlier reply to you. Jon --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello All, ... The sutta in question is the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta (MN 142). The sutta says: 5. "There are fourteen kinds of personal offerings, Ananda. One gives a gift to the Tathagata, ...to a paccekabuddha ...to an arahant disciple of the Tathagata ...to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of arahantship ...to a non-returner ...to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of non-returner ...to a once-returner ...to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of once-return ...to a stream-enterer ...to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of stream-entry. It is quite clear that the stream enterer and the one practicing for the realization of stream entry fruition are two distinct individuals with two corresponding consciousnesses which leads to the conclusion that magga consciousness and phala consciousness do not occur in succession, in the same cognitive series, as described in the Visudhimagga and the Abhidhammattha Sangaha. 29806 From: Charles Thompson Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 11:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" ----- Original Message ----- From: Kenneth Ong To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 7:24 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi James > James: Because those ascetics were operating under the false > assumption that they had a `self' which they were trying to unite > with Brahman. As a consequence, they only lessened the defilements > > during Jhana, or suppressed them, they didn't eliminate them. The Buddha used the Jhanas to clearly understand the defilements, > didn't operate under the false assumption of the other ascetics, and discovered that there isn't a self to unite with anything. k: James isn't it amazing that you have just define the word panna. - Hence no enlightment without panna. Even if you have a million jhanas entry in your lifetime, still no enlightment - it may provide you a very long life in your next kamma rebirth (was it 80,000 aeons - couldn't remember it very well) Face it Ken, Jhana or Vipassana meditation is > a part of the Buddha's path. He defined Right Concentration > specifically as the Four Jhanas and he extolled his bhikkhus on > numerous occasions to practice Jhana. (What is the problem here? > Why do I have to continue to explain this in this group??? It is > getting just plain stupid to have to continue to explain this > obvious fact to certain people who should know better!!!) k: Dont be angry man ;-) I am born stupid so you have to be patient with me. > James: Oh yes, I am in the fog also; but I admit and accept that I > am in the fog. You on the other hand don't. That is why you are > going at high speed while I am cautiously inching forward step-by-step. k: Hmm I didn't say I am not in the fog. Maybe my fog is thicker than you. The road travel by Abhidhamma is safer as the vehicle has anti-fog lights(the books of Abhidhamma), information on the buttion is bright so that we can know the characteristics of the various buttions of the car during the thick fog, its windscreen is constantly clean by the wiper just like considering of dhamma by studying it, it drives very slowly (in fact it is in crawling pace) bc the road of enlightement cannot be push foward as it is anatta Ken O 29807 From: Mom Bongkojpriya Yugala Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 0:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] ignorance as a condition for sankhara; sankhara as a condition for consciousness Dear Howard and Larry, I have long puzzled over the first connection, i.e., just how ignorance leads to sankhara, which Nyanatiloka's dictionary calls 'kammic formations'. You have asked how sankhara then leads to consciousness, the 3rd link in the chain of dependent origination. If my understanding is correct, it is through ignorance that kammic formations, vipaka (result of kammic action), cause consciousness (cittas) to arise. At the moment of the arising of a sense door process, 3 elements have to "meet" so that the process can follow through and objects (aramana) can be perceived, remembered and act as a condition (sampayutta paccaya?) for javana cittas (those that produce kammic action) to arise, thus keeping the cycle of samsara moving. The 3 elements are: an object "outside" (1st element) that is perceived at a sense "base" (ayatana) (2nd element) at which cittas (consciousness) (3rd element) arise because of conditions (anantara paccaya?). The study of abhidhamma is a great aid in helping one to see (on the intellectual level, anyway) how phenomena interrelate and how everything really is the rise and fall of various phenomena because of conditions, and not self. I hope that helped (it did for me and brought up a few questions of my own which I need to ask Than Achaan Sujin). metta, Betty ________________________________________________________ 29808 From: gazita2002 Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 0:27am Subject: Re: Addendum: [dsg] Why is Ignorance-Conditioned ... Condition for Consciousness? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Howard & Larry, > > You're having a useful discussion. Just butting in on passing... > Dear Sarah, Well I am delighted that you 'butted in' with this, IMO, wonderful piece of information on ignorance. > Here's a quote from Vibh-a (Dispeller of Delusion), Structure of > Conditions, 642 on ignorance which I find helpful: > > "....Clear comprehension is understanding. It understands rightly the > Dhamma of the four truths with each meaning and each reason. But ignorance > when it arises does not allow it to understand that quality, thus it is > non-clear-comprehension (asampaja~n~na). Delusion (moha) is by deluding. > Bewilderment (pamoha) is by bewildering. Confusion (sammoha) is by way of > confusing. "It finds what should not be found" (avindiya.m vindati) is > ignorance (avijjaa). 'it finds what should not be found' - that's great - how many reams of useless bits of information have we chased after just in this life...... "It engulfs, causes to sink in the process [of > existence]" is the flood of ignorance (avijjogha). "It yokes to the > process [of existence]" is the yoke of ignorance (avijjaayoga). Because > of arising again and again through not being abandoned, it is the inherent > tendency to ignorance (avijjaanusaya). "Like robbers that beset travellers > on the road, it besets profitable consciousness, seizes it, plunders it" > is the besetting of ignorance (avijjaapariyu.t.thaana)....." > ***** > Metta, > > Sarah > > p.s James & KenO, also under ignorance, just before this passage above, > applicable to all of us for most of the day,I'd think: > > "....'It [ignorance] has nothing that is clarified, and it is itself > action done without reflecting' is non-clarification (appaccakkha- kamma). > Stupidity (dummejjha) is due to the state of one who is stupid. Folly > (baalya) is due to the state of a fool." Interesting that an English expression for a stupid person is 'dummy' or 'dumbo'. I want to read more of this, can you give me possible web sites, please Sarah. Did you have a pleasant holiday, and did you have a beneficial time in Bkk wiht T.A Sujin? Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita @yahoo.com.hk address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk 29809 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 1:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Larry I remember there are three levels of panna (I dont remember the details). The truth of suffering are to me two levels. One of them the thinking level where our suffering which that we experience is a snow ball effect of millions of paramattha cittas. The other level, is the real level, the paramattha level. I dont think I have explain it very well. Maybe one day I will have a better example. See the world as namas and rupas - to me it is very intersting. I give some examples which i think very enlightening, angry words are just sound rupas. Angry expression by others are just visible rupas. Angry feelings in our mind are just namas. You can even go into a further level, visible rupas cannot be seen without visible cittas etc. Let me be repeat myself, these still are also "thinking level" and not real level of paramattha level. But this thinking level will develop to paramattha level. Ken O > > You are saying the truth of suffering is a concept in two ways. > First, > it is a concept isofar as it is a theory we don't understand. > Second, it > is a concept insofar as what we do understand as suffering in our > everyday life is itself only a conceptual construct. Is there any > real > suffering anywhere here? How do you know? > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > 29810 From: Sarah Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 1:19am Subject: Re: Addendum: [dsg] Why is Ignorance-Conditioned ... Condition for Consciousness? Hi Azita, I’m glad you found the passages helpful too. --- gazita2002 wrote: > > Stupidity (dummejjha) is due to the state of one who is stupid. > Folly > > (baalya) is due to the state of a fool." > > Interesting that an English expression for a stupid person > is 'dummy' or 'dumbo'. .... ;-) Yes, I smiled too. Not sure if there is a link. .... >I want to read more of this, can you > give me possible web sites, please Sarah. ..... I typed the passages out from the Abhidhamma commentary text, Dispeller of Delusion, ~Naa.namoli’s transl, PTS. There are several pages just on ‘ignorance’ which are most helpful.It’s not on the web. Some of it may be in the Vism as well, I forget now. I gave another set of quotes on ignorance from the same source in this post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/24477 Some useful detail is also given in The Sammaditthi Sutta and the commentary at the end, both under ‘ignorance’. This is on line: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel377.html (Larry, did you read the sections on the 4 Nutriments and nutritive essence?) ..... > Did you have a pleasant holiday, and did you have a beneficial > time in Bkk wiht T.A Sujin? .... Excellent to both Qs.....;-) After a week of freezing rain in H.K., those sunny days seem a long time ago already. Did you see my post when I got back about it and the meeting with many friends at the Foundation and at meals*? Metta, Sarah * Besides the DSGers you knew were going, also possible lurkers - Vince, Nancy, Peter Swan, Nina V, Pinna - see pix in album ============= 29811 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 1:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi James and (Jeffrey) There is no enlightement without panna. Jhanas is not the superman of enlightement. Jhana aids enlightement but not the pivotal one. On one get enlighted without panna. Prove me a sutta that says one can get enlighted without panna. With regards to the work Upekkha -- (defined by Narada Thera in A Manual of Abhidhamma) -- literally means seeing (ikkhati) impartially (upa = yuttito). It is viewing an object with a balanced mind. Atthasalini states -- "This is impartiality (majjhattam) in connection with the object and implies a discriminative knowledge (paricchindanakam nanam)". This explanation applies strictly to Upekkha found in the Sobhana cittas accompanied by wisdom. Upekkha found in the akusalas and ahetukas is just neutral feeling without the least trace of any discriminative knowledge. Ken O 29812 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 1:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yet more discussion (and food) Hi Sarah The CMA does not say anything about this smiling cittas. According to Narada Thera in A Manual of Abhidhamma, it states Samma Sambuddha smile with one of the two Sobhana Kiriya Cittas accompanied by wisdom and pleasure. Ken O 29813 From: Sarah Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 3:32am Subject: Smile-producing consciousness of Arahants (was:Yet more discussion (and food)) Hi Ken O, --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Sarah > > The CMA does not say anything about this smiling cittas. According > to Narada Thera in A Manual of Abhidhamma, it states Samma Sambuddha > smile with one of the two Sobhana Kiriya Cittas accompanied by wisdom > and pleasure. .... Are you sure it says *only* with these? CMA p44 #10 Rootless Functional Consciousness (ahetukakiriya cittaani)-3 includes smile-producing consciousness accompanied by joy as a rootless functional type of consciousness. Guide to #10 Smile-producing consciousness (hasituppaadacitta): this is a citta peculiar to Arahants, including Buddhas and Paccekabuddhas who are also types of Arahants.....According to the Abhidhamma, Arahants may smile with one of five cittas - the four beautiful sense-sphere functional cittas (1,#15)[i.e two with and two without panna, under sense-sphere functional consciousnes (kaamaavacara-kiriyaacittaani) accompanied by joy] and the rootless smile-producing consciousness mentioned here. This rootless one is included as citta no 30 is U Silananda’s chart of cittas I’m looking at in his ‘Aids to the study of Abhidhammatthasa”ngaha’. Also the commentary you have,p25 also gives a note on the kiriya citta: “That which produces smiles is smile-producing; [it occurs] for those who have destroye the taints and is caused by the mere condition of pleasure when there is an object that is not gross; this consciousness is the kiriya, unmotivated mind-consciousness element accompanied by happiness.” The Atthasilini gives examples of what is meant by the smile arising at the conclusion of knowledges (i.e dependent on, rather than necessarily accompanying): e.g. Atthasalini transl (PTS), Conclusion, p.387: “The Tathagata smiled at the thought:- ‘in future Tantissara the silent buddha will arise.’ That reflection is the function of the knowledge of the future and of omniscience, at the conclusion of the practice of which the laughter-producing consciousness arises.” Let me know how we're doing here. Metta, Sarah ====== 29814 From: icarofranca Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 4:48am Subject: Re: A few questions Dear Harry Good to hear about you! ------------------------------------------------------------------- > As a relative newcomer to Buddhism I've encountered a few issues > that I haven't been able to put away. I hope that someone in the > group can help me address these questions. > > As I understand it there exist at this time at least a few > enlightened beings. If this is true, and I understand that these > beings would have a perfect understanding of the Buddha's intent in > all his teachings, why don't they provide the true contemporary > interpretation of the Buddha's words. ------------------------------------------------------------------ There are a consensus between buddhists that there aren´t Arahants in this world anymore. Coincidently their passing away was at the same epoch of the first Pali Canon texts, circa three hundred years after Buddha´s Parinibbana. At my humble opinion, it´s due of the fact that now the Pali texts are the faithful repository of true Buddha´s teachings. But there is an other side of this coin: at the Visuddhimagga and many other texts are mentioned cases of Bhikkhus that reached up Arahantship by means of insights very similar to popular "Zen" stories ( That famous "Zen insights" were put in pratice by Sinhalese people since the very dawn of Buddhism... there´s no originality in these issues anyway!) --------------------------------------------------------------------- This could effectively put an > end to the confusion that exists between the many different > interpretations of the best path to enlightenment today. > > I have read some authors that suggest that the sutras were written > shortly after the Buddha's death while others suggest that the > Buddha's words were not preserved in written form until hundreds of > years after his death. Does any proof exist about when the Buddha's > words were put to paper? -------------------------------------------------------------------- The second hypothesis is more feasible. Mahayana texts that claimed on a true spiritual heritage at the days of Buddha´s dispensation sometimes differs at large of basic points of elementar Buddhism Doctrine. Theravada Buddhism keeps, at my viewpoint, a "corpus" of learning and teaching issues much more coherent than these Mahayana´s "True Story" texts...even with the handicap of being written much after the words spoken out. --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I've read a bit about the five aggregates and have seen the order of > them presented differently by different authorities. Is there any > inherent importance in the order, or are they merely signposts > within the process of being. -------------------------------------------------------------------- We get two sides of this matter: at one we have got the term "Niyama", Pali word of Sanskrit origin that means something like "Fixed order" ( The negatory prefix "Ni" plus the term Yama - Control - may encompass all terms alike "No Control", but with the distinctiveness of "ordered sequence"). At the other side we get the own Buddhistic teaching, saying that there is no guaranteed true at this world, all these being only "Signposts withing the process of being". Such differences (if any!)could be only conventional ones, since for Buddha the Ultimate Realities (the Nibbana, for example) are beyond concepts. Take your pick! > > Thanks, Harry Mettaya, Ícaro 29815 From: ashkenn2k Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 5:12am Subject: Re: Smile-producing consciousness of Arahants (was:Yet more discussion (and food Hi Sarah The cruz is can Buddha smile without the smiling producing cittas. Since Arahants can smile either with the four sobhana kiriya cittas or smiling producing citta. So if one say Buddha can smile with panna should not be wrong since Arahants themselve can smile with panna (why not Buddha then ;-)). furthermore my reading of the commentary to Abhidhammata Sangaha has spelt it very clearly, Buddha only smile with panna and not otherwise since Buddha wisdom is omniscent. My smile is full of akusala though. Cheers Ken O 29816 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 5:16am Subject: Eye Consciousness Hi Sarah, Okay, I am still on this sense base kick! ;-)) When I put my mind to something I don't let it go until I find the answer! This is what I find from the Visuddhimagga which leads me to believe that Buddhism doesn't equate eye consciousness as actually arising in the eye itself: "Having seen a form with his eye: when he has seen a form with the visual consciousness which is capable of seeing forms, and which in normal language is usually called the "eye," though it actually is its tool. For the Ancients have said: "The eye cannot see forms because it is without thought; thought cannot see forms because it is without eye. When the object knocks against the door (of sight) one sees with the thought which has eye-sensibility for its basis." In the expression "one sees with the eye," only accessory equipment is indicated, just as one may say, "one shoots with a bow" (and not "with an arrow"). Therefore, the meaning here is: "having seen form with visual consciousness." How do you take this? Metta, James 29817 From: ashkenn2k Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 5:41am Subject: Re: Cultivating Absorption Leads to Cessation Hi Jeffrey J> Actually, there is no evidence to support a belief that the Buddha ever taught it took "countless lives" to either arrive at a "pleasant abiding in the here and now" (jhana), which are the absorption states (jhanas); or their fruition in cessation (nibbana). He said it was indeed possible to become enlightened in this very lifetime. k: I read an article in the Abhidhamma.org . To become a Buddha one must practise at least <> I think this would meant at least millions of lives. J> Maha-satipatthana Sutta, DN 22.22 > "Now, if anyone would develop these Four Cornerstones of Awareness (frames of reference, or foundations of mindfulness) in this way for seven years, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis (Arahantship) right here & now, or -- if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance -- non-return." k: It is possible to be enlighted at right here and right now, however the irony about the whole thing of Buddhism are we able to without the correct conditions. How many Sariputta in this human history. What Buddha say is a generalisation, some like Sariputta just takes four stanzas while others like Ananda takes many years, other still like me take (hmm better dont count, gosh its going to be very lonnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg). J> Awareness is separated out from the aggregate of cognition and developed through the practice of concentration. The cultivation of awareness is revealed in the three Sati suttas. The Sati suttas are a series of concentration exercises that lead to the development of awareness (Sati), which leads to absorption (jhana), which leads to cessation (nibbana). k: Do you think there is possiblility of awareness without cittas. I remember Buddha said the forerunner is citta and not awareness. If you read dependent origination carefully, citta is the cause of our cognization of the objects through the six senses. Do you think then it is possible without cognization? If you look at many suttas with the six senses, it is guarding, abandoning, relinquishing, of the six senses and that requires cognition of the six senses. I think you may have mistaken cognition as thinking by normal human experience. Awarness even at our normal human experience is still thinking Not even at paramattha level. k: I do not stop pple from doing what they think is right, I just like you to consider those ancient text that we have presented. I do not doubt your confidence in the Pali Cannon, however as a sincere Dhamma friend, I like you to consider my point of view. I am also glad that you have great confidence in 8NP. k: One last word, if you read the seven factors of Enlightment, panna is also as equally impt. Your position is only concentration which is only one factor, how about the rest of the six. I think sati should not be mixed up with concentration, as I quoted earlier that in the fifth jhanas it is both equanmity and sati. Please do consider Best wishes Ken O 29818 From: Sarah Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 6:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Smile-producing consciousness of Arahants (was:Yet more discussion (and food Hi Ken O, --- ashkenn2k wrote: > Hi Sarah > > The cruz is can Buddha smile without the smiling producing cittas. > Since Arahants can smile either with the four sobhana kiriya cittas or > smiling producing citta. So if one say Buddha can smile with panna > should not be wrong since Arahants themselve can smile with panna (why > not Buddha then ;-)). .... No disagreement in any texts so far ;-) .... >furthermore my reading of the commentary to > Abhidhammata Sangaha has spelt it very clearly, Buddha only smile with > panna and not otherwise since Buddha wisdom is omniscent. .... I’ve just checked Narada’s Abhidammatha Sangaha and in his notes he certainly agrees that in the Buddha’s case, the smile only arises with ‘the two sobhana kiriya cittas, accompanied by wisdom and pleasure’. He writes: “26. Hasituppada is a citta peculiar to Arahats. Smiling is caused by a pleasurable feeling. There are thirteen classes of consciousness by which one may smile according to the type of the person. An ordinary worldling (puthujjana) may laugh with either one of the four types of cittas rooted in attachment, accompanied by pleasure, or one of the four kusala cittas, accompanied by pleasure. Sotapannas, Sakadagamis, and Anagamis may smile with one of the two akusala cittas, disconnected with false view, accompanied by pleasure, or with one of the four kusala cittas. Arahats and Pacceka Buddhas may smile with one of the four sobhana kiriya cittas or hasituppada. Samma Sambuddhas smile with one of the two sobhana kiriya cittas, accompanied by wisdom and pleasure.” ***** This is not from the Abhidammattha Sangaha itself and he doesn’t give another Abhidhamma reference as far as I can see. Here he differentiates between Samma Sambuddhas and Arahats and Pacceka Buddhas and this sounds plausible. B.Bodhi’s note was concerning arahants in general. (They are both notes to the same section). I thought (and maybe K.Sujin?) your original argument in Bangkok was about smile producing cittas in all arahants, not just the Buddha, but I may well be wrong, so we may have been talking somewhat at cross purposes. I accept that I may not have been listening carefully either. I’m happy to accept Narada’s comment as correct for now. Next time, just give me the reference or quote at the start;-) I’m also happy to accept your conclusion about the commentary passages too in this light. ...... >My smile is > full of akusala though. .... Yes, but just occasionally it may be with metta or other wholesome states..... better than frowning and looking angry too;-) Metta and appreciation, Sarah p.s Can you tell us now why you brought up this topic or what it’s importance was for you??? ====== 29819 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 7:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Smile-producing consciousness of Arahants (was:Yet more discussion (and food Hi Sarah We are dicussing about smiling cittas of Buddha and not Arahants. I also forget how this issue came out, was it me?. Ken O 29820 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 9:11am Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/Jon Hi Jon, No problem. Like I said earlier, it is ok if you missed my point. This is how I see it: The uninstructed worldlings either have no knowledge of the four noble truths or have no confidence/conviction in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha. The stream-enterers, once-returners, non- returners, and arahants have knowledge of the four noble truths, have perfect confidence/conviction in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha. For stream-enterers, once-returners, and non-returners, their defilements are eliminated/destroyed in different degree. They will not stray from the path to the cessation of dukkha. The arahants are the ones who have reached the cessation of dukkha, their defilements completely uprooted. The world itself has it's own characteristics; namely, whatever comes to be in the world is impermanent, dukkha, not self. The noble ones see whatever comes to be in the world as it actually is: impermanent, dukkha, not self. The uninstructed worldlings don't. Let me quote the following [expanded] discourse: SN 22.15 What is Impermanent At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, form is 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.' "Feeling is 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.' "Perception is 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.' "Volitional formations are impermanent. What are impermanent are suffering. What are suffering are nonself. What are nonself should be seen as they really are with correct wisdom thus: 'These are not mine, these I am not, these are not my self.' "Consciousness is 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 thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion towards form, revulsion towards feeling, revulsion towards perception, revulsion towards volitional formations, revulsion towards consciousness. Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion [his mind] is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: 'It's liberated.' He understands: 'Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.'" [1] Metta, Victor [1] Samyutta Nikaya, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi, p. 869. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > ... > > I've presented how I understand this discourse, and I know your > > point of view. It is ok if you missed my point. Let me know if I > > can further clarify how I understand the discourse for you. > > Sorry if I missed your point, and yes, by all means let's contintue > the discussion. > > I think we have agreed that there is no direct reference in the > suttas to 'paramattha' and 'samutti' truths/speech. > > To my understanding, however, the world as seen by the ariyan is a > different world to the one seen by the worldling, and the terms > paramattha and samutti are used in the commentaries to describe this > difference. > > The term samutti is also used to describe the frame of reference of > speech of all persons, both enlightened and unelightened, although > when used by the ariyan it is used without any misunderstanding of > the ultimate truths (unlike in the case of the wordling). > > I think that summarises how I see it. > > Jon 29821 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 9:46am Subject: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Ken O (and James), Ken, I understand that James's point is not that there can be enlightenment without panna. It seems to me that you are pushing the idea that there can be enlightenment without panna as James's point. You ask James to prove you a sutta that says one can get enlightened without panna, while James, from what I read in his messages, never made such claim that one can get enlightened without panna. It occurs to me that you created an issue and attributed it to James, while that issue was never raised by James himself in the first place. As I read the discussions between you and James, the issue that you and James really disagree on is whether jhana is necessary for realizing nibbana. Regarding this issue, I would put forth the question for your consideration: Is right concentration necessary for realizing nibbana? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi James and (Jeffrey) > > There is no enlightement without panna. Jhanas is not the superman > of enlightement. Jhana aids enlightement but not the pivotal one. > On one get enlighted without panna. Prove me a sutta that says one > can get enlighted without panna. > > With regards to the work Upekkha -- (defined by Narada Thera in A > Manual of Abhidhamma) -- literally means seeing (ikkhati) impartially > (upa = yuttito). It is viewing an object with a balanced mind. > Atthasalini states -- "This is impartiality (majjhattam) in > connection with the object and implies a discriminative knowledge > (paricchindanakam nanam)". This explanation applies strictly to > Upekkha found in the Sobhana cittas accompanied by wisdom. Upekkha > found in the akusalas and ahetukas is just neutral feeling without > the least trace of any discriminative knowledge. > > > Ken O 29822 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 0:17pm Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Victor (Ken O), Victor: It occurs to me that you created an issue and attributed it to James, while that issue was never raised by James himself in the first place. James: Thank you, Victor!! I am glad that I am not the only one to see this. I felt like I was being forced to argue points I didn't make so I just decided to give up. As I wrote in post 27960, "Now, developing Jhana isn't everything; take Jeff for example. He doesn't have Right View and Right Understanding so he has taken Jhana to only the second level and believes that ecstasy is the whole goal." Obviously I have not stated that Jhana without Panna is what the Buddha taught. I am glad that you have pointed this out. Thanks again. Metta, James 29823 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 0:32pm Subject: Mr. Karunadasa Hi Rob M., I got a response from the Sri Lankan monk I told you I was going to write to about Karunadasa: > About Ven Karunadasa, Well I do not know of a Ven > Karunadasa > but I do know of a Mr Y Karunadasa who is a > professor of Buddhist Studies. > He is a very nice person and I can imagine that it > is him > you want to contact as he is also familiar with > Abhidhamma. > > To my knowledge he is presently not in Sri Lanka. > Please let me know if that is the person you need to > contact, > and I shall try to find out where in the World he is > at present. To which I replied: Hehehe…I feel embarrassed! Yes, Mr Y Karunadasa is who I meant. In his articles I have been reading I have been mistaking that `Y' for a `V' and thought it was short for Venerable! LOL!! They never print "Mr. Y. Karunadasa" just "Y. Karunadasa"; and in some fonts the `Y' definitely looks like a `V'. Okay, since he is just a college professor I don't have any desire to meet with him now. I thought he was a bhikkhu, a highly intelligent bhikkhu, and I wanted to meet and study with him; possibly during the summer. But I don't think that college professors take on `disciples' and I wouldn't want to be a disciple to a college professor anyway. A member in a Buddhist Internet group told me that a Western Bhikkhu had `studied under him'; but now I know that it was probably in a university setting. Sorry to have bothered you with that. Metta, James 29824 From: Harry Mueller Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 6:46am Subject: Re: A few questions > There are a consensus between buddhists that there aren´t Arahants > in this world anymore. Thank you TG and Icaro for your answers to my questions. I hope that I'm correct in assuming that the Pali Canon is believed to have been written some 200 to 400 years after the Buddha's Parinibbana although no extant proof of the actual date exists. The possibility exists, although slight, that the texts were written with the help of Ananda shortly after the passing of the Buddha. I think you both suggest that the order of the aggregates is not necessarily fixed and may be open to interpretation. Icaro, your point that they are conditioned is well taken. I was totally unaware that "There are a consensus between buddhists that there aren´t Arahants in this world anymore". I have never heard this before. If true, I guess that steam entry is also no longer possible and it makes me wonder what all those meditators are striving for (although I do recognize the benefits of applying the buddhist tenets to daily life)? This point requires a lot of research and examination for me. I would also really like to gain the insight of some of the other paticipants of this wonderful study group. Thanks again for your help. With metta, Harry 29825 From: Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 4:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Sukin: "I thought you meant problem with *detecting* the desire and suffering. Of course I do have great problem with desire and suffering (as I understand it conceptually that is,). However there have never been conditions to look as deeply to the level you seem to imply. If ever the conditions arise and I discover something interesting, I'll let you know. ;-)" Hi Sukin, What if we say on the level in which we live our ordinary life desire itself is concept. In other words, the desire that we know and have a problem with is itself a concept. Do we need extraordinary powers of concentration and insight in order to realize that a concept is not real and therefore not a problem? Larry 29826 From: Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 8:05am Subject: RE: Cultivating Absorption Leads to Cessation Hello Ken O, and thank-you ever so much for your contribution to this subject. However it seems you have neglected to provide your canonical support. But, no problem I will provide one for you. In the Maha-satipatthana sutta, DN 22, the historic Buddha defined sama-samadhi in terms of jhana, therefore we should assume samadhi does not mean 'concentration' as it is too often translated, but it must mean 'absorption' (jhana). DN 22.21 "And what is right {absorption (sama-samadhi)}? There is the case where an aspirant -- quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: joy & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by applied and sustained {concentration (vitakka and vicára)}. With the stilling of applied and sustained {concentration (vitakka and vicára)}, one enters & remains in the second jhana: joy & pleasure born of tranquillity, unification of awareness free from directed applied and sustained {concentration (vitakka and vicára)} -- internal assurance. With the fading of exuberance one remains in equanimity, (aware) & alert, physically sensitive of ecstasy. One enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & (aware), one has a pleasurable abiding.' With the abandoning of (grasping and aversion for) pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier disappearance of pleasure & pain -- one enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & awareness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called right absorption." You will find absorption (jhana/samadhi) is a natural outcome of a contemplative practice that is "sensitive" to charismatic manifestations, what the Buddha called "a pleasure not of the senses." The Buddha described 8 levels of absorption (jhana/samadhi), and they are all defined as right absorption (sama-samadhi). The Buddha's discourse on right absorption (sama-samadhi) the absorption states (jhanas/samadhi) Potthapada Sutta, DN 9 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn09.html Samadhanga Sutta, AN V28 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an05-028.html Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translations of the above suttas are available at these URLs: Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn118.html Satipatthana Sutta (MN 10) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn010.html Maha-satipatthana Sutta (DN. 22) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn22.html The alternate translations that I used are available at this URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas/files/ May you become enlightened in this very lifetime. Jeff Brooks In a message dated 2/8/04 9:52:15 AM, dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com writes: << Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 09:26:57 +0000 (GMT) From: Kenneth Ong Subject: Re: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi James and (Jeffrey) There is no enlightement without panna. Jhanas is not the superman of enlightement. Jhana aids enlightement but not the pivotal one. On one get enlighted without panna. Prove me a sutta that says one can get enlighted without panna. With regards to the work Upekkha -- (defined by Narada Thera in A Manual of Abhidhamma) -- literally means seeing (ikkhati) impartially (upa = yuttito). It is viewing an object with a balanced mind. Atthasalini states -- "This is impartiality (majjhattam) in connection with the object and implies a discriminative knowledge (paricchindanakam nanam)". This explanation applies strictly to Upekkha found in the Sobhana cittas accompanied by wisdom. Upekkha found in the akusalas and ahetukas is just neutral feeling without the least trace of any discriminative knowledge. Ken O >> 29827 From: Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 8:05am Subject: Re: Cultivating Absorption Leads to Cessation Hello Ken O, and thank-you for your kind response. Please see my inline responses below: In a message dated 2/8/04 9:52:15 AM, dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com writes: << Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 13:41:50 -0000 From: "ashkenn2k" Subject: Re: Cultivating Absorption Leads to Cessation Hi Jeffrey J> Actually, there is no evidence to support a belief that the Buddha ever taught it took "countless lives" to either arrive at a "pleasant abiding in the here and now" (jhana), which are the absorption states (jhanas); or their fruition in cessation (nibbana). He said it was indeed possible to become enlightened in this very lifetime. k: I read an article in the Abhidhamma.org . To become a Buddha one must practise at least <> I think this would meant at least millions of lives. >> %%%%%% Jeff: That is why Abhidhamma is bad "spiritual" fiction. just read the Nikayas and don't bother with Apocrypha. %%%%%% k: I do not stop pple from doing what they think is right, I just like you to consider those ancient text that we have presented. I do not doubt your confidence in the Pali Cannon, however as a sincere Dhamma friend, I like you to consider my point of view. I am also glad that you have great confidence in 8NP. k: One last word, if you read the seven factors of Enlightment, panna is also as equally impt. Your position is only concentration which is only one factor, how about the rest of the six. I think sati should not be mixed up with concentration, as I quoted earlier that in the fifth jhanas it is both equanmity and sati. Please do consider Best wishes Ken O>> %%%%%% Jeff: I never said one would avoid any of the factors of enlightenment, or all 8 folds of the Noble Path, however it seems too often people think they can avoid 8th the fold and get to nibbana. In the Maha-satipatthana sutta, DN 22, the historic Buddha defined sama-samadhi in terms of jhana, therefore we should assume samadhi does not mean 'concentration' as it is too often translated, but absorption (jhana). DN 22.21 "And what is right {absorption (sama-samadhi)}? There is the case where an aspirant -- quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: joy & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by applied and sustained {concentration (vitakka and vicára)}. With the stilling of applied and sustained {concentration (vitakka and vicára)}, one enters & remains in the second jhana: joy & pleasure born of tranquillity, unification of awareness free from directed applied and sustained {concentration (vitakka and vicára)} -- internal assurance. With the fading of exuberance one remains in equanimity, (aware) & alert, physically sensitive of ecstasy. One enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & (aware), one has a pleasurable abiding.' With the abandoning of (grasping and aversion for) pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier disappearance of pleasure & pain -- one enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & awareness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called right absorption." Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translations of the above sutta is available at this URLs: Maha-satipatthana Sutta (DN. 22) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn22.html The alternate translation that I used is available at this URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas/files/ May you become enlightened in this very lifetime. Jeff Brooks 29828 From: Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 4:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SN I,4,19(9) "The Farmer" -- Listening, attending to, etc Hi Jon, I was just looking through CMA and I now realize wholesome consciousness is a lot more complicated than I had thought. However, I would say "applying one's (whole) mind to the dhamma" is itself a prompt meant to inspire self-prompted volitional action, in other words, discipline. On the other hand, I agree insight "just happens". I don't see any difference between journeying half way around the world to listen to the dhamma and journeying to one's meditation cushion to closely look at mind and body. One may or may not learn something from either action, but both actions are wholesome and will have a cumulative salutary effect. Larry ---------------------- Jon: Larry Thanks for sharing your thoughts. --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon, ... L: I agree that ultimately there is no need for volition, if that is what you are saying. That is basically a path consciousness. However, I think all wholesome consciousness is volitional. J: Well, there is volition, in the form of the mental factor of that name, accompanying every moment of consciousness, so in that sense of the word it cannot be said that 'ultimately there is no need for volition', although, yes, it can be said that all wholesome consciousness is volitional. In the sense of volition as a kind of *deliberate intention that precedes a given mind-state*, however, I do not read the teachings as saying that all wholesome consciousness is volitional. That would mean that without the deliberate intention to 'have kusala' there could not be wholesome consciousness. I think it is clear that kusala can arise without this kind of self-prompting (see especially the passage on prompted and unprompted mental states from CMA that you gave in a post recently). It is also confirmed by our own experience in life, don't you find? As regards the kind of self-prompting that can condition kusala, however, I do not think this includes undertaking some form of 'practice' with the intention of calming the mind or observing dhammas. First, this is nowhere stated or inferred in the texts, as far as I can see, and secondly, based on my own experience, it would be more likely to be a form of attachment: attachment to wanting more kusala/understanding, or to somehow be other than we are. (Of course, for one in whom such kind of kusala has already been developed to a high level, the situation may be different.) It could however, include reflecting on the true dhamma read/heard where such reflection is motivated by a sense of urgency, the kind of thing I understand to be referred to in the sutta in this thread when it talks about *listening to, attending to, and applying one's (whole) mind to* the dhamma. Jon 29829 From: Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 4:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Jon: Larry L: "Here's an example of concept as object of desire. In this case read "idea" as "concept":" J: The sutta you quote below is from the Salaayatan-samyutta ('Six sense-bases' samyutta) of SN. To my understanding, dhammayatana, here translated as 'ideas', does not include concepts. (This has been discussed extensively before -- see under 'ayatana' in UP. Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' is incorrect on this point.) Jon Hi Jon, Okay, I'm agreeable. I think Victor's question was something like "did the Buddha ever say in the Suttas that concept is an object of desire?" What would be your answer? Since I can't really find either concept or desire in my experience I'm tempted to say it's entirely academic. However, since I can't find academia either, I guess I won't. Larry 29830 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 8:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Victor I think you have misread me, I always insist that one need panna to be enlighten whereas James thinks Jhana is the key to enlightement and panna could be subordinated where I dispute. With or without Jhana, one can still be enlighted with panna. Victor when you talk about right concentration, that is different issue than jhanas, right concentration can be as defined in Samadhi Sutta. Right concentration can also be defined as Jhanas, but we are refering as "mini meditators" rather than a deliberate effort to reach jhanas. Let me ask you a qn, could one say let my thought be thus and my thought not be thus. Can we say thought, this is I, this me or this is myself. Once this principle is understood, one effort to develop jhana on purpose is furtile. Buddha cannot on one hand teaching anatta and on the other hand tell pple hey you can control thoughts to be liberated. It will not be congruent and will lead pple doubting his teachings. Furthermore, if one will to read the text carefully, jhanas will not be possible if one is not of restraint in the six senses (which means one must be in satipatthana). Without right understanding and right mindfulness, there is no jhanas. I just like say that it is easy to misconceive the jhanas we have are the correct jhanas. In fact they may be just arupa or rupa jhanas - leading to extremely long lives. Ken O 29831 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 8:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cultivating Absorption Leads to Cessation Hi Jeff > %%%%%% Jeff: > That is why Abhidhamma is bad "spiritual" fiction. just read the > Nikayas and don't bother with Apocrypha. > %%%%%% k: Do you think it is possible for pple who are enlighted to write things that are false. Think about it before attribute Abhidhamma as a bad spiritual fiction. > %%%%%% Jeff: > I never said one would avoid any of the factors of enlightenment, > or all 8 folds of the Noble Path, however it seems too often people think they can avoid 8th the fold and get to nibbana. In the Maha-satipatthana sutta, DN 22, the historic Buddha defined sama-samadhi in terms of jhana, therefore we should assume samadhi does not mean 'concentration' as it is too often translated, but absorption (jhana). k: Even if it translated as jhana - your definition of jhanas is still if I have not wrong - ecstasy or absorption. That is only the feeling portion. You cannot on one hand keep advocation jhanas (which is only one factor of enlightement) and when question about the other six factors, you mention superficially, you did not mention their roles and how they congruent with your view points. I like to hear in your own words how does your definition of jhanas work with mindfulness and how does your definitin of jhanas work with the other six factors k: I think it is easy to fall prey to the notion that eveything I read should be this way or that way (even I do that). When ancient text point differently, one get unhappy bc it is not congruent with ones believe. I always said, who has the right understanding, those written thousands of years ago or we are. Jeff I notice you like to change the sutta (sati) text definitions and terms defintion to suit your meaning, dont you think inevitablely you are attached to views, to your own conceit. This is dangerous trend modern writers have. Believing they know better and also believeing by using kamala sutta (or other sutta) they prove that traditions are wrong and they are right. But I will not stop you from what you are doing, I sincerely hope you consider the effect you have on others. Once again, I beg you to confine your own definiton and interest as personal views and not changing any terms esp in the sati suttas to suit your personal needs which could influence others. Your email list of esctasy Buddhism have an effect on others, and that deeply distrub me (even though I shouldn't since it is akusala). Even though I cant do anything, the only thing I can do is beg you from writing your own definiton. Sincerely concerned Ken O 29832 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 10:36pm Subject: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Ken O, Ken, I understand you insist that one needs panna to be enlightened. But like I said earlier, it occurs to me that you created an issue and attributed it to James, while that issue was never raised by James himself in the first place. And I see that you've done it again by saying "James thinks Jhana is the key to enlightement and panna could be subordinated." And how do you know what James thinks? You said that with or without Jhana, one can still be enlighted with panna. Given that one can not be enlightened without wisdom/discernment/panna, the question is: Can one still be enlightened without jhana? Regarding that question, this is how I see it: As the Buddha taught the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of dukkha, samma samadhi is part of the Noble Eightfold Path. The Buddha defined samma samadhi in terms of the four jhanas. To develop samma samadhi is to develop at least the first four jhanas as taught by the Buddha. To develop at least the first four jhanas is to develop samma samadhi. And samma samadhi is developed when the four jhanas are developed, the skill to enter the four jhanas is mastered. Without the four jhanas developed, one is not of samma samadhi. Without samma samadhi, it is impossible for one to be enlightened. One cannot be enlightened without the four jhanas developed. Samma samadhi alone does not lead to the cessation of dukkha. But without samma samadhi, the cessation of dukkha is impossible. That is how I see it. May all be happy and well. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Victor > > I think you have misread me, I always insist that one need panna to > be enlighten whereas James thinks Jhana is the key to enlightement > and panna could be subordinated where I dispute. With or without > Jhana, one can still be enlighted with panna. > > Victor when you talk about right concentration, that is different > issue than jhanas, right concentration can be as defined in Samadhi > Sutta. Right concentration can also be defined as Jhanas, but we are > refering as "mini meditators" rather than a deliberate effort to > reach jhanas. Let me ask you a qn, could one say let my thought be > thus and my thought not be thus. Can we say thought, this is I, this > me or this is myself. Once this principle is understood, one effort > to develop jhana on purpose is furtile. Buddha cannot on one hand > teaching anatta and on the other hand tell pple hey you can control > thoughts to be liberated. It will not be congruent and will lead > pple doubting his teachings. > > Furthermore, if one will to read the text carefully, jhanas will not > be possible if one is not of restraint in the six senses (which means > one must be in satipatthana). Without right understanding and right > mindfulness, there is no jhanas. I just like say that it is easy to > misconceive the jhanas we have are the correct jhanas. In fact they > may be just arupa or rupa jhanas - leading to extremely long lives. > > Ken O 29833 From: Sarah Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 10:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Eye Consciousness Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: >This is what I > find from the Visuddhimagga which leads me to believe that Buddhism > doesn't equate eye consciousness as actually arising in the eye > itself: .... S: I’m impressed by your attitude and I’m glad you’re still on ‘this sense base kick!’;-) Let me break it up and intersperse a few comments: ..... Vism: > "Having seen a form with his eye: when he has seen a form with the > visual consciousness which is capable of seeing forms, and which in > normal language is usually called the "eye," though it actually is > its tool. ..... S: It is the visual consciousness itself which sees forms or visible objects. If there is awareness of visual (or eye consciousness or seeing consciousness) or of forms (or visible objects), there is no idea of eye or location. However, the eye, or rather the eye-base is the essential as a ‘tool’ or a condition as base for seeing consciousness to arise and see the visible object which has impacted on the eye-base. ..... V: >For the Ancients have said: "The eye cannot see forms > because it is without thought; thought cannot see forms because it is > without eye. When the object knocks against the door (of sight) one > sees with the thought which has eye-sensibility for its basis." ..... S: For the visible object to be experienced or seen, there has to be eye-base (the sensitive matter or rupa located in the eye) for eye consciousness to perform its task of seeing. Without eye-sight or eye-base, there is no seeing, such as when we are asleep. ..... V: >In > the expression "one sees with the eye," only accessory equipment is > indicated, just as one may say, "one shoots with a bow" (and > not "with an arrow"). Therefore, the meaning here is: "having seen > form with visual consciousness." ..... S: We say visual consciousness sees, but as Howard points out from time to time, there is merely the visual consciousness or seeing (nama) and the object which is seen (rupa). The eye-base (rupa) is the necessary piece of ‘equipment’ for the seeing of the object to take place. There cannot be seeing with the ear-base, hear-base or other rupas as condition instead. Let me also give you the ~Naa.namoli translation for the same passage because I think it’s a little easier to follow without the use of ‘thought’: Vism 1, 53, ~Naa.namoli translation: V2: “On seeing a visible object with the eye: on seeing a visible object with the eye-consciousness that is capable of seeing visible objects and has borrowed the name ‘eye’ from its instrument. But the Ancients (poraa.naa)[S: ancient Sinhalese commentary which Buddhaghosa based his work on] said: ‘The eye does not see a visible object because it has no mind. The mind does not see because it has no eyes. But when there is the impingement of door and object he sees by means of consciousness that has eye-sensitivity as its physical basis. Now (an idiom) such as this is called an ‘accessory locution’ (sasambhaarakathaa), like ‘He shot him with his bow’, and so on. So the meaning here is this: ‘On seeing a visible object with eye-consciousness.’” ***** S: Larry was wondering why concepts were not analysed more and Andrew was wondering about imagining there really was a self. You also raised the question of dreams and why so little is said about them. The reason is fairly simple as to why these concepts are not included for the main part in the teachings, I think. Conceptualising and analysing concepts can only lead to more proliferations of concepts and won’t take us closer to understanding the truths or realities which are to be known, such as seeing and visible object. Only by directly being aware and knowing the characteristics of these actual dhammas, firstly by asking the right questions as you are here and conceptually straightening our views, can ignorance and the chasing after useless concepts ever be seen for what it is. In the ~Naa.namoli translation, a footnote is given to a quote from the commentary to the Vism. (The Paaramatthama~njuusaa) on this same passage you’ve raised. I’ll quote part of it: V2: ‘ “On seeing a visible object with the eye”: if the eye were to see the visible object, then (organs) belonging to other kinds of consciousness would see too; but that is not so. Why? Because the eye has no thought (acetanattaa). And then, were consciousness itself to see a visible object, it would see it even behind a wall because of being independent of sense resistance (appat.tighabhaavato); but that is not so either because there is no seeing in all kinds of consciousness. And herein, it is consciousness dependent on the eye that sees, not just any kind. And that does not arise with respect to what is enclosed by walls, etc, where light is excluded. But where there is no exclusion of light [S:e.g. not when the eyes are closed], as in the case of a crystal or a mass of cloud, there it does arise even with respect to what is enclosed by them. So it is as a basis of consciousness that the eye sees. ‘ “When there is the impingement of door and object”: what is intended is: when a visible datum as object has come into the eye’s focus. “One sees”: one looks (oloketi); for when the consciousness that has eye-sensitivity as its material support is disclosing (obhaasente) by means of the special quality of its support a visible datum as object that is assisted by light (aaloka), then it is said that a person possessed of that sees the visible datum. And here the illuminating is the revealing of the visible datum according to its individual essence, in other words, the apprehending of it experientially (paccakkhato)” ***** S: In other words, seeing, visible object and other namas and rupas rise and fall and perform their functions as they’ve always done. Gradually awareness and understanding can develop to know them as they are -- conditioned dhammas arising according to specific factors -- as anatta. Hence we read in the Chachakka Sutta, M 148, as you quoted: “Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises....” and so on. As it goes on to say, ‘the eye is not self.....forms........eye-consciousness....eye-contact is not self’ and so on for feeling, craving and so on. Understanding all these realities is the way that ignorance and craving will eventually be attenuated and then eradicated. “Seeing thus, bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple becomes disenchanted with the eye, disenchanted with forms, disenchanted with eye-consciousness, ...eye-contact....feeling.....craving........ “Being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispasion [his mind] is liberated....” .... J: > How do you take this? ..... S: Let me know if you take it any differently. Hope we’re making contact this time and you understand why I said it all comes back to ‘eye consciousness and forms’ now. Apologies in advance if I haven’t clarified the quote enough. I’d be glad to follow up if you think it could be useful to discuss further. Metta, Sarah ======= 29834 From: Sarah Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 11:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A few questions Hi Harry, I’m glad to see you’ve settled in so well and you’re asking good questions. I think you’re the first active member from Mexico;-) If you’d like to share anything more about your background, we’d be glad to hear and a pic in the DSG photo album is always appreciated (but not compulsory!). I agreed with all the good comments TG (from Calif) and Icaro (from Brazil) gave you, but you asked to hear from others too, so here’s a little more from Hong Kong;-) (Icaro, hope the stolen cables have been replaced, we need your input;-) ) --- Harry Mueller wrote: > > There are a consensus between buddhists that there aren´t > Arahants > > in this world anymore. .... In my view, it is not so much about a ‘consensus between Buddhists’ as what we read in the Pali texts themselves with regard to the timing of the deline of the Teachings. I don’t think there is any evidence to the contrary, as I see it. If you look under ‘Sasana, decline of’ under this link, I think you’ll find more, or I can repost it: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts ..... > Thank you TG and Icaro for your answers to my questions. > > I hope that I'm correct in assuming that the Pali Canon is believed > to have been written some 200 to 400 years after the Buddha's > Parinibbana although no extant proof of the actual date exists. The > possibility exists, although slight, that the texts were written > with the help of Ananda shortly after the passing of the Buddha. .... I think you’ll find a pretty accurate summary of the councils at this link: http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/councils.html Here's an extract on the 4th Council when the texts were written down: “THE FOURTH COUNCIL The Fourth Council was held in Tambapanni (Sri Lanka) in 29 B.C. under the patronage of King Vattagamani. The main reason for its convening was the realization that it was now not possible for the majority of monks to retain the entire Tipitaka in their memories as had been the case formerly for the Venerable Mahinda and those who followed him soon after. Therefore, as the art of writing had, by this time developed substantially it was thought expedient and necessary to have the entire body of the Buddha's teaching written down. King Vattagamani supported the monk's idea and a council was held specifically to reduce the Tipitaka in its entirety to writing. Therefore, so that the genuine Dhamma might be lastingly preserved, the Venerable Maharakkhita and five hundred monks recited the words of the Buddha and then wrote them down on palm leaves. This remarkable project took place in a cave called, the Aloka lena, situated in the cleft of an ancient landslip near what is now Matale. Thus the aim of the Council was achieved and the preservation in writing of the authentic Dhamma was ensured.” ..... Plenty is written about these early councils and the arahants who participated in them in the ancient commentaries. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the recordings or of the memorised texts which were written down at this council. Large numbers of bhikkhus had faithfully recited and memorised the texts in order that they should be perfectly preserved. .... > I think you both suggest that the order of the aggregates is not > necessarily fixed and may be open to interpretation. Icaro, your > point that they are conditioned is well taken. .... They are usually given in the order TG mentioned. What do we cling to most of the day? Sights, sounds, smells, tastes, bodily sensations, i.e rupas, feelings of all kinds, thoughts and memories and marked data, all other mental states and consciousness or experiencing of data. .... > I was totally unaware that "There are a consensus between buddhists > that there aren´t Arahants in this world anymore". I have never > heard this before. If true, I guess that steam entry is also no > longer possible and it makes me wonder what all those meditators are > striving for (although I do recognize the benefits of applying the > buddhist tenets to daily life)? .... According to the timing of the decline of the sasana given in the texts, stream entry would still be possible, but I think that when we begin to see how much ignorance has been accumulated and how little is known about namas and rupas, perhaps it doesn’t really matter. In other words, insight has to begin and as you suggest, there are tangible benefits from ‘applying buddhis tenets in daily life’. It always comes back to this present moment, rather than any concern about others, with usually the wrong idea of ‘someone’. Stream entry merely signifies particular kinds of consciousness, no self involved. ..... >This point requires a lot of > research and examination for me. I would also really like to gain > the insight of some of the other paticipants of this wonderful study > group. .... It’s always good to have keen new members and it encourages the rest of us. Pls share your ‘research and examination’ and let us know more about what is behind your questions. We’ll look forward to any more as well. Metta, Sarah p.s You may find these links useful as well for searching the archives or for Pali terms: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossary_of_pali_terms http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ ===== 29835 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 11:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Victor that is true, I cant read pple mind. Apparently that is the impression given whenever James discuss about jhana is the superpower and the need to mediate to reach that level, which I disagree. > Can one still be enlightened without jhana? k: YES: by dry insight ;-) (maybe I am wrong about the definition of dry insight - good to be corrected ;-). k: No one is disagreeing with the Buddha, we are disagreeing the interpretation of how one look at developing jhanas. U have not answer my question : Can one say I want my thought to be thus and not to be thus? If can then there is a possibility of one control one thought to be thus, then the thought should not be anatta, should be atta. Think about this, then the answer on how one can develop jhana would be known. Ken O 29836 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 0:20am Subject: [dsg] Re: need help.../James Hi Howard (and James), It was a few days ago, but you were saying: ------------------------------ H: > All that the conventional understanding will do - but this is important - is make one clearly aware that things are not "just fine", to point one in the direction of seeking a way out from suffering, and to serve to make one realize the urgency of the matter. --------------------------------------------------- In this case, when you say `conventional understanding,' I think you are referring to a conceptual understanding of the conventional world. -- As distinct from a conventional understanding of nama and rupa. So, can a conceptual understanding of things, `make one clearly aware that they are not "just fine" -- and point one in the direction of seeking a way out from suffering?' I suspect not. Concepts can occur with kusala and akusala consciousness, but concepts, themselves, have no characteristics. So, in the ultimate sense, conceptual things can never be "just fine" or "not just fine." We had been talking about a conventional understanding that human bodies (especially diseased ones) were loathsome (dukkha). This sort of understanding will not `point us in the direction of the way out': It is rupa that is dukkha, not the human body. Similarly, the Middle Way provides an escape from conditioned existence (the five khandhas) not from illusory conceptual existence. ------------------------ H: > understanding must not be an encyclopedic, intellectual knowledge, which is near worthless, but a direct seeing of things as they are, resulting from establishing the proper conditions. -------------------------- `Direct seeing' is not my strong point. When theorising, I often use terms (like kusala, akusala, lobha, alobha), without being mindful of their meaning. I agree that this is unproductive thinking. I'm not saying it would be better to try to `direct' consciousness towards any given dhammas (they're too quick for that). – but their meaning should be kept in mind. --------------------------- H: > And this requires putting into practice the Buddha's program of cultivation of sila, samadhi, and pa~n~na, and that is done on a basis of conventional understanding. ------------------------------- If you mean an ordinary, worldly understanding, I would say it is next to useless: realities aren't 'done,' they arise according to conditions. As a general rule, the people who talk a lot about righteousness -- make high-sounding promises (paving the road with good intentions) -- are not the big achievers in dana, sila and bhavana. You need to have accumulated some right understanding before you can be good at those things. ----------------- KH : >> That concept is of something other than ultimate reality -- it is not what the Buddha taught. > > H: > Well, a perusing of the suttas will clearly show that the Buddha taught both. ---------------- I'm not so sure. We were talking about the concept of a human being -- a being that sees, hears and feels at the same time. The Buddha taught no such thing. ------------------ KH: >> there is no more a James than there is a bandwagon: As mere, mental phenomena, different kinds of understanding come and go according to conditions. There is no control. >> H: > Some comments on this last paragraph, Ken: 1) Merely saying or believing that there literally is no "James" is of little value. Experiencing no-self is something else. > -------------------------------- If, after considering the Dhamma, the thought arises; "there is no James, just nama and rupa," then there might be some kusala cittas involved – and they would be of great value. -------------------------------- H:> 2) Yes, different kinds of understanding come and go according to conditions. What is the point? ------------------------------ I take it you are asking; `what is the point I was trying to make?' Well, I had been telling James, "Get off the bandwagon!" – but if I can remember that there is no James, only conditioned dhammas, (including ditthi in this case), then I will be less likely to be affected by lobha or dosa, whatever 'James' does. ------------- H: > 3) If 'control' means "My wish is my command," then I agree – no control. But there *can* be effective influence, and were there not, then Buddhism wouldn't be worth even a nanosecond of anyone's time. ------------------------ I gather you are making a point about `direct experience' (as above): You are saying that "no control" should not be taken too literally or academically: When there is direct experience of satipatthana, some kind of effective influence will be seen. I don't think so. I imagine that, when there is direct experience [of impersonal, conditioned phenomena rolling on] there will be no sign, whatsoever, of any effective influence. Kind regards, Ken H 29837 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 0:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Companionship Hi Christine, Your post on ‘companionship’ to Dave and all was a good one with lots of helpful and compassionate practical advice. I’m sure we can refer to it often for all those who feel they are isolated islands unto themselves;-) You also wrote the following on your return from Bangkok: ..... C: >I did have the skeleton of a post in my (lost) jottings - wondering what the Buddha 'really meant' by detachment. Defining attachment/detachment/non-attachment, passive internal compassion/active external compassion, and (lets throw in) anatta, mana, and restorative justice as well - triggered by Sarah's remarks at the airport about my predilection for strong reactions about seeing victims in stories (i.e. Vesantara Jataka, Angulimala, ill Soi dogs, chickens buried alive, patients referred to me in crisis etc.), and her question about what the deeper meaning of this predilection is. [Fortunately, I didn't reply with the old but true Australianism of 'b-gg--ed if I know'] < .... S: ;-)I’d be glad to read any further comments or considerations you may have. No sign of the lost notes? Again, it comes back to the present moment, I think. At a moment of understanding, there is detachment already. Why doesn’t understanding develop faster? Because of attachment which makes it impossible to see dhammas as they are. The truth about wholesome dhammas -- whether they be wisdom, metta, compassion or others -- is that they cannot be judged by the ‘active external’ appearance. When we see someone’s smile, do we know if it’s a smile of attachment or metta? Do we know about our own smiles? When someone is ordered to kill or bury their chickens, can we have any idea of all the various mental states involved? What would your definition of ‘active external’ compassion be? Would a Buddha’s sitting quietly reviewing the ignorant worldlings qualify? I think it helps a lot to understand our accumulations -- good and bad -- for what they are. As understanding grows, it doesn’t mean the accumulations change. It just means we get to know the tendencies better, with more detachment and more insight into what anatta means. Sometimes we might think that it’s the involvement and the emotional sharing of an experience that help us to be more compassionate, but as I found last week when I heard about the family death, the distress and emotional involvement revolving around *myself* and *my* own feelings and the embellished stories in the mind, just make it harder to have compassion which can only be accompanied by detachment and not attachment. .... C: >How can beginners in the Dhamma, enmeshed in the world and relationships, be detached 'from the beginning'? Isn't this like expecting us not to have a 'sense of self' from the beginning? As Vince said "I'm not enlightened yet, you know." Don't these things come along the way a bit - maybe with attaining Stream Entry - and would it be possible for beginners?< .... S: ‘From the beginning’ means for a moment. There can always be a ‘beginning’ now and then another one. Just occasionally, there can be a glimmer of understanding as awareness of ‘seeing’ or ‘visible object’ or ‘another reality’ arises and performs its task of being aware. This is the beginning and if it doesn’t start, it can’t grow. If we wait for stream entry, there will never be a beginning. So here’s an extract from a sutta from Marasamyutta which I find helpful to reflect on often and which I know you’ll have appreciated: ***** SN4:9 Life Span (1) “Then Mara the Evil One approached the Blessed One and addressed him in verse: “Long is the life span of human beings, The good man should not disdain it. One should live like a milk-sucking baby: Death has not made its arrival.*” [The Blessed One:] “Short is the life span of human beings, The good man should disdain it, One should live like one with head aflame: There is no avoiding Death’s arrival.” ***** footnote to Mara’s verse. *279 Spk paraphrases: “The good man should live like a baby who, after drinking milk, might lie down on a blanket and fall asleep, unconcerned whether life is long or short.” I look forward to any further comments you have, Chris. Metta, Sarah p.s James and Christine, the Godhika sutta (4:23) is particularly interesting and relevant. Do you or anyone else have any comments or introductory words to give to it? tia. ======================================= 29838 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 0:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta Hi Icaro, --- icarofranca wrote: I: > A lot of problems here to deal on! > Monday I ought to travel on assignment of my office... and robbers > had stolen all Phone cables of mi neighbourhood: so, I won't have > Internet at home for a while!!! .... S: I’m sure the robbers didn’t realize how long we’ve been waiting to hear from you....hope the new cables don’t get robbed too;-( Anyway, as long as we don’t let the robbers seize what little wholesomeness there is in a day, it could be worse. I typed this from the Vibh-a yesterday on ignorance: “Like robbers that beset travellers on the road, it besets profitable consciousness, seizes it, plunders it” is the besetting of ignorance (avijjaapariyu.t.thaana).....” I also thought of the many discussions on the luminous thread and commentary elaborations about defiling. .... I: > But, as Good Rob Moult wrote at his essay, the only burden at our > mind it's realy the Ego - that somewhat artifitial structure that > manages our comprehension of external world. When you relieve its > pressure on brains, a deeper stracta of consciousness buddeth forth. .... S: Very poetically put, Icaro;-) .... I: > If you do it without the recurse of hammering on your skull with > clubs and warhammers, so it won't hurt anyway thinking about it! .... Not quite so poetic, but I think we get the point;-)No self to do anything anyway. .... I: > Noah Chomsky was the first scholar to point out the necessity of > build up a general grammar for English and other languages, as done > at the classical Arnault & Lancelot's "Grammarie du Port-Royal"! .... S: I’m familiar with Chomsky on linguistics, but fail to see the connection with anatta above;-) .... I: > How are you > > doing with Buddhaghosa? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Wonderful!!! > I've read the first chapter of Visuddhimagga in English. Many > doubts and obscurities on Buddhaghosa's treatment of Pali Language > and Buddhistic Doctrine had been clarified: > > - Yes!!! That's the Answer! > - But... What's the question ??? > - Stay Tuned for more Visuddhimagga chapters!!! .... S: That’s good. Hope you can also jump to ch X1V, 61 as Larry is rounding up participants for the next session and your practical insights will help bring it alive, I’m sure;-) More subtle rupas... .... > "We will be starting up on the Visuddhimagga > > again in a week or two." > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > I: > When the Phone Company fix the stolen cables for new ones, I will > get back internet at home!! .... S: Hope the Brazilian robbers leave the cables alone then too.... Metta, Sarah p.s Nina will be glad to see your active participation when she returns. You keep us all smiling, even if it’s with attachment;-) ===== 29839 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 1:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Smile-producing consciousness of Arahants (was:Yet more discussion (and food Hi Ken O, --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Sarah > > We are dicussing about smiling cittas of Buddha and not Arahants. I > also forget how this issue came out, was it me?. .... Well, as it's a tricky, subtle and obtuse point from the Abhidhamma, there's a good chance it was you;-) Seriously, I think you may have raised a question about panna with all sobhana cittas in the Buddha/arahants and either you or K.Sujin may have mentioned these, but I'm not sure. It would be good to also find a reference in the Abhidhamma pitaka itself, but I've not found one yet. Also, the Buddha's omniscience doesn't mean 'all the time', but just when he applies his mind to knowing anything, so-to-speak, so I'm not sure that is necessarily the reason for the difference, but it could be. Way beyond me. I thought your several posts to Larry on satipatthana were very good and I'm enjoying your other threads too. Metta, Sarah ====== 29840 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 1:46am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Ken, Ken: Apparently that is the impression given whenever James discuss about jhana is the superpower and the need to mediate to reach that level, which I disagree. James: LOL! Ken, just what are you talking about? You are painting me out to be someone I am not. Have you not noticed me studying the SN systematically from cover to cover in this group? Do you know how many books I have read on Buddhism? More than I can remember! Now, just because I say that it is important to meditate you are claiming that I am some kind of meditation-obsessed freak!! ;-)) And because I am not drooling over the Abhidhamma I must not have any panna. It seems that you find me to be a threat of some sort but I really don't care what you think about me. However, I do think this thread is getting far too personal and we need to get back to the dhamma and stop making personal evaluations. Ken: YES: by dry insight ;-) (maybe I am wrong about the definition of dry insight - good to be corrected ;-). James: I have already stated that `dry insight' is a possibility for attaining liberation. It is very rare however; even rare among those rare enough to achieve enlightenment, so I wouldn't put too much hope in that. The Buddha didn't achieve enlightenment by `dry insight', and he started with more panna than anyone, so I think that should tell you something. `Dry Insight' is an aberration; it isn't the automatic course for those with established panna. Metta, James 29841 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 1:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Eye Consciousness Hi Sarah, Sarah: Apologies in advance if I haven't clarified the quote enough. I'd be glad to follow up if you think it could be useful to discuss further. James: No, I think you have quoted quite enough material! ;-)). I just wanted to see if you would say that eye consciousness actually arises in the eye ball itself, and you didn't. You danced around the issue quite a bit, tried to dazzle and snowball with a preponderance of quoted material, but you didn't say it directly. Therefore if the Abhidhamma states that the sense base consciousness actually arises in the sense organs themselves, it is quite wrong about that. That is all I wanted to make clear. (I don't really care to pursue dreaming or the `phantom limb phenomenon' anymore; it seems that if a subject isn't written somewhere in a Buddhist text you can't comprehend it fully or don't wish to.) Metta, James 29842 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 1:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 ) Dear Htoo, Thank you for all the sharing of your series. As KenH wrote before, when you write about Abhidhamma details, such as in your series on cetasikas or rupas or on sanna or especially on paramatha vs pannatti, it’s very helpful. However, as I see it, these series on satipatthana all seem to suggest an idea of self, an idea of control, an idea of high levels of insight achieved after such control and watching, without any firm foundation of understanding by those who may follow your instructions. For example in this subject heading and in the following: --- Htoo Naing wrote: > The Dhamma practitioner, meditator has been practising Mahasatipatthana > ( Vipassana ) for a long time and he acquires a good concentration. Now > he is able to see all mental phenomena whenever they arise. Now he is > contemplating on mind and mind phenomena. .... What is this ‘Dhamma practioner’ or ‘meditator’ in actuality? Is concentration really the key to ‘seeing all phenomena whenever they arise’. Can even a sotapanna’s wisdom see ‘all phenomena whenever they arise’, let alone at beginning stages of vipassana nana or before that? If there is such a wish and intention, it seems to me it would be a very big impediment to the development of detachment and insight. You have another series called ‘Sensing feeling where it arises and where it vanishes’. Again, in what you write there is the suggestion of watching, selecting special objects, controlling the mind and generally ‘doing’ satipatthana. I’d like to suggest that these interpretations all suggest an idea of self which is not supported by the texts or commentaries and that following such a method with this view will not lead to even the first stage of clearly understanding and differentiating nama and rupa, conditioned dhammas which are anatta, let alone higher insights and any understanding of impermanence. You suggest in another post: H: ‘To know all mind movement and to follow wherever the mind go and whenever it moves. When it moves,the original place was void of it and so on. This is impermanence. To see this is to watch the mind.’ I’d be glad to see any textual reference which supports this idea of following and watching the mind movement as indicative of any understanding of impermanence. As KenH said before, the teachings are very deep and profound. It doesn’t take any particular knowledge of them to ‘watch and follow’ with an idea of self that can control them. There are many others here who will fully agree and appreciate these series of yours but be less enthusiastic about the Abhidhamma posts which I like. This is the nature of a discussion group. No one agrees;-) I appreciate your kind sharing and look forward to any further comments. I also apologise if these comments sound disrespectful in any way. That certainly isn’t intended. As you know, I greatly appreciate your sharing and confidence in Abhidhamma and your good intentions with these other threads as well. Metta, Sarah ======= 29843 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 2:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi James k: Dont worry, there is nothing personnel. We are just refering, and come to think about it, I find myself stupid, we are both trying to think how you think, I apologise for that. > James: LOL! Ken, just what are you talking about? You are > painting me out to be someone I am not. Have you not noticed me studying the SN systematically from cover to cover in this group? Do you know how many books I have read on Buddhism? More than I can remember! Now, just because I say that it is important to meditate you are claiming that I am some kind of meditation-obsessed freak!! ;-)) k: Sorry if I got you wrong but you seems to me, you seem to be obsessed with it. First impression last very long (lobha) :-0. J: And because I am not drooling over the Abhidhamma I must not have any panna. k: Nope I never said that ;-). In fact in the earlier email I said that you have just define panna yourself. That shows you have lots of panna. J: It seems that you find me to be a threat of some sort but I really don't care what you think about me. K: I dont find you a threat, do you have six eyes, ten hands, four storey tall etc... I just find you interesting and also at times amusing and frank (I like pple being frank). J: It is very rare however; even rare among > those rare enough to achieve enlightenment, so I wouldn't put too much hope in that. The Buddha didn't achieve enlightenment by `dry insight', and he started with more panna than anyone, so I think that should tell you something. k: Dont get me wrong, I am just answering the question ask by Victor can we be enlighted without panna. Hmm Buddha achieve enlightement by panna and not by jhanas. Jhana is only an instrument not the pivotal element. Without panna there will be no jhanas for enlightment but there can be jhana (arupa and rupa jhanas) without panna. Ken O 29844 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 2:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Eye Consciousness Oh James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > James: No, I think you have quoted quite enough material! ;-)). I > just wanted to see if you would say that eye consciousness actually > arises in the eye ball itself, and you didn't. .... No, because we’re talking about various namas and rupas. A nama doesn’t arise *in* a rupa but is dependent on various rupas to arise, in this case the visible object and eye-base. Details of the eye-base were given before in the Vism series. .... >You danced around the > issue quite a bit, tried to dazzle and snowball with a preponderance > of quoted material, but you didn't say it directly. .... I had and have no interest in dancing, dazzling or snowballing at all;-)LOL You asked for clarification on a passage in the Vism and I did my best, that’s all. No problem;-) .... > Therefore if the > Abhidhamma states that the sense base consciousness actually arises > in the sense organs themselves, it is quite wrong about that. That > is all I wanted to make clear. .... The Abhidhamma merely confirms and elaborates on what we read in the suttas. .... (I don't really care to pursue > dreaming or the `phantom limb phenomenon' anymore; it seems that if a > subject isn't written somewhere in a Buddhist text you can't > comprehend it fully or don't wish to.) .... Like Ken O has written a couple of times, I believe it’s important to get one’s facts right and not to just elaborate on what might seem to be one’s personal experience without any support from the texts. There’s plenty enough wrong view and fantasy around on the net without adding to it unnecessarily. I hope this is one little corner where we can actually look at experience in the light of the Buddha’s teachings. Thanks for reading and the feed-back - I was fully expecting the punch-bag response;-) If you want to pursue it or not anytime, either way's OK too. I know it's not easy. Off to Tai-chi.... Metta, Sarah ======== 29845 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 3:38am Subject: Re: Eye Consciousness Oh Sarah, Sarah: I hope this is one little corner where we can actually look at experience in the light of the Buddha's teachings. James: Oh, I completely agree!! It's just that the Abhidhamma isn't the Buddha's teachings. Sarah: Thanks for reading and the feed-back - I was fully expecting the punch-bag response;-) If you want to pursue it or not anytime, either way's OK too. I know it's not easy. James: Punch-bag response?? Oh Sarah, you should know what my `punch- bag' responses are like by now…I could turn this group into a hornet's nest if I wanted to (and I have! ;-). I was just being frank (As Ken O. notes about me). Really, Ken O. characterizes me as a meditation-obsessed freak, you characterize me as some kind of bully, and Ken H. keeps talking the True Nature of `James'! LOL! I do wish that the members of this group would stop thinking about me, pondering about me, and debating about me…it is quite silly. Let's focus on the dhamma and try to stop getting so personal. Metta, James 29846 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 4:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Michael, I am not an abhidhammika ;-)), but would nonetheless like to give a response to your request for feedback. --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Larry, ... M: From the various discussions I was involved in this list in relation to paramatha/paññatti, ultimate/conventional reality, and own nature (sabhava), my conclusion so far is that ultimate reality is something that truly and actually exists because it is a phenomena or an object that has its own and unique characteristics. J: First, a minor correction. We have not been talking about some (amorphous) thing called 'ultimate reality', but about realties (dhammas) that exist or are real in the ultimate sense. Now, these dhammas are what are experiencing and are being experienced at the present moment. They each have a distinctive characteristic. I think 'own and unique' would be to some extent a tautology in this context, since the sabhava is the characteristic *borne by* a particular dhamma and which thereby distinguishes it from any different kind of dhamma, although it is true that dhammas also have characteristics (such as the ti-lakkhana) that it shares in common with all other dhammas, i.e., are not unique to it. M: Maybe another feature is that those phenomena or objects cannot be further reduced, like in the case of a being that can be reduced into khandhas, or we could say a being is made up of khandhas, but in the case of ultimate realities those are not subject to further reduction. J: There is no question of the khandhas being that which conventional things (like a being) can be reduced into. Khandhas are what in the highest sense of the word there is; 'being' is what there is perceived to be. But khandhas do not become known by 'deconstructing' the being. It's really the other way around -- the illusory nature of being becomes apparent by starting to learn about khandhas. The idea khandhas being a being-in-disassembled-form is something you have mentioned before and I think is the basis for your idea that dhammas can be 'further reduced'. As I say, the idea that dhammas are the components of something bigger is not how dhammas are described in the texts. I hope you find these comments useful. Jon 29847 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 5:28am Subject: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Ken, Ken, to James you said that Dont get me wrong, I am just answering the question ask by Victor can we be enlighted without panna. I did not ask the question "Can we be enlightened without panna?". I asked the question: Can one still be enlightened without jhana? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/29832 And to that question you answered: YES: by dry insight http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/29835 Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi James [snip] > > k: Dont get me wrong, I am just answering the question ask by Victor > can we be enlighted without panna. Hmm Buddha achieve enlightement > by panna and not by jhanas. Jhana is only an instrument not the > pivotal element. Without panna there will be no jhanas for > enlightment but there can be jhana (arupa and rupa jhanas) without > panna. > > > Ken O 29848 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 5:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Victor k: Oops sorry. Thousand apologies the word "panna" should be replaced by jhana. Ken O 29849 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 5:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Smile-producing consciousness of Arahants (was:Yet more discussion (and food Hi Sarah > Also, the Buddha's omniscience doesn't mean 'all the time', but > just when he applies his mind to knowing anything, so-to-speak, so I'm not sure that is necessarily the reason for the difference, but it could be. Way beyond me. Yes you are right, Buddha is only Omniscience when he "advert" his mind to wisdom. (was said in King Mahinda Questions - forgot the spelling). Ken O 29850 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 5:53am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi James (and Jeff), James: Thank you, Victor!! I am glad that I am not the only one to see this. I felt like I was being forced to argue points I didn't make so I just decided to give up. Victor: Not a problem, James! It is hard to have a reasonable discussion with someone when he or she attributes what you did not say to you. James: As I wrote in post 27960, "Now, developing Jhana isn't everything; take Jeff for example. He doesn't have Right View and Right Understanding so he has taken Jhana to only the second level and believes that ecstasy is the whole goal." Victor: I would not judge Jeff as such. I find insightful points to reflect on from his messages. James: Obviously I have not stated that Jhana without Panna is what the Buddha taught. I am glad that you have pointed this out. Thanks again. Victor: Quite welcome! I look forward to reading your messages in the DSG. > Metta, James Metta, Victor 29851 From: icarofranca Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 7:26am Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta Dear Sarah: "...hope the new cables don't get robbed too;-(" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- No problem! The only hindrance I get at my PC now is the Linux!!! That Bird just decided to misfunction without appeal... Damn! Damn! Damn! Throw that Penguin outboard and back to the WIN98 again! --------------------------------------------------------------------- > .... > S: Very poetically put, Icaro;-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "There comes a day That Will be True Poetry Everything I should say" (Paulo Leminsky, Brazillian Poet) --------------------------------------------------------------------- " Not quite so poetic, but I think we get the point;-)No self to do anything > anyway." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Clubbers make me Sich...but since you get rid of your illusory ego for a moment, a new pattern of thought arises out without fault. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > S: I'm familiar with Chomsky on linguistics, but fail to see the > connection with anatta above;-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh yes! Chomsky, Roland Barthes and others always pointed out the rule of language in every aspect of your lives, even at the true realm of our estimated ego. From this issue to the conscience of anatta there are - at least that's my opinion! - a few single steps! --------------------------------------------------------------------- > .... > S: That's good. Hope you can also jump to ch X1V, 61 as Larry is rounding > up participants for the next session and your practical insights will help > bring it alive, I'm sure;-) More subtle rupas... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ah... I just looked at Larry's photo at the Photos Section. Gosh!!! I am brazillian and, even with white complexion the Sun makes up its work... but Larry is a piece of white marble!!!! "Branquelo" is the portuguese slang for him!!! --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> .... > S: Hope the Brazilian robbers leave the cables alone then too.... --------------------------------------------------------------------- They sometimes put their gruby hands on Subway cables too...shocking! But now it's all O.K.... Vism XIV, here I go!!!!!! ----------------------------------------------------------------- " p.s Nina will be glad to see your active participation when she returns. > You keep us all smiling, even if it's with attachment;-)" ------------------------------------------------------------------ :-))))))))))) Mettaya, Ícaro 29852 From: Harry Mueller Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 7:36am Subject: [dsg] Re: A few questions > Hi Harry, > > I'm glad to see you've settled in so well and you're asking good > questions. I think you're the first active member from Mexico;-) > > If you'd like to share anything more about your background, we'd be glad > to hear and a pic in the DSG photo album is always appreciated (but not > compulsory!). Hello Sarah, thank you for your thoughtful input to my questions. I'm going to take a bit of time to examine the information that you put forward but in the meantime I'll provide a little info on myself. My moniker of mexico_harry came about because of a SPAM filled mailbox, the need for a new one and an unplanned trip to Mexico last winter. I should probably get a new one but this is only a secondary email address. I actually live in Manitoba, Canada, am retired, have attended a number of Vipassana meditation retreats as taught by S.N.Goenka and am currently trying to abide by the 5 precepts while engaging in 2 hours of meditation daily. I'm not always successful :) I don't have many pictures of myself, or rather this ongoing process that I erroneously call 'myself' :), but I'll see if I can find a recent image to put up on the photo site. Metta, Harry 29853 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 8:11am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Victor, James: As I wrote in post 27960, "Now, developing Jhana isn't everything; take Jeff for example. He doesn't have Right View and Right Understanding so he has taken Jhana to only the second level and believes that ecstasy is the whole goal." Victor: I would not judge Jeff as such. I find insightful points to reflect on from his messages. James: Well, I don't mean it in a bad way; I am just stating it as I see it. I feel that I can because Jeff purposefully puts himself and his experiences out there on the Internet for others to comment on and learn from. I find useful points to his messages also and he has been pivotal in my decision to stop vipassana meditation and strive for jhana instead. However, he does write in his web site "Ecstatic Buddhism" this description as to how he has achieved the four jhanas: Jeff: "When a yogi's calmness is established then that person should become aware of sensations that are not of the typical variety. They are often subtle. These sensations are called (jhana-nimitta), and they are the signs of the approach of jhana. If calm abiding has arisen and jhana-nimitta (weird sensations) have arrived, then we can say the yogi is now in the first jhana. When the jhana-nimitta arise then the yogi must suspend the concentration technique and shift the awareness to the jhana-nimitta (weird sensations). If one can observe these "weird sensations" long enough while maintaining calm abiding one will slip into the second jhana. Once one is established in observing jhana-nimitta and is able to sustain it for a reasonable period (1 hour) then the yogi will no doubt drift into a deeper phase that is accompanied by "stronger" jhana nimitta, this is the third jhana. If the yogi can sustain the calm abiding for more than an hour, then one is likely to drift into an even deeper more lucid stage of jhana-nimitta. How one is aware of this deeper stage of jhana-nimitta is there will be no pain in the legs or back from sitting. The mind will be very still and the jhana-nimitta will be almost to the level of effacing the material reality. If the yogi feels he or she could sit there indefinitely, as if for hours or days even, then one knows the fourth jhana has arisen." James: According to what the Buddha taught about the jhanas and auxiliary information I have been reading from the Vism., this is not the true description for the four jhanas. This is a description of a deeper and deeper emersion going up to the second jhana only. The third jhana is characterized by a disappearance of rapture (jhana- nimmitta) to be replaced by happiness and also the factors of equanimity, mindfulness and discernment. And the fourth jhana has neither pain nor pleasure and a purity of mindfulness due to one- pointed concentration. If Jeff will cease to concentrate on the rapturous feelings of the second jhana (jhana-nimitta) and begin to purify mindfulness, equanimity, and concentration of the meditation object, he will no doubt reach the fourth jhana and we may just have a genuine arahant in our midst! And I have to hand it to Jeff for going this far. Jhana meditation isn't easy (as I am now discovering…sitting for an hour and a half in each sitting! Jeepers! ;-)) but he has been very dedicated to the practice. And he has at least reached the second jhana whereas I have yet to reach the first (but give me some time ;-). Metta, James 29854 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 8:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 ) Dear Sarah, I replied this post. But it lost due to the net. I will try it later. Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear Htoo, > > Thank you for all the sharing of your series. > > As KenH wrote before, when you write about Abhidhamma details, such as in > your series on cetasikas or rupas or on sanna or especially on paramatha > vs pannatti, it's very helpful. > > However, as I see it, these series on satipatthana all seem to suggest an > idea of self, an idea of control, an idea of high levels of insight > achieved after such control and watching, without any firm foundation of > understanding by those who may follow your instructions. > > For example in this subject heading and in the following: > > --- Htoo Naing wrote: > > The Dhamma practitioner, meditator has been practising Mahasatipatthana > > ( Vipassana ) for a long time and he acquires a good concentration. Now > > he is able to see all mental phenomena whenever they arise. Now he is > > contemplating on mind and mind phenomena. > .... > What is this `Dhamma practioner' or `meditator' in actuality? Is > concentration really the key to `seeing all phenomena whenever they > arise'. Can even a sotapanna's wisdom see `all phenomena whenever they > arise', let alone at beginning stages of vipassana nana or before that? If > there is such a wish and intention, it seems to me it would be a very big > impediment to the development of detachment and insight. > > You have another series called `Sensing feeling where it arises and where > it vanishes'. Again, in what you write there is the suggestion of > watching, selecting special objects, controlling the mind and generally > `doing' satipatthana. I'd like to suggest that these interpretations all > suggest an idea of self which is not supported by the texts or > commentaries and that following such a method with this view will not lead > to even the first stage of clearly understanding and differentiating nama > and rupa, conditioned dhammas which are anatta, let alone higher insights > and any understanding of impermanence. > > You suggest in another post: > H: `To know all mind movement and to follow wherever the mind go and > whenever it moves. When it moves,the original place was void of it and so > on. This is impermanence. To see this is to watch the mind.' > > I'd be glad to see any textual reference which supports this idea of > following and watching the mind movement as indicative of any > understanding of impermanence. As KenH said before, the teachings are very > deep and profound. It doesn't take any particular knowledge of them to > `watch and follow' with an idea of self that can control them. > > There are many others here who will fully agree and appreciate these > series of yours but be less enthusiastic about the Abhidhamma posts which > I like. This is the nature of a discussion group. No one agrees;-) > > I appreciate your kind sharing and look forward to any further comments. I > also apologise if these comments sound disrespectful in any way. That > certainly isn't intended. As you know, I greatly appreciate your sharing > and confidence in Abhidhamma and your good intentions with these other > threads as well. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= 29855 From: icarofranca Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 9:13am Subject: A Long Long Way ... I am departing now for Brazil's Northeast at Bureau's service. There will be a long travel by plane... But looking at the DSG Meeting Photos I get the sincere wish to be at the Next Meeting with you all! On my next Vacancies...who knows? Bangkok, here I go! Mettaya, ( and with a prayer) Ícaro 29856 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 9:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 ) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear Htoo, Sarah: As KenH wrote before, when you write about Abhidhamma details, such as in your series on cetasikas or rupas or on sanna or especially on paramatha vs pannatti, it's very helpful. However, as I see it, these series on satipatthana all seem to suggest an idea of self, an idea of control, an idea of high levels of insight achieved after such control and watching, without any firm foundation of understanding by those who may follow your instructions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I am not teaching. I am not instructing. I am just discussing even though my posts are numbered. I had to number to collect and group my thoughts. I do not have to teach anyone as there is Tipitaka. CDs are availe and there also are online material. What I intend is to discuss. As all Dhamma are Anatta, there is no control. When Paramattha and Pannatta cannot be separated, problems arise. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For example in this subject heading and in the following: > > --- Htoo Naing wrote: > > The Dhamma practitioner, meditator has been practising Mahasatipatthana > > ( Vipassana ) for a long time and he acquires a good concentration. Now > > he is able to see all mental phenomena whenever they arise. Now he is > > contemplating on mind and mind phenomena. > .... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: What is this `Dhamma practioner' or `meditator' in actuality? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dhamma practitioners, Dhammafarers, Dhamma learners, Meditators, Samsara travellers. I use 'the' as a group who are practising. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: Is concentration really the key to `seeing all phenomena whenever they arise'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Can you see clearly when the water is cloudy? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: Can even a sotapanna's wisdom see `all phenomena whenever they arise', let alone at beginning stages of vipassana nana or before that? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I do not think. I just hint how to concentrate. If concentration becomes steady that is if the mind is well concentrated, most events will be known and concentrated mind will also be recognized at that time when nearly most events are recognized. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: If there is such a wish and intention, it seems to me it would be a very big impediment to the development of detachment and insight. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Exactly. A good concentration is one of impediment to development of Panna. But the map has not been checked. It is at an early preparatory phase. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: You have another series called `Sensing feeling where it arises and where it vanishes'. Again, in what you write there is the suggestion of watching, selecting special objects, controlling the mind and generally `doing' satipatthana. I'd like to suggest that these interpretations all suggest an idea of self which is not supported by the texts or commentaries and that following such a method with this view will not lead to even the first stage of clearly understanding and differentiating nama and rupa, conditioned dhammas which are anatta, let alone higher insights and any understanding of impermanence. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Watching, looking, chasing, contemplating, considering, noting, noticing, cognizing, recognizing, taking, marking, observing, surveying, etc etc are just words. When Paramattha have been seen, no one will find self. I never suggest Atta. Vipassana. Vi - distinguishing, differentiating, particularly, especially, differently. Passa - to look, note, watch. It is just representation of Mahasatipatthana. The word ' watching ' is just stimulation. Sati is a Nama Dhamma. It arises only when there conditions to arise. No one can control Sati. Yes. But how will you do with Mahasatipatthana, if not events are not being noted, watched? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: You suggest in another post: H: `To know all mind movement and to follow wherever the mind go and whenever it moves. When it moves,the original place was void of it and so on. This is impermanence. To see this is to watch the mind.' I'd be glad to see any textual reference which supports this idea of following and watching the mind movement as indicative of any understanding of impermanence. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: These are my expression based on experience. Textual reference is there but wording would talk. I am discussing. I am not regurgitating. I am not doing copying and pasteing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: As KenH said before, the teachings are very deep and profound. It doesn't take any particular knowledge of them to `watch and follow' with an idea of self that can control them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I have said above. The meaning is in Mahasatipatthana. Yes. All are Anatta. No control. There is no 'me', no 'I', no 'you', no 'Sarah'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: There are many others here who will fully agree and appreciate these series of yours but be less enthusiastic about the Abhidhamma posts which I like. This is the nature of a discussion group. No one agrees;-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: The act of healing can be taught by memorizing features of diseases, their differentiating points, methods of treating and so on. Those who are taught in this way can treat patients. The study of diseases in detail including microscopic view, dissection of dead bodies who died with diseases, biopsies etc will make the healers, treating doctors much much more efficient in treating patients. Suttas are like the first method of teaching. Abhidhamma is like dissection and looking under microscope. All should be studied. Suttas are intended for particular person, group or groups of people etc. Anything in Suttas are in a way or other can be seen in Abhidhamma. For me, I like both. Dhamma is Dhamma. Even though some facts are agreed by a group of people, they may or may not be right. But right things are always right. So, I said, ' Dhamma is Dhamma.' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: I appreciate your kind sharing and look forward to any further comments. I also apologise if these comments sound disrespectful in any way. That certainly isn't intended. As you know, I greatly appreciate your sharing and confidence in Abhidhamma and your good intentions with these other threads as well. Metta, Sarah ======= Htoo: You always support me. When other did not touch my message, you replied kindly to me. I think once Sukin invited me to your group. You are a good moderator. You well manage the messages. You well argue. You well support with evidence from Tipitaka. I do remember Dhammaarammana, Dhammaayatana and your discussion. Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind. The problem is inability to see. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 29857 From: dwlemen Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 10:48am Subject: Re: Companionship Christine, Thanks for taking the time to write. I do appreciate it. And I'm very grateful for the links. The Cincinatti place is too far, but the Ft. Wayne, while a good 2.5 hours away, is maybe 30 minutes from my inlaws whom I often get the "pleasure" of visiting! That might be do-able... It is difficult in such a Christian community as I"m a part of. Correspondence online is OK, and groups like DSG have been very helpful. Maybe there's a lesson in attachment here, but I do miss that social / community feeling. Living in the small town we do, there is a lot of social pressure to be a conservative, republican Christian. I told my mother once that I was looking into Buddhism and she cried for days (and sent me a dozen books on Christianity!). I am hopefull that the Ft. Wayne temple will pan out for some contacts. I do have some links, but I would always welcome more. Especially intro stuff. Someone sent me a CD that had some talks from Bhikkhu Bodhi, I believe. That's the name on the disk, so I assume he's the same. I've also downloaded some things from Ajahn Brahmavamso (sp?) too. Anyway, sorry to bug with my whining! Thanks again for the reply and the links. Peace, Dave 29858 From: Michael Beisert Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 1:35pm Subject: The Dhamma Theory Hello Sarah, Jon, and all others interested in this topic, I am writing in relation to the essay “The Dhamma Theory” written by Prof. Y Karunadasa (link below). The essay presents a valuable and comprehensive view of the development of the dhamma theory. Based on that essay my take on sabhava and paramatha is as follows: Sabhava The origin of sabhava, or “own nature”, can be traced to the theory of moments advocated by the Sarvastivadins who, according to Prof. Karunadasa “introduced a metaphysical dimension to the doctrine of dhammas and thus paved the way for the erosion of its empirical foundation.” I don’t think anyone would dispute that the teachings of the Buddha have an empirical orientation and there is plenty of evidence in the Canon that the Buddha refused to answer any metaphysical speculations. Therefore the introduction of metaphysical speculations is a disservice to the Dhamma. Karunadasa says that the Theravadins rejected the metaphysical speculations of the Sarvastivadins but also that “it was not without influence on the Theravada version of the dhamma theory” and that this influence “can be seen in the post-canonical exegetical literature of Sri Lanka,” i.e. the Buddhaghosa commentaries. It has also been argued that the term sabhava is used to characterize the own nature of the dhammas or its own unique characteristic. But this poses a problem because it is akin to a metaphysical theory of identity and difference, where sabhava is the unique characteristic not shared with anything else and the universal characteristics (ti-lakkhana) being identified with the common or the shared. This is an essencialist metaphysical stand point which relegates to the background the understanding of the dhammas in terms of their dependence. But probably the most important aspect highlighted by Karunadasa is that the definition of dhammas as sabhava goes against the Patisambhidamagga, which is a Canonical text attributed to Sariputta, that specifically states that khandhas, and by extension dhammas, are devoid of own-nature (sabhavena-suññat). And finally Karunadasa also says, “Does not the very use of the term sabhava, despite all the qualifications under which it is used, give the impression that a given dhamma exists in its own right? And does this not amount to the admission that a dhamma is some kind of substance?” Paramatha The historical origin of paramatha goes back to the Puggalavadins who argued that a person exists as real and ultimate. Karunadasa states that “in the Abhidhammic exegesis this term paramatha is defined to mean that which has reached its highest, implying thereby that the dhammas are ultimate existents with no possibility of further reduction. Hence sabhava came to be further defined as ultimate nature.” There is a recurrent argument in the list that although paramatha as such is not mentioned in the Canon, its meaning is there implicit. Karunadasa clarifies this point, when he talks about paññatti: “This theory of paññatti, presented as ancillary to the doctrine of dhammas, is not a complete innovation on the part of the Abhidhamma. Such a theory is clearly implied in the early Buddhist analysis of empirical existence into the aggregates, sense bases, and elements, and the only really new feature in the paññatti theory is its systematic formulation. Accordingly the term "person" becomes a common designation (sammuti) given to a congeries of dependently originated psycho-physical factors: "Just as there arises the name ‘chariot' when there is a set of appropriate constituents, even so there comes to be this convention ‘living being' when the five aggregates are present." There is, however, this important difference to be noted: the early Buddhist idea of sammuti is not based on a formulated doctrine of real existents. Although what is analysed is called sammuti, that into which it is analysed is not called paramattha. Such a development is found only in the Abhidhamma, as we have already seen.” So, samutti is not the same as paramatha and the Canon does not contemplate real existents. And by Abhidhamma, Karunadasa must be referring to Abhidhamma commentaries since the Canonical Abhidhamma has a non-discursive style. Another way of understanding the philosophy of the Abhidhamma, in addition to the Abhidhamma commentaries, is by reference to the Kathavatthu since it has an authoritative status of a canonical text, and represents a closer companion to other canonical texts than the commentaries. In relation to the Kathavatthu, Prof. Kalupahana states that: “The Kathavatthu's contribution to the study of the Abhidhamma lies precisely in its elimination of absolutist and essentialist or reductionist perspectives. No one reading the excessively long debate in the Kathavatthu on the conception of a person can assert that the Abhidhamma deals with ultimate realities (paramattha). Abandoning the search for such ultimate realities, it becomes possible to explain the contents of the Abhidhamma in terms of the two principal teachings of the Buddha, namely, non-substantiality (anatta) and dependent arising (paticcasamuppada).” Conclusion Having said that, I am even more convinced that the use of paramatha and svabhava has no place in explaining the teachings of the Buddha. I say more convinced because Karunadasa’s essay only has served to confirm the views I had based on the writings of Nagarjuna in the Mulamadhyamakakarika. But any reference now to Nagarjuna’s writings would probably only confuse the issue for many people, so better to leave it aside. Since the concept of paramatha and svabhava underlie the main line of thinking prevalent in this list I will probably be more selective in my involvement in discussions in the future in order to avoid unnecessary stress and weariness for myself and for my dhamma fellows. Pls. don’t feel offended if I don’t answer replies to this message. Metta to all, Michael "The Dhamma Theory" - Prof. Y. Karunadasa: http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm 29859 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 1:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Jon: Larry ... > Okay, I'm agreeable. I think Victor's question was something like > "did > the Buddha ever say in the Suttas that concept is an object of > desire?" What would be your answer? I'm sorry, but I don't recall Victor's exact question. However, clearly there can be 'thinking' accompanied by attachment. For example, the anticipation of a pleasant meal. Is this the kind of thing that is being discussed? > Since I can't really find either concept or desire in my experience > I'm > tempted to say it's entirely academic. However, since I can't find > academia either, I guess I won't. ;-)). Jon 29860 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 2:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SN I,4,19(9) "The Farmer" -- Listening, attending to, etc Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon, > > I was just looking through CMA and I now realize wholesome > consciousness > is a lot more complicated than I had thought. However, I would say > "applying one's (whole) mind to the dhamma" is itself a prompt > meant to inspire self-prompted volitional action, in other words, > discipline. On the other hand, I agree insight "just happens". I see it a purely descriptive of what was happening, namely, actively listening to the dhamma as being taught by Buddha. No need for any further prompting at that moment! > I don't see any difference between journeying half way around the > world > to listen to the dhamma and journeying to one's meditation cushion > to > closely look at mind and body. One may or may not learn something > from either action, but both actions are wholesome and will have a > cumulative salutary effect. I'd be interested to know why you'd see these actions as being necessarily wholesome. Surely either could be with 'mixed' motives or even with mostly wrong view. Jon I can't now find your post with the CMA quote on prompted/unprompted.. Can you point me to it? Thanks. 29861 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 3:20pm Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: James: According to what the Buddha taught about the jhanas and auxiliary information I have been reading from the Vism., this is not the true description for the four jhanas. This is a description of a deeper and deeper emersion going up to the second jhana only. The third jhana is characterized by a disappearance of rapture (jhana- nimmitta) to be replaced by happiness and also the factors of equanimity, mindfulness and discernment. And the fourth jhana has neither pain nor pleasure and a purity of mindfulness due to one- pointed concentration. If Jeff will cease to concentrate on the rapturous feelings of the second jhana (jhana-nimitta) and begin to purify mindfulness, equanimity, and concentration of the meditation object, he will no doubt reach the fourth jhana and we may just have a genuine arahant in our midst! KKT: Ah! Sorry, James. Reaching the fourth jhana does not mean being an Arahant! KKT 29862 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 3:34pm Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi KKT, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" If Jeff will cease to concentrate on the > rapturous feelings of the second jhana (jhana-nimitta) and begin to > purify mindfulness, equanimity, and concentration of the meditation > object, he will no doubt reach the fourth jhana and we may just have > a genuine arahant in our midst! > > > > > KKT: Ah! Sorry, James. > > Reaching the fourth jhana > does not mean being an Arahant! > > > KKT Hmm…I'm surprised at this post from you. You usually give me more credit than most. Please re-read what I wrote. You're missing the very important word `may'. What I meant is that if Jeff was going to do it, go the distance, get the whole enchilada! ;-), he would have to do it from the fourth jhana—as the Buddha taught. Of course, nothing is guaranteed. Metta, James 29863 From: Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 3:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Hi Jon, Here is Victor's original question, to which I gave the reply you didn't like, i.e., "dhammaayatana". How would you answer it? Could you provide a quote from a sutta to back-up your answer? Larry ------------------- Victor: "Hi Larry, I suppose by desire you mean desire as defilement; lobha, kamacchanda, raga. In Samyutta Nikaya XXVII, Upakkilesa Samyutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn27.html we see that there are various collections/classifications of objects for desire & passion. Does concept belong to any of those collections/classifications of objects for desire & passion? Peace, Victor 29864 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 3:45pm Subject: Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi Michael, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > Hello Sarah, Jon, and all others interested in this topic, This is a very good post/article! I enjoyed and agree with your analysis. I was going to add some comments of my own about how the incorrect theories of Sabhava, Paramattha, and Pannatti as presented in the Abhidhamma have also lead to an incorrect viewpoint of Anatta but, like you, I am just tired. I think I need a vacation from this group myself. In the meantime, you can read this sutta and probably determine for yourself what I was going to say: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn09.html Metta, James 29865 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 4:15pm Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" Hi KKT, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" If Jeff will cease to concentrate on the > rapturous feelings of the second jhana (jhana-nimitta) and begin to > purify mindfulness, equanimity, and concentration of the meditation > object, he will no doubt reach the fourth jhana and we may just have > a genuine arahant in our midst! > > > > > KKT: Ah! Sorry, James. > > Reaching the fourth jhana > does not mean being an Arahant! > > > KKT Hmm…I'm surprised at this post from you. You usually give me more credit than most. Please re-read what I wrote. You're missing the very important word `may'. What I meant is that if Jeff was going to do it, go the distance, get the whole enchilada! ;-), he would have to do it from the fourth jhana—as the Buddha taught. Of course, nothing is guaranteed. Metta, James KKT: Agreed, James. I read too quickly :-)) Anyway, an Arahant may achieve the fourth jhana (and much more) but the inverse is not true. Metta, KKT 29866 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 4:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Dhamma Theory Hi Michael Honestly speaking, I could not be bother what is written by Prof Y Karunadasa bc I dont read materials when authors try to put their own opinion. I have in many times urge you to read the Abhidhamma text or commentaries as it is written and not those written by us or written by others. If you dont read the text yourself, u r basically judging by others judgements ;-). It is like the blind leading the blind. think about it Ken O 29867 From: Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 1:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Dhamma Theory Hi Michael (and James), I'm not scholarly enough to claim that the ideas presented in Michaels post are correct based on scholarship, but they do accord with my understanding of the what the Suttas are presenting...and also with my objections with describing things as 'ultimate realities' or as having 'own characteristics.' Michael, thank you very much for going to the trouble of posting this. In the two or so years of reading these posts, this is the only one I've ever saved. TG 29868 From: Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 1:21pm Subject: Re: Cultivating Absorption Leads to Cessation Hello Ken O, it is once again a pleasure to recieve your reply. In a message dated 2/9/04 3:27:17 AM, dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com writes: << Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 04:47:42 +0000 (GMT) From: Kenneth Ong Subject: Re: Re: Cultivating Absorption Leads to Cessation Hi Jeff > %%%%%% Jeff: > That is why Abhidhamma is bad "spiritual" fiction. just read the > Nikayas and don't bother with Apocrypha. > %%%%%% k: Do you think it is possible for pple who are enlighted to write things that are false. Think about it before attribute Abhidhamma as a bad spiritual fiction. %%%%%% Jeff: Who is the author of the Abhidhamma, and how do we know he or she was enlightened? Please do not say it was the Buddha, because I believe that claim is rather flimsy. Please also do not say it was Sariputa who spoke it to the angels (devas), that rather fantastic claim is in part why I suspect its origin and thus its validity. %%%%%% > %%%%%% Jeff: > I never said one would avoid any of the factors of enlightenment, > or all 8 folds of the Noble Path, however it seems too often people think they can avoid 8th the fold and get to nibbana. In the Maha-satipatthana sutta, DN 22, the historic Buddha defined sama-samadhi in terms of jhana, therefore we should assume samadhi does not mean 'concentration' as it is too often translated, but absorption (jhana). >> k: Even if it translated as jhana - your definition of jhanas is still if I have not wrong - ecstasy or absorption. That is only the feeling portion. You cannot on one hand keep advocation jhanas (which is only one factor of enlightement) and when question about the other six factors, you mention superficially, you did not mention their roles and how they congruent with your view points. I like to hear in your own words how does your definition of jhanas work with mindfulness and how does your definitin of jhanas work with the other six factors>> %%%%%% Jeff: Jhana gives rise to the Seven factors of Enlightenment Many apologies for not giving you precisely what you wanted, and thank-you ever so much for your persistence. I directed my awareness to your question while leading this afternoon's meditation sit. For me to answer your question I believe will require a challenge of the translations just a little bit, otherwise I do not believe your question can be adequately answered. However if you would allow me to challenge those translations, then I will proceed. I am sure you are familiar with the Five Jhana Factors (see below). I of course have had to change a few things there as well to reflect my experience. I assume you have already read my early posts here since October, so you will be somewhat familiar with my thesis already. I have already posted extensively on Vitakka and Vicára, in which I challenged the accepted translation of "applied & sustained thought" to "applied & sustained concentration." The reason for this is somewhat obvious, Vitakka and Vicára are meant as means of access to absorption (jhana). How can anyone believe applied & sustained thought will give rise to absorption? We already are burdened by the "monkey mind" which is incessant thought, and it never gave rise to absorption before, so why should it now, just because some translator didn't get the translation right? I believe it is also reasonably well established that concentration leads to absorption (jhana), considering concentration techniques are commonly used in Buddhism and other contemplative traditions. I hope I do not have to argue this point any further. However if you are not satisfied I am sure I have posted here at least 2 earlier messages on this subject. Now piiti has to be changed from 'rapture' to 'ecstasy' or 'bliss' because 'rapture' is "the state of being transported by a lofty emotion; ecstasy." (please check your dictionary). Since 'rapture' has the quality of the subject being transported, then I take this term to be the contemplative Christian term for an out-of-body (OOB) experience. Also please note 'rapture' is still an aspect of 'ecstasy' (again check your dictionary). Therefore I do not think I am challenging the translation that much by translating 'piiti' as 'ecstasy'. The jhana factors 'Sukha' (joy); Ekaggatha (one-pointedness); Passaddhi (tranquillity); and finally Upekkha (equanimity) I am not challenging. The Five Jhana Factors: Jhana is described as below: The first jhana (effusive elation) contains 5 jhana factors: Vitakka (applied or initiating concentration) Vicára (sustained concentration) Piiti (ecstasy) Sukha (joy) Ekaggatha (one-pointedness) Second jhana (joy, no concentration needed): piiti (ecstasy) Sukha (joy) Ekaggatha (one-pointedness) Third jhana (contentment, tranquillity): Sukha (joy) Ekaggatha (one-pointedness) Passaddhi (tranquillity) Fourth jhana (Equanimity): Ekaggatha (one-pointedness) Upekkha (equanimity) So, you asked about the 7 factors of enlightenment (see below), and how jhana is important in giving rise to them. It just so happens that jhana is instrumental in giving rise to at least 4 of the 7 factors of enlightenment {ecstasy (piiti), tranquillity (passaddhi), equanimity (upekkha)}, and finally don't forget that jhana is the definition of sama-samadhi, the 4th of seven factors of enlightenment that jhana contributes. Since there seems to be no evidence in the Pali canon for giving rise to the 7 factors of enlightenment without jhana, then it seems reasonable to say that absorption (jhana) is essential in giving rise to at least four of seven necessary conditions for enlightenment. And, it could be argued that the other three remaining factors of enlightenment are a consequence of jhana as well. the 4 Jhana Factors that contribute to the Seven factors of Enlightenment 3) Tranquillity passaddhi 5) Equanimity upekkha 6) Ecstasy or bliss (Rapture) piiti 7) Absorption samadhi The Seven factors of Enlightenment (bojjhanga, sambojjhanaga DN 22.16, n.689, 33.2.3(2): 1) Wisdom panna 2) Energy (kundalini) viriya 3) Tranquillity passaddhi 4) Awareness (mindfulness) sati 5) Equanimity upekkha 6) Ecstasy or bliss (Rapture) piiti 7) Absorption samadhi In conclusion it seems translators have been working on understanding the Pali language for about a century. Certain definitions have become canonized due to there duration in usage, however who was it that decided certain Pali terms must be translated in certain ways? In every language words, often have a range of meaning based on their usage and context. Translating from one language to the next is very difficult because there are very few words that have a one for one translation throughout the range of their meaning. Therefore I believe it is reasonable to challenge those definitions. May you become enlightened in this very lifetime. Jeff Brooks 29869 From: Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 2:38pm Subject: The Mind in Early Buddhism Hi, all - Binh Anson, who no longer subscribes to any internet discussion groups, asked me to pass on the following information. If you wish, you may feel free to pass it on to other internet sites that you deem appropriate. What Binh wrote is the following: ____________________________ I have uploaded a book by Ven. Thich Minh Thanh: "The Mind in early Buddhism", based on the Pali's Abhidhamma. Originally this book was a Ph.D's Thesis written by him at Delhi University, India. He has kindly given me the permission to share it on the Internet. The URL is: => http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/mind/00_toc.htm ----------------------------------------------------- Those of you who belong to more than one of the lists to which I have mailed this have my apology for multiple copies. With metta, Howard 29870 From: Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 1:21pm Subject: Concentration leads to Absorption, which leads to Enlightenment Concentration leads to Absorption, which leads to Enlightenment It has been widely accepted that a dedicated contemplative practice can bring one to enlightenment. However there are many contemplative traditions, and they teach many concentration techniques. How does one choose which practice to conduct to produce the desired result, enlightenment? We may first examine what is meant by 'enlightenment.' Every religion seems to have a concept of enlightenment. And, some religions define enlightenment very specifically. Buddhism seems to have defined enlightenment in the narrowest and most articulated form in the Pali canon. There you will see that enlightenment is defined in terms of a subjective absorption, which is brought about primarily through the practice of meditation. The historic Buddha articulated his path to freedom from suffering, and enlightenment (nibbana), through a subjective purification process he called the Noble Eight Fold Path. This path is said to be a "middle path" that leads through three basic components wisdom (panna) ethics (sila) and absorption (samadhi). Noble Eight Fold Path: Samma-ditthi right view (understanding) samma-sankappa right thought, samma-vaca right speech samma-kammanta right action, samma-ajiva right livelihood, samma-vayam right effort, samma-sati right awareness (mindfulness) samma-samadhi right absorption. Wisdom, or discernment (panna), brings us to right view. Right view or understanding is understood as following reasoning, study and reflection to its logical conclusion that enlightenment is in deed possible in this very lifetime, and that there is in deed a path of effort, or a practice regimen, that one can engage in that will bring one to enlightenment. Ethics (sila) are revealed and illuminated in Right Thought, Speech and Action. Sila is the avoiding of harmful thoughts, words and action and the cultivation of beneficial thoughts, words and action. Beneficial thoughts are cultivated by meditating upon 4 desirable abstract qualities. These desirable qualities, or states of mind, are called the Four Divine Abodes (Brahma Viharas or Bodhichitta). The Four Boundless States or Divine Abodes (Brahma Viharas or Bodhichitta): 1) Metta Loving Kindness 2) Karuna Compassion 3) Mudita Sympathetic Joy 4) Upekkha Equanimity Right livelihood is any subsistence strategy that sustains one without interfering with one's journey to enlightenment (nibbana) and it must be ethical. There are a wide range of ethical subsistence strategies available in our culture. Some of these strategies or careers are healing work, counseling, meditation and yoga instruction, etc. But, there are actually many, many such subsistence strategies. One need only keep in mind that one's subsistence strategy must not only pay the bills, but also leave sufficient time to engage in all of the aspects of the Noble Eight Fold Path: which includes time to study through various books and materials; time to reflect upon what you have studied; then sufficient time to engage in the actual practice. Since Buddhism is a contemplative tradition, then engaging in the practice, constitutes meditation practice. And, finally all of this must fall under ethical conduct and the cultivation of the four positive states of mind (Brahma Viharas). Right awareness is articulated in the three suttas (chapters) on awareness (Sati) in the Pali canon. Right awareness (samma-sati) is cultivated through the practice of concentration. Awareness (Sati) practice is defined in the Sati suttas as awareness of the breath, body, senses and mind. These are known as the four cornerstones of awareness (Sati). DN 22.21 "And what is right awareness (samma-sati)? There is the case where an aspirant remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & aware -- putting aside greed & unhappiness (dukkha) with reference to the world. one remains focused on feelings in & of themselves ... one remains focused on the mind in & of itself ... one remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves -- ardent, alert, & aware -- putting aside greed & unhappiness (dukkha) with reference to the world. This is called right awareness (samma-sati)." Mindfulness is the common translation of the Pali term 'Sati.' However, I prefer to use the word 'awareness' for a translation of the Pali term 'Sati,' because that is what we are doing when we are practicing Satipatthana, developing awareness. The word 'mindfulness' refers to the mind, which is a rather vague term in the English language that can also mean the processes of cognition. It is some of these processes of cognition, (perception, thinking, reasoning and memory) that we are attempting to bring to cessation, while maintaining only the awareness component of cognition for enlightenment (nibbana) to arise. Awareness (Sati) is separated out from the aggregate of cognition and developed through the practice of concentration. The cultivation of awareness is revealed in the three Sati suttas. The Sati suttas are a series of concentration exercises that lead to the development of awareness (Sati), which leads to absorption (jhana), which leads to cessation (nibbana). The Noble Eight Fold Path requires Right Absorption (sama-samadhi), which is the cultivation of absorption states (jhanas) through the development of awar eness (Sati) by practicing the concentration techniques that are revealed in the three Sati suttas. Right Absorption (sama-samadhi) is defined in terms of absorption (jhana) in the Maha-satipatthana Sutta (DN 22.21). DN 22.21 "And what is right {absorption (sama-samadhi)}? There is the case where an aspirant -- quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: joy & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by applied and sustained {concentration (vitakka and vicára)}. With the stilling of applied and sustained {concentration (vitakka and vicára)}, one enters & remains in the second jhana: joy & pleasure born of tranquillity, unification of awareness free from directed applied and sustained {concentration (vitakka and vicára)} -- internal assurance. With the fading of exuberance one remains in equanimity, (aware) & alert, physically sensitive of ecstasy. One enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & (aware), one has a pleasurable abiding.' With the abandoning of (grasping and aversion for) pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier disappearance of pleasure & pain -- one enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & awareness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called right absorption." If you are intent upon enlightenment (nibbana) in this very lifetime, then cultivating absorption (jhana) should be the most important thing on your mind. That however does not mean that you have to renounce all of your material possessions and relationships to arrive at a "pleasant abiding in the here and now" (jhana). All you need do is follow the Noble Eight Fold Path, which requires that one develop right awareness (samma-sati) which leads to right absorption (samma-samadhi), which leads to cessation (nibbana). Meditation is too often interpreted in a concept of doing something, as in mantras, yantras, and tantras. It might be worth realizing that there is nothing magical or sacred about one's technique. All of the various methods and techniques of meditation are simply concentration aids to occupy the mind with the intention of enlightenment, and to redirect it whenever it wanders. This is in fact the central concept behind concentration, that is to occupy the mind in a single activity and to gently redirect it back to its meditation object whenever it wonders off the object. One pointedness is one of the terms used to define concentration. Because of this I find too often concentration is defined in terms of a narrow focus. However, since concentration is simply directing one's awareness toward an object, and redirecting it back to the object over and over again, until the mind or awareness sticks on the object, then one could also include reflection upon abstract concepts as a meditation object as well. In Theravadan Buddhism they have developed a meditation practice, called vipassana, that is oriented toward abstract concepts. Those abstract concepts are typically reflections upon three topics that were central to the historic Buddha's teaching method. Those concepts were dissatisfaction (dukkha), impermanence (anicca) and no self identification (anatta). With the idea that one can direct and redirect the mind toward an abstract concept, then we could extend our definition of concentration to include a broadly focused awareness domain upon concepts. From here we could extend our thinking about concentration to include larger objects as well, like the Earth, the Moon and the Sun, etc. Therefore we can conclude concentration can be upon any object, large or small, abstract or concrete (nama or rupa). Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translations of the above suttas are available at these URLs: Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn118.html Satipatthana Sutta (MN 10) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn010.html Maha-satipatthana Sutta (DN. 22) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn22.html The alternate translations that I used are available at this URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas/files/ May you become enlightened in this very lifetime. Jeff Brooks 29871 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 10:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Eye Consciousness Hi James, I know you’ve had enough of me and texts, but please know your contributions and feedback are always appreciated here. I agree that response to me yesterday was mild and my comment was inappropriate;-) Perhaps one reason I rely heavily on the Abhidhamma and commentaries is because I can be so dense and slow to appreciate the meanings in suttas which may be apparent to others. Sometimes, indeed, you’ve pointed out important aspects in them which I’ve quite overlooked, so I’m always glad to read your introductions and comments. It’s rather like when I watch a movie and usually lose the plot which someone has to explain to me afterwards. We all need different ways of explanation as it stresses in the Kathavatthu (which I’ve quoted before) and which Karunadasa made reference to. I’m also sure that in our ignorance, we all tend to share what we find helpful even if it isn’t what the other is seeking. That was why I went to some trouble to track down your Vism reference and type all the extra detail. I realize it was more than you requested and now I’m probably about to do the same again;-) --- buddhatrue wrote: >(I don't really care to pursue > dreaming or the `phantom limb phenomenon' anymore; it seems that if a > subject isn't written somewhere in a Buddhist text you can't > comprehend it fully or don't wish to.) .... I could just say that my experience is different from yours and that when I dream it is a purely mental activity without any experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting of touching due to their not being any 'impact' on these senses. I don’t think it would take us far. We’d just have to agree to disagree. The purpose of the texts is to help us understand that often what we think we experience -- starting with the *I* or *we* in the first place -- is an illusion. Without the Buddha’s guidance (or that of his wise followers), we’d never know. After this long ramble, I was reminded of King Milinda yesterday, and the section on Dreams, Dilemma 75. Better still, it’s on-line, so you may like to read it: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/milinda.htm http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe36/sbe3606.htm I’ll just give a couple of short extracts here for those who are too busy to follow the links. (The asterisks inserted are mine and I’ve inserted some of the footnotes in square brackets): ***** QUOTE: [DILEMMA THE SEVENTY-FIFTH. DREAMS.] 33. 'Venerable Nâgasena, men and women in this world see dreams pleasant and evil, things they have seen before and things they have not, things they have done before and things they have not, [298] dreams peaceful and terrible, dreams of matters near to them and distant from them, full of many shapes and innumerable colours. What is this that men call a dream, and who is it who dreams it?' '*It is a suggestion* [nimittam], O king, *coming across the path of the mind which is what is called a dream*. And there are six kinds of people who see dreams--the man who is of a windy humour [vaatiko], or of a bilious one, or of a phlegmatic one, the man who dreams dreams by the influence of a god, the man who does so by the influence of his own habits, and the man who does so in the way of prognostication. And of these, O king, only the last kind of dreams is true; all the rest are false.' <...> 36. 'Venerable Nâgasena, when a man dreams a dream, is he awake or asleep?' 'Neither the one, O king; nor yet the other. But when his sleep has become light [okkante middhe; ‘like a monkey’s sleep], and he is not yet fully conscious [cf Abhidammattha Sangaha, 111,8], in that interval it is that dreams are dreamt. When a man is in *deep sleep*, O king, his mind has returned home (has entered again into the *Bhavanga*) , and a mind thus shut in does not act, and a mind hindered in its action *knows not the evil and the good, and he who knows not[appativigaanantassa] has no dreams*. *It is when the mind is active that dreams are dreamt*. just, O king, as in the darkness and gloom, where no light is, no shadow will fall even on the most burnished mirror, so when a man is in deep sleep his mind has returned into itself, and a mind shut in does not act, and a mind inactive knows not the evil and the good, and he who knows not does not dream. For it is when the mind is active that dreams are dreamt. ***** Of course I’d be glad to hear any comments. Metta, Sarah p.s I think your answers to Philip’s Qus are excellent. I’ll be seeing him on Friday. I appreciate your patience with the StarKids. ====== 29872 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 11:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 ) Dear Htoo, Your kind letter gave me and gentle example gave me real joy. I especially appreciated the trouble you went to in re-writing if after losing the first reply in cyberspace and your pleasant tone. I’ve interspersed some more comments for our discussion. .... --- htootintnaing wrote: > Htoo: > > I am not teaching. I am not instructing. I am just discussing even > though my posts are numbered. I had to number to collect and group my > thoughts. > > I do not have to teach anyone as there is Tipitaka. CDs are availe > and there also are online material. What I intend is to discuss. .... I appreciate this and also your modesty. I think the numbers are helpful, especially when there are replies like now. .... H: > As all Dhamma are Anatta, there is no control. > > When Paramattha and Pannatta cannot be separated, problems arise. .... S: Good, we agree and can discuss on this basis. > --------------------------------------------------------------> Htoo: > > Dhamma practitioners, Dhammafarers, Dhamma learners, Meditators, > Samsara travellers. I use 'the' as a group who are practising. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: So when you say ‘the Dhamma practitioner practises Mahasatipatthana’ or ‘he is able to see all mental phenomena’, in paramattha terms you are referring to sati sampaja~n~na? I’m checking because so often this is said or read with an idea of ‘someone’ practising......without any idea of the dhammas involved. Nina wrote before: “Vipassana, insight, develops according to its own conditions in different stages. There is no person to be found who meditates or tries to concentrate on specific namas and rupas. As I said before, the word yogavacara, meditator, means the citta that develops insight, not a person. It is very momentary. If there is only a moment of sati and panna, which is right, devoid of an idea of self who is guiding, this can be accumulated, so that there will be conditions again for their arising. We should not underestimate the force of panna that is accumulated.” ..... > Sarah: > > Is concentration really the key to `seeing all phenomena whenever > they > arise'. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Can you see clearly when the water is cloudy? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: but what clarifies the cloudy water? Are you sure it is concentration rather than wisdom, insight or vipassanaa-pa~n`naa foremost? Without panna, is there any knowledge about what right concentration is? .... > Htoo: > > I do not think. I just hint how to concentrate. If concentration > becomes steady that is if the mind is well concentrated, most events > will be known and concentrated mind will also be recognized at that > time when nearly most events are recognized. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- .... S: My point is that concentration can be kusala or akusala and that concentration does not lead of itself to wisdom, otherwise there’d have been no need for a Buddha. If anything, it’s the other way round - when there’s samma ditthi, there’s also samma samadhi arising with it. ..... > Htoo: > > Exactly. A good concentration is one of impediment to development of > Panna. But the map has not been checked. It is at an early > preparatory phase. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- .... S: Perhaps our difference here is that I think the map has to be followed from the very beginning, otherwise one will follow the wrong route and be taken further away from the path. ..... > Htoo: > > Watching, looking, chasing, contemplating, considering, noting, > noticing, cognizing, recognizing, taking, marking, observing, > surveying, etc etc are just words. > > When Paramattha have been seen, no one will find self. I never > suggest Atta. .... S: So let’s talk about the functions of panna and sati as these are what are referred to under sati sampaja~nna in the Satipatthana sutta. Surely the functions are to know and be aware of realities (paramattha dhammas), not to watch and notice and mark etc which are aspects of thinking. .... H: > Vipassana. Vi - distinguishing, differentiating, particularly, > especially, differently. Passa - to look, note, watch. It is just > representation of Mahasatipatthana. > > The word ' watching ' is just stimulation. .... S: vipassana - pa~n~na, direct seeing of realities. Watching would be an inaccurate description, a suggestion of ‘doing’ rather than ‘understanding’ as I see it. Nina also gave a helpful message on the meaning of vipassana http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/6954 In it, she also writes: “Jim explained the word vipassanaa: < the Patisambhidhamagga com. gives the following interpretation of vipassanaa: "Aniccataadivasena vividhehi aakaarehi dhamma passatii ti vipassanaa." It sees realities in various aspects by way of impermanence and so on.>” ..... H: > Sati is a Nama Dhamma. It arises only when there conditions to arise. > No one can control Sati. Yes. But how will you do with > Mahasatipatthana, if not events are not being noted, watched? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ..... S: Very good question, imho. In truth, as you know from your study of abhidhamma, there is no *you* to do anything with Mahasatipatthana. When there is the idea of events (concepts) being noted or watched, there is the subtle attempt to re-introduce a *me* that can do something. We talk about anatta and ‘no-control’, but while the idea of self has not been eradicated, it creeps in all the time, especially into our ideas of ‘practice’. If our idea of practice is something different from our understanding of ‘dhammas’ or ‘Abhidhamma’, it shows it’s not correct. As Sitagu Sayadaw writes: “Vipassana and Abhidhamma are identical. Since Vipassana meditation takes the Abhidhamma as its sole object of contemplation, Vipassana and Abhidhamma cannot be separated. And while it may not be said that one can practice Vipassana only after one has mastered the Abhidhamma, Vipassana meditation and the study of Abhidhamma remain one and the same thing.” http://www.abhidhamma.org/ In other words, the practice is the understanding of paramattha dhammas at this very moment with detachment, not with selection, watching or special focussing. .... <...> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: <...> > Suttas are like the first method of teaching. Abhidhamma is like > dissection and looking under microscope. All should be studied. > Suttas are intended for particular person, group or groups of people > etc. Anything in Suttas are in a way or other can be seen in > Abhidhamma. > > For me, I like both. .... S: The Abhidhamma is not just a dissection under the microscope or a theory in a book as I see it. There is no distinction in meaning or practice. Abhidhamma can also be seen throughout the suttas. Satipatthana and the development of sati sampaja~n~na is in whatever we read, even when reading about the jhanas. Still no self, no watching, no control. ..... H: > Dhamma is Dhamma. Even though some facts are agreed by a group of > people, they may or may not be right. But right things are always > right. So, I said, ' Dhamma is Dhamma.' > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: I fully agree. Saddu! Saddhu! .... > Htoo: > > You always support me. When other did not touch my message, you > replied kindly to me. .... S: Even when I’m travelling, I take note of your messages. I’m sure others appreciate them and perhaps they’ll respond more now they know you like feedback and are reading the messages. I think in the past I’ve replied once or twice and you may not have seen the replies. ... H: > I think once Sukin invited me to your group. You are a good > moderator. You well manage the messages. You well argue. You well > support with evidence from Tipitaka. I do remember Dhammaarammana, > Dhammaayatana and your discussion. .... Thanks very much Htoo. Please read all Sukin’s messages here as well as he’s making some excellent comments as I see it and I know he’d be delighted with any response you might give. It was a good discussion on the topic you mention and I was most impressed by your open-mindedness. I see the same error in many articles, including the present one by Karunadasa I believe. .... > > Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind. The problem is inability to see. ..... ;-) ‘Patience is the greatest virtue’ I'd be grateful for any further feedback you give. Please let me know where we agree or disagree. Metta, Sarah ====== 29873 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 1:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory sorry all - it’s a long post..... K= Prof Karunadasa ================================================ Hi Michael, TG, James & All, As I've said before, I don't agree with everything K. writes, but I think that on these questions I agree with his comments and reference sources more than many others do;-)Why not save this post instead, TG??;-) .... --- Michael Beisert wrote: <...> > Sabhava <...> >Karunadasa > says > that the Theravadins rejected the metaphysical speculations of the > Sarvastivadins but also that “it was not without influence on the > Theravada > version of the dhamma theory” and that this influence “can be seen in > the > post-canonical exegetical literature of Sri Lanka,” i.e. the Buddhaghosa > > commentaries. .... S: However, Karunadasa has already explained that the Pali tradition, including the Buddhaghosa commentaries, ‘did not succomb to this error...’: K: “As we shall soon see, about a hundred years after the formulation of the dhamma-theory, such a trend surfaced within certain schools of Buddhist thought and culminated in the view that the dhammas exist in all three periods of time. But the Pali Abhidhamma Pitaka did not succumb to this error of conceiving the dhammas as ultimate unities or discrete entities. In the Pali tradition it is only for the sake of definition and description that each dhamma is postulated as if it were a separate entity; but in reality it is by no means a solitary phenomenon having an existence of its own. This is precisely why the mental and material dhammas are often presented in inter-connected groups. In presenting them thus the danger inherent in narrowly analytical methods has been avoided -- the danger, namely, of elevating the factors resulting from analysis to the status of genuinely separate entities. Thus if analysis shows that composite things cannot be considered as ultimate unities, synthesis shows that the factors into which the apparently composite things are analysed (ghana-vinibbhoga) are not discrete entities.13 [Vism 137] ***** <...> M: >This is an essencialist > metaphysical stand point which relegates to the background the > understanding > of the dhammas in terms of their dependence. > > But probably the most important aspect highlighted by Karunadasa is that > the > definition of dhammas as sabhava goes against the Patisambhidamagga, > which > is a Canonical text attributed to Sariputta, that specifically states > that > khandhas, and by extension dhammas, are devoid of own-nature > (sabhavena-suññat). > > And finally Karunadasa also says, “Does not the very use of the term > sabhava, despite all the qualifications under which it is used, give the > > impression that a given dhamma exists in its own right? And does this > not > amount to the admission that a dhamma is some kind of substance?” .... S: What you (Michael) omit here are Karunadasa’s answers to these questions. Following on from this last quote, he writes: K: “The commentators were not unaware of these implications and they therefore took the necessary steps to forestall such a conclusion. This they sought to do by supplementing the former definition with another which actually nullifies the conclusion that the dhammas might be quasi-substances. This additional definition states that a dhamma is not that which bears its own-nature, but that which is borne by its own conditions (paccayehi dhariyanti ti dhamma).47 Whereas the earlier definition is agent-denotation (kattusadhana) because it attributes an active role to the dhamma, elevating it to the position of an agent, the new definition is object-denotation (kamma-sadhana) because it attributes a passive role to the dhamma and thereby downgrades it to the position of an object. What is radical about this new definition is that it reverses the whole process which otherwise might culminate in the conception of dhammas as substances or bearers of their own-nature. What it seeks to show is that, far from being a bearer, a dhamma is being borne by its own conditions. "Consonant with this situation, it is also maintained that there is no other thing called a dhamma than the "quality" of being borne by conditions.48 The same idea is expressed in the oft-recurrent statement that what is called a dhamma is the mere fact of occurrence due to appropriate conditions.49 In point of fact, in commenting upon the Patisambhidamagga statement that the five aggregates -- and, by implication, the dhammas -- are devoid of sabhava, the commentator observes that since the aggregates have no self-nature, they are devoid of own-nature.50 It will thus be seen that although the term sabhava is used as a synonym for dhamma, it is interpreted in such a way that it means the very absence of sabhava in any sense that implies a substantial mode of being.” ***** S: The references here are to a variety of ancient commentaries. In other words, there is, according to the commentaries and Karunadasa, no conflict of meaning or any suggestion of ‘sabhava in any sense that implies a substantial mode of being’ when used in the commentaries and no conflict in interpretation with the Patisambhidamagga. ... M: > Paramatha <..> > There is a recurrent argument in the list that although paramatha as > such is > not mentioned in the Canon, its meaning is there implicit. Karunadasa > clarifies this point, when he talks about paññatti: .... S: Before he talks about pannatti, he clarifies what is meant by paramattha: K: “The term paramattha is sometimes paraphased as bhutattha (the actual).67 This is explained to mean that the dhammas are not non-existent like an illusion or mirage or like the soul (purisa) and primordial nature (pakati) of the non-Buddhist schools of thought.68 The evidence for their existence is not based either on conventions (sammuti) or on mere scriptural authority (anussava).69 On the contrary, their very existence is vouchsafed by their own intrinsic nature.70 The very fact of their existence is the very mark of their reality. As the Visuddhimagga observes: "It (= dhamma) is that which, for those who examine it with the eye of understanding, is not misleading like an illusion, deceptive like a mirage, or undiscoverable like the self of the sectarians, but is rather the domain of noble knowledge as the real unmisleading actual state." 71 The kind of existence implied here is not past or future existence, but present actual and verifiable existence (satvijjamanata).72 This emphasis on their actuality in the present phase of time rules out any association with the Sarvastivadins' theory of tri-temporal existence. Thus, for the Theravadin, the use of the term paramattha does not carry any substantialist implications. It only means that the mental and material dhammas represent the utmost limits to which the analysis of empirical existence can be pushed.” ***** S: Clearly as Karunadasa reads the Visuddhimagga and other ancient commentarial texts, ‘the term paramattha does not carry any substantialist implications’ and simply refers to namas and rupas which can be directly known. ..... M: <...> > So, samutti is not the same as paramatha and the Canon does not > contemplate > real existents. .... S: No one to my knowledge on DSG as ever suggested that samutti (common designation) means the same as paramattha (ultimate truth). K: “Accordingly the term ‘person’ becomes a common designation (sammuti) given to a congeries of dependently, originated psycho-physical factors.”[i.e namas and rupas or paramattha dhammas]. .... M: >And by Abhidhamma, Karunadasa must be referring to > Abhidhamma commentaries since the Canonical Abhidhamma has a > non-discursive > style. ... S: He’s referring to both. As he says, the first formal definition of pannatti occurs in the Dhammasangani. He gives quotes from this. We find a variety of styles in the Abhid.canon. .... M: > Another way of understanding the philosophy of the Abhidhamma, in > addition > to the Abhidhamma commentaries, is by reference to the Kathavatthu since > it > has an authoritative status of a canonical text, and represents a closer > companion to other canonical texts than the commentaries. .... S: I’m glad to see your confidence in the Abhidhamma texts and this is why I quoted a couple of times from the Kathavatthu before, clearly showing the same point that Karunadasa makes in this quote I’d like to add: K: “As recorded in the Kathavatthu, the "Points of Controversy," the main contention of the Puggalavadins or "Personalists" is that the person is known in a real and ultimate sense (saccikatthaparamatthena upalabbhati).20 Against this proposition a number of counter-arguments are adduced, which need not concern us here. What interests us, however, is that in denying that the person is known in a real and ultimate sense, the Theravadins admit that the khandhas or dhammas are known in a real and ultimate sense. Thus in their view what is real and ultimate is not the person but the khandhas or dhammas that enter into its composition.21” ***** S: Finally, you add a quote from Prof Kalupahana about the Kathavatthu and suggesting that the Abhidhamma does not deal with ultimate realities (paramattha). At first I took the quote to be Karunadasa’s as it was his article we were discussing and I was amazed as it would have contradicted the rest of the paper. It wasn’t. I would simply urge everyone to read the Kathavatthu and other texts for themselves rather than relying on comments such as these. Another quote from Karunadasa: K: “For if the dhammas are defined as real and ultimate, this means, not that they partake of the nature of absolute entities, but that they are not further reducible to any other reality, to some kind of substance which underlies them. That is to say, there is no "behind the scenes" substance from which they emerge and to which they finally return. This means, in effect, that the dhammas represent the final limits of the Abhidhammic analysis of empirical existence. Hence this new definition does not erode the empirical foundation of the dhamma theory as presented by the Theravadins. Moreover, this view is quite consonant with the statement occurring in the earlier texts that the dhammas come to be without having been (ahutva sambhonti) and disappear without any residue (hutva pativenti).”22 ***** M: > Since the concept of paramatha and svabhava underlie the main line of > thinking prevalent in this list I will probably be more selective in my > involvement in discussions in the future in order to avoid unnecessary > stress and weariness for myself and for my dhamma fellows. Pls. don’t > feel > offended if I don’t answer replies to this message. .... S: Michael, I think it’s been very helpful raising these topics. No offence will be taken either way, but we’ll all be glad to hear from you on any topic. Metta, Sarah ===== > "The Dhamma Theory" - Prof. Y. Karunadasa: > http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm K: "The validity of the two kinds of statement corresponding to sammuti and paramattha is set out as follows: Statements referring to convention-based things (sanketa) are valid because they are based on common agreement; statements referring to ultimate categories (paramattha) are valid because they are based on the true nature of the real existents."142 142. San1ketavacanat saccat lokasammutikarana Paramatthavacanat saccat dhammanat bhutalakkhana. (A I 54; KvuA 34; DA I 251) ========================== 29874 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 1:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Long Long Way ... Hi Icaro, --- icarofranca wrote: > = > But looking at the DSG Meeting Photos I get the sincere wish to be > at the Next Meeting with you all! > On my next Vacancies...who knows? > Bangkok, here I go! .... That would be great! Why not join us on the trip to India also in October? (if anyone is interested, pls contact Betty who posted a few days ago to check availability of space etc). Metta, Sarah ======= 29875 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Smile-producing consciousness of Arahants (was:Yet more discussion (and food Hi Ken O, --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Yes you are right, Buddha is only Omniscience when he "advert" his > mind to wisdom. (was said in King Mahinda Questions - forgot the > spelling). ... ;-) Milinda. Mahinda was the great arahant who took the teachings to Sri Lanka. Thanks for the reminder about the section on dreams in it. I'm following with interest your discussions on Jhana.....Keep it up;-) Just a couple of small points: 1. You've mentioned a couple of times there can be jhana without panna. I don't think so. For the development of samatha from the very beginning, there has to be panna which clearly understands the object and how it can bring calm. I think you mean the panna of satipatthana. In jhana, concepts are usually the object of panna. Oh, perhaps you are referring to wrong or akusala jhana factors, but then I'm not sure why you mention rupa and arupa jhanas which must be wholesome??? 2. I quite agree that wrong concentration is easily taken for jhanas, especially when there is no right understanding of the object and nature of calm. As we discussed in Bkk, just concentrating on a piece of earth or breath does not lead to wholesome states or jhana. Hence, the understanding is the key from the very beginning in the development of samatha. 3. I really agree with all your strong comments about altering words in the suttas and other texts to suit personal views and especially when it may have influence. Thank you for words to Jeff on this. I think a translator has to have a good knowledge of Pali and be very honest about the task at hand and to faithfully translate the meaning as it is according to his/her ability. One can always add personal footnotes as you suggest. Metta and appreciation, Sarah ===== 29876 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:11am Subject: Direct Experienc encore Dear Exnir & friends: You asked: > What one perceives that one comes to know. > Perception arises first and Knowledge follows. > Perception is structurally simpler than Knowledge. > There is a subtle difference between Perception > and Knowledge, isn't there Bhante? If unaware perception without knowledge following can happen. Actually that is very common. First there is Contact: 1: Contact: Eye + Apple + Visual Consciousness (locally arisen within eye!) then mind receives, examines & determines the object, thereby two characteristics is simultaneously assigned to the object: 2: Feeling - is the object pleasant, painful or indifferent ? - 3: Perception - what is the Name of the object - what is it (similar to) ? 4: By these Intention towards the object is formed - what to do ? - Craving towards or away from object or just neglect it ? If pleasurable feeling have been assigned - lust arise. If pleasurable feeling have been assigned - aversion arise. If indifferent feeling have been assigned - neglect arise. This all goes on automatically if not Awareness is turned on. No real knowledge is here required except the name of the object. This sequence can & do often function subconsciously in all variable degrees. Here may e.g usually be silently assumed that the object 'apple' is: a: Stable & permanent. (possible to keep) b: Always pleasurable & desirable. (without side effect as addiction) c: 'Mine' & under 'my control'. (within reach & dominance) If - however - mindfulness SATI is turned on, directed & sustained thought becomes involved following contact & simultaneously with the assignment of feeling & perceived classification, then remembrance of the REAL characteristics BEHIND the mere appearance of object 'apple' becomes increasingly apparent: A: Aha, all constructions will decay & vanish also apples. It may give me only a short-lived satisfaction & then the urge from ever needing apples hereafter: An endless self torture based on something that is: Transient, a passing state, momentary. Disappearing the moment is has emerged. B: Aha, but then feeling of need for apples, fear of loosing apples and envy towards all who possess apples surely follow. This sense pleasure is like a burning pit. It makes me come back to birth, ageing decay & death again & again. A real serial killer is this innocent looking 'apple'... & all other sense objects; live or dead, mental or physical material or immaterial, fine or foul !!! C: Aha, of course I cannot keep it. It will vanish with time. The taste of it within seconds. Nothing is under 'my control' as all phenomena arise & cease according to their own causes & specific impersonal & given conditions. Neither internally nor externally is there anything not changing that 'I' can keep as 'mine'... A+B+C is Direct Experience & Knowledge. The presence of this Knowledge has CONSEQUENCES: Whatever the assigned feeling may have been: Craving is disabled. Aversion is disabled. Neglect is disabled: 'Even though I contacted see apple & know apple, neither do I want apple nor do I reject apple, yet I remain aware, at ease, in equanimity ... Apple or not - independent & free - All yours in the Dhamma. Peace is Ease. Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ 29877 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:40am Subject: Advancing Withdrawal! Friends: What is the benefit of Seclusion ? The Separation from the Hindrances. The Relinquishment of Afflictions. The Fearlessness of mental Freedom. The Joy of sweet & silent Solitude. The Happiness of open Awareness. The Serene Bliss of inward Calm. The Gaining of much Merit. The Making of great Fruition. The Reaching of higher States. These are the inherent advantages of renunciation. Going Forth is thus the best of all states leading entirely beyond all three levels of existence. Thus this Noble Life remains Supreme. Yeah! Verily, indeed & exactly so. So come forward friends! You will never regret it.. All yours in the Dhamma. Peace is Ease. Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ 29878 From: Andy Wilson Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:49am Subject: the self... how? All as i understand it Buddhism holds that the sense of self only arises when various khandhas are mistakenly identified with self, and teaches instead the truth of anatta / not-self. Now, I would like to ask - if there is no self, how can the impression arise that there *is* a self? It seems that the illusion could arise only if there were something which was experiencing the illusion or impression of self, and so the impression is self-validating: 'i sense myself, therefore i am' Why is this not the case? It seems to me that without *some* sense of self every citta would be a very lonely and isolated monad. I realise that this goes against the heart of Abhidhamma, but would like to know where in the canon this particular argument is addressed. Metta Andy ps. i have a fear that people will mail back saying precisely that each citta stands completely alone. that makes the world sound very empty and frightening to me. 29879 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Smile-producing consciousness of Arahants (was:Yet more discussion (and food Hi Sarah Actually I was trying to differientiate the jhanas of rupa and arupa and those of lokuttara jhanas. Those of lokuttara jhanas are the one I attribute with panna (satipattana). During Buddha times there are ascetics who experience jhanas but it is not lokuttara jhanas hence will not lead to Enlightment as they do not have right understanding. Anyway, with the correct panna, any jhanas even rupa jhanas, I believe can condition enlightment. I thought i heard you pple say in the discussion that with right understanding, one who is in arupa jhana can attain enlightment. Correct me if I am wrong on jhanas (not an expert though - just know the difference between good and bad ones), I was trying to differentiate the correct and incorrect jhanas and also jhana is not key elements to supermanhood (enlightement ;-) even though some do attain supernatural powers). Ken O 29880 From: Benjamin Jerome Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 5:40am Subject: [dsg] learning pali Dear Everyone, I would like to learn to read especially the Samyutta Nikaya and the Majjhima Nikaya in Pali. What is the best way to go about learning Pali? Right now I don't know very much, I'm just familiar with the alphabet and some common words. Can someone recommend any certain book to start with? Thank you, Ben 29881 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 5:41am Subject: jhanas (was: Smile-producing consciousness of Arahants) Hi Ken O, --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Sarah > > Actually I was trying to differientiate the jhanas of rupa and arupa > and those of lokuttara jhanas. Those of lokuttara jhanas are the > one I attribute with panna (satipattana). .... Right - just there are different kinds of panna and any bhavana has to be with panna. I thought this was what you meant, but thanks for clarifying. .... > During Buddha times there > are ascetics who experience jhanas but it is not lokuttara jhanas > hence will not lead to Enlightment as they do not have right > understanding. .... Exactly, or let’s say, not vipassana panna or satipatthana panna which understands realities as anatta, rather than saying just 'no understanding' or 'no right understanding'. .... >Anyway, with the correct panna, any jhanas even rupa > jhanas, I believe can condition enlightment. .... With the correct panna, I believe any reality can be arammana paccaya or other conditions such as pakati upanissaya for lokuttara cittas to arise. It always comes back to the panna. .... >I thought i heard you > pple say in the discussion that with right understanding, one who is > in arupa jhana can attain enlightment. .... I don’t think I was one of the ‘ you ppl’. As I understand, one cannot attain enlightenment whilst in any jhana, but jhana factors or any other realities can be known by insight immediately after. Lokuttara cittas have nibbana as object, not jhana objects. Lokuttara jhana cittas therefore take nibbana as object with the intensity of the jhana experienced. this is how we get 40 supramundane cittas (5 jhana levels x 8 paths and fruits). You can find it all in CMA ch 1, compendium of consciousness and also Nina’s anapanasati series would give more detail, I’m sure. ..... >Correct me if I am wrong on > jhanas (not an expert though - just know the difference between good > and bad ones), I was trying to differentiate the correct and > incorrect jhanas and also jhana is not key elements to supermanhood > (enlightement ;-) even though some do attain supernatural powers). .... I’m not an anything expert either;-) I think your points and cautions are very good. As you stress, we can read about all the same factors under unwholesome jhana conditions. See Nina’s ‘Conditions’ on this. Again, for any bhavana, including samatha, panna (understanding of the object - in this case a concept) has to be stressed from the very beginning. Not desire or wishing for results, concentration (usu. akusala) or a special position. This is why daily life objects such as metta, death, the Buddha, foulness and dhamma are stressed. And lobha is so crafty. As soon as there’s the idea of looking at an image of the Buddha or a corpse or reading a sutta on death, there can be attachment for a result and no calm at all. As you’ve been stressing, wholesome states only develop by the right conditions and a self trying or just concentrating on an object on not among them. Lot’s more in UP under ‘jhana’, ‘jhana and vipassana’, ‘samatha’ and so on. I’ll give everyone (and my arm) a rest from posts tomorrow when I’ll be busy. So hope to read more of yours and others' discussions. Metta, Sarah ===== 29882 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 5:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Larry According to the introductory notes at p.849 of CDB, the suttas of the Kilesa-samyutta are based on 'a tenfold scheme for classifying the factors of experience already found in the Rahula-samyutta: the six internal sense bases; the six external sense bases; the six classes each of consciousness, contact, feeling perception, volition, and craving; the six elements; and the five aggregates.' There are 10 short suttas in the samyutta, one devoted to each of these groups of items. So from that I would say that there is no direct reference here to concepts. I have forgotten the actual point you and Larry are discussing, so I don't know whose side that puts me on ;-)) Jon --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Here is Victor's original question, to which I gave the reply you > didn't > like, i.e., "dhammaayatana". How would you answer it? Could you > provide a quote from a sutta to back-up your answer? > > Larry > ------------------- > Victor: "Hi Larry, ... > In Samyutta Nikaya XXVII, Upakkilesa Samyutta > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn27.html > we see that there are various collections/classifications of > objects for > desire & passion. Does concept belong to any of those > collections/classifications of objects for desire & passion? > Peace, > Victor 29883 From: Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] the self... how? Hi, Andy - In a message dated 2/10/04 6:51:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, andy@l... writes: > All > > as i understand it Buddhism holds that the sense of self only arises > when various khandhas are mistakenly identified with self, and teaches > instead the truth of anatta / not-self. > > Now, I would like to ask - if there is no self, how can the impression > arise that there *is* a self? It seems that the illusion could arise > only if there were something which was experiencing the illusion or > impression of self, and so the impression is self-validating: 'i sense > myself, therefore i am' > > Why is this not the case? It seems to me that without *some* sense of > self every citta would be a very lonely and isolated monad. > > I realise that this goes against the heart of Abhidhamma, but would like > to know where in the canon this particular argument is addressed. > > Metta > > Andy > > ps. i have a fear that people will mail back saying precisely that each > citta stands completely alone. that makes the world sound very empty and > frightening to me. > ============================== Everything is as it is, and there is no need to be frightened by it. The fear you speak of doesn't arise from just experiencing what appears, but from thinking and theorizing about it. In and of itself, it is harmless, and you are safe. Now, as far a self being required for the illusion of self to arise, that just isn't so. There are several senses of "self", all of which should be taken only conventionally. The one which is relevant to your questioning is that of "knowing subject". What if you were to think about things in the following way: When (felt) hardness, for example, is experienced, what is actually there? Nothing but the hardness sensation. There is the hardness, and, inseparable from it, the presence of that hardness. The presence of the hardness is the "consciousness of it". (I am talking here about experience, not about what might or might not exist in some alleged "external world".) The condition and its being present are inseparable. There is nothing else involved - specifically, no knowing subject, and hence no object of knowing either, for subject and object are mutually dependent. But there *seems* to be more than the condition and its presence.There seems to be a subject related to a grasped object. However, when looked for, no subject can be found. The condition that is the seeming of a subject *does* arise, it does become present, repeatedly. This is due to the operation of reflection - a revisiting of recently passed experience under the influence of the ignorance-conditioned inclination to reify (to "make things" out of mere experience). Due to ignorance, and the mental fabricating/constructing resulting from that ignorance, there arise the sense of a seeming subject. When defilements are fully uprooted, that formational process will end, and no sense of self will be a part of experience any longer. Oh, one more thing: Don't get caught up in thinking of so-called cittas as separate things.There is a gapless flow of experience - condition upon condition upon condition becoming present, interdependent, mutually condit ioning. And conceptually projected from this flow is an entire "external world", like a wondrous magic show - all smoke and mirrors. Enjoy the show, but don't be taken in by the magician's tricks. 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) 29884 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 9:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 ) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear Htoo, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: So when you say `the Dhamma practitioner practises Mahasatipatthana' or `he is able to see all mental phenomena', in paramattha terms you are referring to sati sampaja~n~na? I'm checking because so often this is said or read with an idea of `someone' practising......without any idea of the dhammas involved. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo : You already know. This is Sampajanna Pabba of Mahasatipatthana. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: Nina wrote before: "Vipassana, insight, develops according to its own conditions in different stages. There is no person to be found who meditates or tries to concentrate on specific namas and rupas. As I said before, the word yogavacara, meditator, means the citta that develops insight, not a person. It is very momentary. If there is only a moment of sati and panna, which is right, devoid of an idea of self who is guiding, this can be accumulated, so that there will be conditions again for their arising. We should not underestimate the force of panna that is accumulated." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo : Well said, Sarah. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: but what clarifies the cloudy water? Are you sure it is concentration rather than wisdom, insight or vipassanaa-pa~n`naa foremost? Without panna, is there any knowledge about what right concentration is? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Panna has to be defined again. When meditate, arising Citta may be with joy or without joy. Prompted ot unprompted. But there is Pannindriya Cetasika. Then in clear water there is a light. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: My point is that concentration can be kusala or akusala and that concentration does not lead of itself to wisdom, otherwise there'd have been no need for a Buddha. If anything, it's the other way round - when there's samma ditthi, there's also samma samadhi arising with it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: When pointing witha gun at a man, there is concentration. Yes. But all I have been talking are not killing, stealing, misusing of sensual pleasure. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: Perhaps our difference here is that I think the map has to be followed from the very beginning, otherwise one will follow the wrong route and be taken further away from the path. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: The map has not been spread out and laid out let alone to read it. So far, the Samsara traveller ( :-)) ) is trying to collect the things which might be required during the journey, 'The Journey To Nibbana'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: So let's talk about the functions of panna and sati as these are what are referred to under sati sampaja~nna in the Satipatthana sutta. Surely the functions are to know and be aware of realities (paramattha dhammas), not to watch and notice and mark etc which are aspects of thinking. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: The meaning is there. Clear understanding works. Here the matter is insight and full insight and fully enlightened. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: vipassana - pa~n~na, direct seeing of realities. Watching would be an inaccurate description, a suggestion of `doing' rather than `understanding' as I see it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Good point. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: Nina also gave a helpful message on the meaning of vipassana http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/6954 In it, she also writes: "Jim explained the word vipassanaa: < the Patisambhidhamagga com. gives the following interpretation of vipassanaa: "Aniccataadivasena vividhehi aakaarehi dhamma passatii ti vipassanaa." It sees realities in various aspects by way of impermanence and so on.>" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I will go there and read it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- H: >No one can control Sati. Yes. But how will you do with >Mahasatipatthana, if not events are not being noted, watched? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: Very good question, imho. In truth, as you know from your study of abhidhamma, there is no *you* to do anything with Mahasatipatthana. When there is the idea of events (concepts) being noted or watched, there is the subtle attempt to re-introduce a *me* that can do something. We talk about anatta and `no-control', but while the idea of self has not been eradicated, it creeps in all the time, especially into our ideas of `practice'. If our idea of practice is something different from our understanding of `dhammas' or `Abhidhamma', it shows it's not correct. As Sitagu Sayadaw writes: "Vipassana and Abhidhamma are identical. Since Vipassana meditation takes the Abhidhamma as its sole object of contemplation, Vipassana and Abhidhamma cannot be separated. And while it may not be said that one can practice Vipassana only after one has mastered the Abhidhamma, Vipassana meditation and the study of Abhidhamma remain one and the same thing." http://www.abhidhamma.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I once wrote on theory and practice at triplegem, I think. Theory of sea and seaman. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: In other words, the practice is the understanding of paramattha dhammas at this very moment with detachment, not with selection, watching or special focussing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: If on the tract already, these are not needed to say. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: The Abhidhamma is not just a dissection under the microscope or a theory in a book as I see it. There is no distinction in meaning or practice. Abhidhamma can also be seen throughout the suttas. Satipatthana and the development of sati sampaja~n~na is in whatever we read, even when reading about the jhanas. Still no self, no watching, no control. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Good point. I will note that. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: I fully agree. Saddu! Saddhu! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: So, not full Anumodana? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > .... > > Htoo: > > > > You always support me. When other did not touch my message, you > > replied kindly to me. > .... > S: Even when I'm travelling, I take note of your messages. I'm sure others appreciate them and perhaps they'll respond more now they know you like feedback and are reading the messages. I think in the past I've replied once or twice and you may not have seen the replies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: May be due to a great bulk of messages. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: > I think once Sukin invited me to your group. You are a good > > moderator. You well manage the messages. You well argue. You well > > support with evidence from Tipitaka. I do remember Dhammaarammana, > > Dhammaayatana and your discussion. > .... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: Thanks very much Htoo. Please read all Sukin's messages here as well as he's making some excellent comments as I see it and I know he'd be delighted with any response you might give. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I will try. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: It was a good discussion on the topic you mention and I was most impressed by your open-mindedness. I see the same error in many articles, including the present one by Karunadasa I believe. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Karunadasa? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > .... > > > > Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind. The problem is inability to see. > ..... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: ;-) `Patience is the greatest virtue' I'd be grateful for any further feedback you give. Please let me know where we agree or disagree. Metta, Sarah ====== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I hope, I have given a clear account. With Metta, Htoo Naing 29885 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:38am Subject: Re: the self... how? Hi Andy, Regarding your question, you might want to refer to the following If there's no self, then who gets enlightened? If there's no self, then what gets reborn? If there's no self, then why...? Nowhere in the Pali Canon does Buddha categorically declare, without qualification, "There is no self".[1] Any question that begins along the lines of, "If there's no self..." is thus inherently misleading, dooming the questioner to a hopeless tangle of confusion -- "a thicket of [wrong] views" [MN 2]. Such questions are best put aside altogether in favor of more fruitful lines of questioning.[2] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/bfaq.html#noself Regarding how the word "self" is used in the Pali Canon, the following reference provides relevant examples: Dhammapada XII Self Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/dhp/12.html Knowing how the word "self" is used in context without preconceived ideas about what self is or should be, you might want to refer to the following discourse: SN 22.15 What is Impermanent At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, form is 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.' "Feeling is 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.' "Perception is 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.' "Volitional formations are impermanent. What are impermanent are suffering. What are suffering are nonself. What are nonself should be seen as they really are with correct wisdom thus: 'These are not mine, these I am not, these are not my self.' "Consciousness is 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 thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion towards form, revulsion towards feeling, revulsion towards perception, revulsion towards volitional formations, revulsion towards consciousness. Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion [his mind] is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: 'It's liberated.' He understands: 'Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.'" [1] Metta, Victor [1] Samyutta Nikaya, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi, p. 869. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Wilson" wrote: > All > > as i understand it Buddhism holds that the sense of self only arises > when various khandhas are mistakenly identified with self, and teaches > instead the truth of anatta / not-self. > > Now, I would like to ask - if there is no self, how can the impression > arise that there *is* a self? It seems that the illusion could arise > only if there were something which was experiencing the illusion or > impression of self, and so the impression is self-validating: 'i sense > myself, therefore i am' > > Why is this not the case? It seems to me that without *some* sense of > self every citta would be a very lonely and isolated monad. > > I realise that this goes against the heart of Abhidhamma, but would like > to know where in the canon this particular argument is addressed. > > Metta > > Andy > > ps. i have a fear that people will mail back saying precisely that each > citta stands completely alone. that makes the world sound very empty and > frightening to me. 29886 From: Michael Beisert Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:34am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory Hello James, James: I was going to add some comments of my own about how the incorrect theories of Sabhava, Paramattha, and Pannatti as presented in the Abhidhamma have also lead to an incorrect viewpoint of Anatta but, like you, I am just tired. I think I need a vacation from this group myself. Michael: It is interesting that you say that. I noticed in a recent message you mentioned your interest in pursuing the development of concentration. A while ago I also came to the conclusion that jhana is a necessary step in the path and have been working towards that and quickly came to the conclusion that the discussions in any list are quite a disturbance for this practice. But another point I would like to mention is that the view of the Dhamma as teachings about paramatha, and paññatti, and sabhava, also relegates to the background the teachings of co-dependent arising which in my mind is the real key teaching of the Buddha. In fact anatta can only make sense in view of conditionality. The path of practice which the Buddha recommended with emphasis on meditation (jhanas and insight) only makes sense if you place conditionality at the top of the teachings because basically with meditation one is developing skills to influence the conditions in a favorable direction. Now if instead of conditionality one places dhammas as paramatha on the top of the list I can clearly understand why meditation will loose importance. One will argue that paramathas can be realized anytime, anywhere, no need for meditation. No need to say that I strongly disagree with that. Metta Michael 29887 From: Michael Beisert Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 0:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory Hello Sarah, Sarah: Finally, you add a quote from Prof Kalupahana about the Kathavatthu and suggesting that the Abhidhamma does not deal with ultimate realities (paramattha). Michael: Prof. Kalupahana is basing his argument on two things. First that the Kathavatthu has to be regarded with higher authority than the Abhidhamma commentaries since the Kathavatthu is a Canonical text. I don’t think you can dispute that. Second, the Kathavattu can be used to interpret the teachings of the Abhidhamma Canonical texts. I don’t think you can dispute that either. Now, Prof. Kalupahana argument is that nowhere, I repeat, nowhere, in the Kathavattu, you can find arguments to justify the assertion that the Abhidhamma Canonical texts deal with ultimate realities (paramatha). Do you dispute that affirmation? While it is in the Abhidhamma commentaries that you will find the argument of ultimate realities. Since the Kathavattu takes precedence over the Commentaries the conclusion is pretty obvious. Metta Michael 29888 From: Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 7:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi, Michael - In a message dated 2/10/04 2:44:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, mbeisert@h... writes: > Now if instead of conditionality one places dhammas as paramatha > on the top of the list I can clearly understand why meditation will loose > importance. One will argue that paramathas can be realized anytime, > anywhere, no need for meditation. ============================ Earlier in your post you mentioned the central importance of dependent origination in the Dhamma, and I quite agree with that (as my recent posts may indicate to you). But at the moment, I'm only responding to what I quoted above. I actually disagree with that in part. As I see it, the notion of "paramattha dhamma", while a bit of a "constipated formulation" in my opinion, points to direct experience as opposed to indirect apprehension of alleged conventional existents, dependent on conceptualization. Observing the "fleetingness of life" and how a body is composed of parts and how it depends on nutrition and a bunch of other things is useful, but not decisive. What is decisive, as I see it, is the flow of direct experience (of sights, sounds, tastes, feelings, etc) highlighted by brilliant clarity and concentrated attention, and the radical impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, impersonality, and insubstantiality of all aspects of that, and, most particularly, the unfindability of a knowing subject anywhere in this experiential flow. In this sense, I see "paramatthic" experience to be of critical importance. However, I think we agree on the following: With regard to the claim "that paramathas can be realized anytime, anywhere, no need for meditation," that is completely misleading. Without heightened clarity and concentration of attention, the tilakkhana nature of dhammas is entirely missed in any significant way. Ordinary mind sees weakly and is overwhelmed by illusion and conceptual reification. Meditation and cultivation of the mind are indispensable for adequately seeing what is actual and not just conceived, and for seeing its nature. 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) 29889 From: Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 8:35am Subject: A Sutta I Love Hi, all - The following sutta, posted on another list, is one that I think is wonderful. It just appeals to me greatly - in several ways. (I love the poetic aspect, the ongoing simile used, the emphasis put on bodily sensations/feelings, and, especially, the final line.) And so I'm copying it here to be read by any folks interested. With metta, Howard Samyutta Nikaya XXXVI.12 Akasa Sutta In the Sky (1) Translated from the Pali by Nyanaponika Thera. For free distribution only. 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. "In the sky, O monks, various kinds of winds are blowing: winds from the east, west, north and south, winds carrying dust and winds without dust, winds hot and cold, gentle and fierce. Similarly, monks, there arise in this body various kinds of feelings: pleasant feelings arise, painful feelings arise and neutral feelings arise." Just as in the sky above winds of various kinds are blowing: Coming from the east or west, blowing from the north or south, Some carry dust and others not, cold are some and others hot, Some are fierce and others mild -- their blowing is so different. So also in this body here, feelings of different kind arise: The pleasant feelings and the painful and the neutral ones. But if a monk is ardent and does not neglect To practice mindfulness and comprehension clear, The nature of all feelings will he understand, And having penetrated them, he will be taint-free in this very life. Mature in knowledge, firm in Dhamma's ways, When once his life-span ends, his body breaks, All measure and concept he has transcended. /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) 29890 From: Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Jon: "I have forgotten the actual point you and Larry are discussing, so I don't know whose side that puts me on ;-))" Hi Jon: Congratulations! You agree with Victor that there is no basis for the concept/reality distinction according to sutta, primarily because concept is not established as an object of desire. Maybe Victor would like to speak for himself here??? Larry ---------------------------- Jon: Larry According to the introductory notes at p.849 of CDB, the suttas of the Kilesa-samyutta are based on 'a tenfold scheme for classifying the factors of experience already found in the Rahula-samyutta: the six internal sense bases; the six external sense bases; the six classes each of consciousness, contact, feeling perception, volition, and craving; the six elements; and the five aggregates.' There are 10 short suttas in the samyutta, one devoted to each of these groups of items. So from that I would say that there is no direct reference here to concepts. I have forgotten the actual point you and Larry are discussing, so I don't know whose side that puts me on ;-)) Jon --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon, Here is Victor's original question, to which I gave the reply you didn't like, i.e., "dhammaayatana". How would you answer it? Could you provide a quote from a sutta to back-up your answer? Larry ------------------- Victor: "Hi Larry, ... In Samyutta Nikaya XXVII, Upakkilesa Samyutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn27.html we see that there are various collections/classifications of objects for desire & passion. Does concept belong to any of those collections/classifications of objects for desire & passion? Peace, Victor 29891 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:36pm Subject: Control || No Control Hi all, The Buddha taught that "Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis- ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' [1] Some might interpret what the Buddha said in the quote as the support for the view "there is no control" because "it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'" Let me elaborate more on the quote in the following three points: 1. If form were self, then this form would not lend itself to dis- ease. If this form does not lend itself to dis-ease, then this form, having control over itself, would be able to say 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' 2. Conversely, if form, having control over itself, were able to say 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus,', then this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. If this form did not lend itself to dis-ease, then this form would be self. 3. Equivalent to the statements in second point, if form were not self, then this form would lend itself to dis-ease. If this form lent itself to dis-ease, then this form, not having control over itself, would not be able to say 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' So regarding the quote, let me put forth the following questions: To whom or what should the imperative 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus' be attributed? In other words, from whose point of view is the imperative 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus' said? Metta, Victor [1] Samyutta Nikaya XXII.59, Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn22-059.html 29892 From: Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ignorance as a condition for sankhara; sankhara as a condition for consciousness Betty: "Dear Howard and Larry, I have long puzzled over the first connection, i.e., just how ignorance leads to sankhara,..." Hi Betty, I've been thinking about this and it seems to me that ignorance as wrong view or bewilderment must arise in a mind door process or as accumulation/latent-tendency, thence conditioning the arising of a root consciousness (e.g. desire) which is the "sankhara" link in dependent arising. What do you think? Larry 29893 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 5:41pm Subject: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Hi Larry and Jon, It is interesting to see that the discussion has been kept going between two of you without my participation. But in respond to Larry's call, I am in it again for now. Jon, you said to Larry that I have forgotten the actual point you and Larry are discussing, so I don't know whose side that puts me on ;-)) Larry was discussing with me, not with himself. And I am not Larry. Larry, to my question In Samyutta Nikaya XXVII, Upakkilesa Samyutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn27.html we see that there are various collections/classifications of objects for desire & passion. Does concept belong to any of those collections/classifications of objects for desire & passion? you responded that Here's an example of concept as object of desire. In this case read "idea" as "concept": "In whatever monk or nun there arises desire, passion, aversion, delusion, or mental resistance with regard to sounds cognizable via the ear... aromas cognizable via the nose... flavors cognizable via the tongue... tactile sensations cognizable via the body... ideas cognizable via the intellect, he/she should hold the mind in check. [Thinking,] 'It's dangerous & dubious, that path, thorny & overgrown, a miserable path, a devious path, impenetrable. It's a path followed by people of no integrity, not a path followed by people of integrity. It's not worthy of you,' he/she should hold the mind in check with regard to ideas cognizable via the intellect." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn35-205.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/29429 Larry, I see concepts as ideas cognizable via the intellect. Let me quote the passage again without the repetitions: "In whatever monk or nun there arises desire, passion, aversion, delusion, or mental resistance with regard to ideas cognizable via the intellect, he/she should hold the mind in check. [Thinking,] 'It's dangerous & dubious, that path, thorny & overgrown, a miserable path, a devious path, impenetrable. It's a path followed by people of no integrity, not a path followed by people of integrity. It's not worthy of you,' he/she should hold the mind in check with regard to ideas cognizable via the intellect." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn35-205.html Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Jon: "I have forgotten the actual point you and Larry are discussing, so > I don't know whose side that puts me on ;-))" > > Hi Jon: > > Congratulations! You agree with Victor that there is no basis for the > concept/reality distinction according to sutta, primarily because > concept is not established as an object of desire. Maybe Victor would > like to speak for himself here??? > > Larry > ---------------------------- > Jon: Larry > According to the introductory notes at p.849 of CDB, the suttas of the > Kilesa-samyutta are based on 'a tenfold scheme for classifying the > factors of experience already found in the Rahula-samyutta: the six > internal sense bases; the six external sense bases; the six classes each > of consciousness, contact, feeling perception, volition, and craving; > the six elements; and the five aggregates.' > There are 10 short suttas in the samyutta, one devoted to each of these > groups of items. > So from that I would say that there is no direct reference here to > concepts. > I have forgotten the actual point you and Larry are discussing, so I > don't know whose side that puts me on ;-)) > Jon > --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon, > Here is Victor's original question, to which I gave the reply you didn't > like, i.e., "dhammaayatana". How would you answer it? Could you provide > a quote from a sutta to back-up your answer? > Larry > ------------------- > Victor: "Hi Larry, > ... > In Samyutta Nikaya XXVII, Upakkilesa Samyutta > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn27.html we see > that there are various collections/classifications of objects for > desire & passion. Does concept belong to any of those > collections/classifications of objects for desire & passion? Peace, > Victor 29894 From: Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 0:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the self... how? In a message dated 2/10/2004 3:51:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, andy@l... writes: > Now, I would like to ask - if there is no self, how can the impression > arise that there *is* a self? It seems that the illusion could arise > only if there were something which was experiencing the illusion or > impression of self, and so the impression is self-validating: 'i sense > myself, therefore i am' > Hi Andy Ever hear of a mirage? How could a mirage that appears to be water arise if there is no water underlying it? Easy...a set of conditions can fool perceptions into thinking that something specific exists when in fact it doesn't at all. All these issues of self vs no-self, control vs no-control...are a matter of -- whether or not there is insight into the way phenomena arise conditionally. TG 29895 From: Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 1:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ignorance as a condition for sankhara; sankhara as a condition for ... Hi, Larry and Betty - In a message dated 2/10/04 7:53:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Betty: "Dear Howard and Larry, > I have long puzzled over the first connection, i.e., just > how ignorance leads to sankhara,..." > > Hi Betty, > > I've been thinking about this and it seems to me that ignorance as wrong > view or bewilderment must arise in a mind door process or as > accumulation/latent-tendency, thence conditioning the arising of a root > consciousness (e.g. desire) which is the "sankhara" link in dependent > arising. What do you think? > > Larry > > ========================= This is how I look at it. Ignorance of the selflessness of things (avijja) is a requisite condition for the arising of the inclination (sankhara) towards subjectivity of experience, and that, in turn is a requisite condition for the arising of subjectivity of experience (vi~n~nana), and its object (namarupa) via an energized sense door (salayatana), the coming together of these three being contact (phassa); contact is then condition for ignorance-defiled feeling (vedana), which leads to craving (tanha), which, in turn leads to attachment (upadana), and that to "becoming" (bhava), which amounts to sankhara once again - the inclining towards a rebirth of subjectivity/self, and this then leads to the birth of a new sense of self/identity (jati), and then to decline and death of that subjectivity (jaramarana), and thence to suffering (dukkha). When the "becoming" occurs at the last moment of a lifetime, it will include the impulsion towards"rebirth" in a specific realm of experience and with specific conditions holding. But otherwise, it only determines a rebirth of (sense of) self or identity within the current lifetime. I have discussed my opinion here on more than the question you raised, Betty. My apologies for that. My reply to your specific question is that ignorance in the form of not realizing the selflessness of things leads to the specific fabrication that is the inclination towards subjectivity of experience, which is what I understand vi~n`nana to 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) 29896 From: Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control SN XXII, 59: "Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis- ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'" Hi Victor, This has never made sense to me but I think it is definitely about "no control". It doesn't even make sense that "self" has to be permanent. One unorthodox solution would be to say "self", as the Buddha uses it, has nothing to do with psychology, but is rather a synonym for "the desirable". Then we get, "form is not desirable because it is not subject to perfect control and not desirable because it is impermanent." I'm not even convinced the Buddha was aware of the Upanisadic use of "Self". How do you interpret this passage? Larry 29897 From: Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Victor: "Larry, I see concepts as ideas cognizable via the intellect." Hi Victor, I think we all three agree on this, but, as you may recall, this thread started out, for your part, as a critique of the concept/reality distinction as it is assumed in abhidhamma. Your point being that nothing like that distinction could be found in the suttas. I had said something or other about desire and you asked me to verify that concept was officially recognized as an object of desire. In response I quoted a sutta that said "ideas" are objects of desire. Jon pointed out that "ideas" is a questionable translation of "dhamma ayatana". Jon then asserted that concepts (ideas) are not officially established, in sutta, as objects of desire. This could be seen as bolstering your original critique of the abhidhamma's concept/reality distinction. Am I in the ballpark here? Have you changed your mind? Would you like me to fish out the 4 or 5 posts that address this point? I think Michael was involved in the discussion as well. Larry 29898 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Larry and Jon, > > It is interesting to see that the discussion has been kept going > between two of you without my participation. But in respond to > Larry's call, I am in it again for now. > > Jon, you said to Larry that > > I have forgotten the actual point you and Larry are discussing, so > I don't know whose side that puts me on ;-)) > > > Larry was discussing with me, not with himself. And I am not > Larry. Sorry about this. I meant 'you and Victor'! Good to have you back in this one, Victor. I'll reply to your post later (I'm at work now). Jon 29899 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 8:35pm Subject: Social Glue! Friends: The 4 great bases of Sympathy: The Generosity of Giving. The Kindness of speech. The Benefit of Service. The Fairness of Impartiality Treating all even & alike. "I am just like them." "They are just like me." These qualities are literally what keeps any friendship, family, marriage, society, group & community Safe Sound & Together...! Thus keep them precious & sacred in mind & heart! We are not alone here ... All yours in the Dhamma. Peace is Ease. Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ 29900 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control Hi Victor You have the greatest advocator of "this is not I, this is not me, this is not myself" and yet u are doubting the genesis of what is this about. It is just very simple, if you can let this form be thus and let this form not be thus, then there should not be anatta, it should be atta bc u can tell what form u like. If you can control what form should be like, please do teach me. Ken O P.S> You will definitely ask me back ;-) 29901 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 0:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control Hi Larry, I elaborated on the passage in the last message. But I would like to add a fourth point to the elaboration and change the wording while retain the meaning of the original elaboration: 1. If form were self, then this form would not lend itself to dis- ease. If this form did not lend itself to dis-ease, then it would be possible for form, having control over itself, to say 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' 2. Conversely, if it were possible for form, having control over itself, to say 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus,', then this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. If this form did not lend itself to dis-ease, then this form would be self. 3. Equivalent to the statements in second point, if form were not self, then this form would lend itself to dis-ease. If this form lent itself to dis-ease, then it would be impossible for form, having no control over itself, to say 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' 4. Following from the third point, precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. Because form lends itself to dis-ease, it is impossible for form, having no control over itself, to say 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' I think the one crucial point in understand the quoted passage is to understand whom or what the imperative 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus' is from. I don't know the original pali for the translation of the quoted passage. But to me the following rendering is clear: "Form, monks, is not self. If form were self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible for form [to say], 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible for form [to say], 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'" It is clear in a crucial way that this rendering specifies that the imperative 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus' is from form. With this rendering, the "control" relation is immediately evident: it is about whether form has control over itself. And from the rendered passage above it is clear that form has no control over itself because form lends itself to dis-ease. Form lends itself to dis-ease because form is not self. The idea "there is no control" (sometimes just "no control") says nothing about who or what has no control over what. The ambiguity/vagueness of this idea leave a lot of room for speculation: Do I have control or do I have no control over this or that? While it is impossible for form to say, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus', it is entirely possible for one to say, 'Let me refrain myself from killing. Let me refrain myself from taking what is not giving. Let me refrain myself from sexual misconduct. Let me refrain myself from lying. Let me refrain myself from taking intoxicant.' While form lends itself to dis-ease, it is entirely possible for one to follow the way of practice leading to the cessation of dukkha, realizing for him or herself the cessation of dukkha. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > SN XXII, 59: "Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form > would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with > regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But > precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis- ease. And > it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. > Let this form not be thus.'" > > Hi Victor, > > This has never made sense to me but I think it is definitely about "no > control". It doesn't even make sense that "self" has to be permanent. > One unorthodox solution would be to say "self", as the Buddha uses it, > has nothing to do with psychology, but is rather a synonym for "the > desirable". Then we get, "form is not desirable because it is not > subject to perfect control and not desirable because it is impermanent." > > I'm not even convinced the Buddha was aware of the Upanisadic use of > "Self". > > How do you interpret this passage? > > Larry 29902 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 0:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control Hi Ken O, Please kindly refer to my message to Larry. Where did you get the idea that I am doubting the genesis of what is this about? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Victor > > You have the greatest advocator of "this is not I, this is not me, > this is not myself" and yet u are doubting the genesis of what is > this about. It is just very simple, if you can let this form be thus > and let this form not be thus, then there should not be anatta, it > should be atta bc u can tell what form u like. If you can control > what form should be like, please do teach me. > > > Ken O > P.S> You will definitely ask me back ;-) 29903 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 0:56am Subject: kamma/vipaka Dear Group, Interesting how kamma/vipaka takes the fun out of misery:-)"Dynamics" at work, a broken little toe on one foot and a sprained ankle on the other make me ponder on deep deep things - like "why all at once", I ask!! :-)) and "doesn't anything 'regulate' the flow?" and "what else is in store?". And to make things worse, knowing I am reaping the fruits of actions from the near or far past, makes me feel like a hypocrite when friends express warmth and sympathy. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 29904 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 1:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control Hi Victor Firstly your first email before your second one to Larry, Let me quote you <> If one understand the logic of anatta, one would not have asked this qn. It was attribution to the illusion that one can take ownership/control of one form - that simple :) - no need to rake our brains over it. Your second email is better but still a small comemnt <<> While it is impossible for form to say, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus', it is entirely possible for one to say, 'Let me refrain myself from killing. Let me refrain myself from taking what is not giving. Let me refrain myself from sexual misconduct. Let me refrain myself from lying. Let me refrain myself from taking intoxicant.' While form lends itself to dis-ease, it is entirely possible for one to follow the way of practice leading to the cessation of dukkha, realizing for him or herself the cessation of dukkha.>> k: this will mean there is a form that can be control bc one can tell a self refrain from having sexual misconduct. In fact the ability to refrain depends on the conter effect of both kusala and akusala cittas that arise on its own conditions. It will depend which one is stronger, if akusala wins, sexual misconduct will arise. Hence the understanding of dhamma is that there is no way we can control, we can only consider/reflect dhamma and panna will very slowly develop strong enough to refrain from doing akusala actions. If you try to control it self consciously, it may seem to work initially, after that the problem will rise. Bc the roots of our problems are in the cittas and not in the actions. Without cutting the roots, akusala actions will still arise even if we try very hard to prevent it (as though one can prevent it in the first instance). And by thinking there is a self in restraining, one is only developing "Let my form be thus, let my form not be thus". Ken O 29905 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 1:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Hi Larry Concepts can be an object of citta. Hence desire could arise with the citta that has concepts as an object. There is nothing wrong with it bc in satipatthana we are interested in the namas and not the concept. It is the nama (lobha, dosa and moha) we are interested and not the concept itself as only namas are real whereas concept are not real but concepts do induce akusala cittas to arise by different types of paccaya. Take the concept of a woman (sorry to use gender). What are our associations that arise with the woman concept (that induce aksuala cittas), the sound, visible and touch rupas are the associations which since beginingless that have this habit (or latency) to arise with such a concept. Bc not undertanding the world as paramattas, many of us in the this world are running around in concepts. Letting concepts induce/condition akusala cittas, letting it run our lives in circles. Another good example is that when we see an insulting sound, and we become angry over it. If we understand sound as just sound rupas, where is the insult (insult is a concept). Furthermore, when we are angry, it is just nama but the problem with many pple thought I am angry (concept of I, there is an ego being hurt) To me, it is not having right understanding in our living moments as namas and rupas, concepts arise and play tricks with our mind. So in thats sense, there is no need to sit down on corner to figure this out or trying very hard to have a control over a self, bc every moment with our six sense is already a lesson in dhamma ;-). You can ask me any question but never ask me what is dhamma - it brings memory ;-). Ken O --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Victor: "Larry, I see concepts as ideas cognizable via the > intellect." > > Hi Victor, > > I think we all three agree on this, but, as you may recall, this > thread > started out, for your part, as a critique of the concept/reality > distinction as it is assumed in abhidhamma. Your point being that > nothing like that distinction could be found in the suttas. I had > said > something or other about desire and you asked me to verify that > concept > was officially recognized as an object of desire. In response I > quoted a > sutta that said "ideas" are objects of desire. Jon pointed out that > "ideas" is a questionable translation of "dhamma ayatana". Jon then > asserted that concepts (ideas) are not officially established, in > sutta, > as objects of desire. This could be seen as bolstering your > original > critique of the abhidhamma's concept/reality distinction. > > Am I in the ballpark here? Have you changed your mind? Would you > like me > to fish out the 4 or 5 posts that address this point? I think > Michael > was involved in the discussion as well. > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > 29906 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 1:24am Subject: Noble Behaviour! Friends: The Noble Way Whether: In pleasure or pain, In gain or loss, In praise or critique, In fame or anonymity; Remain just the Same Calm, even & Plain! This all Buddhas teach. Seeing Laziness as Danger, Effort as final Peace; Exert energy, Strive! This all Buddhas teach. Seeing Dispute as Danger, Harmony as final Peace; Be United as Friends! This all Buddhas teach. Seeing Negligence as Danger, Diligence as final Peace; Develop the Noble 8-fold Way This all Buddhas teach. --ooOoo-- Source: The basket of Behaviour. Cariapitaka. The 15th book. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=13072X All yours in the Dhamma. Constructions Decay & Vanish. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ 29907 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 2:39am Subject: Re: the self... how? Hi Andy, James: This is one of my pet/favorite topics (along with Victor I think ;-) and I have chosen to respond to your post. I am just going to give you my viewpoint and not argue it further. Take what you want and reject what you don't want. First, did the Buddha teach: "There is no self"? No, he did not teach any such thing, ever! Such a teaching would be a metaphysical position and the Buddha did not teach metaphysical positions, he only taught what was conducive to the holy life. What is conducive to the holy life along these lines? Those who wish to attain liberation should view nothing as self. This seems to be a small difference in viewpoint but it really isn't. It is extremely crucial to understand this difference to really understand what the Buddha taught. I am warning you now, many members in this group DSG teach the incorrect