13000 From: Lucy Date: Mon Apr 29, 2002 3:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 5 (1-7) Hi Larry > > Recently I've been thinking about mudita. It is specifically described > as rejoicing at the success and prosperity of others, but 'sympathetic > joy' sounds a lot like 'love' to me. > You may be right in the sense that we rejoice spontaneously at the success of people we love or like. Complete strangers aren't too hard either. But it's not easy to develop mudita towards people we dislike or see as competitors. Also, it seems easier to develop compassion (karuna) than metta or mudita towards those we don't like ... All 4 work as good "antidotes" to dosa, but perhaps only equanimity helps to neutralise lobha, at least that's my impression. Lucy 13001 From: Date: Mon Apr 29, 2002 4:36pm Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Thanks Kom, I see my mistake. I was equating satipatthana with vipassana but that's not quite correct. I think I found the source of the controversy over objects of satipatthana, but first here are some interesting snippets from "A Comprehensive Manual Of Abhidhamma". ch. 2, guide to #5 The word sati derives from a root meaning "to remember," but as a mental factor it signifies presence of mind, attentiveness to the present, rather than the faculty of memory regarding the past. It has the characteristic of not wobbling, i.e. not floating away from the object. Its function is absence of confusion or non-forgetfulness. It is manifested as guardianship, or as the state of confronting an objective field. Its proximate cause is strong perception (thirasanna) or the four foundations of mindfulness. ch.2, #5 Faith, mindfulness, shame, fear of wrongdoing, non-greed, non-hatred, neutrality of mind, tranquility of (mental) body, tranquility of consciousness, lightness of (mental) body, lightness of consciousness, malleability of the (mental) body, malleability of consciousness, wieldiness of (mental) body, wieldiness of consciousness, proficiency of the (mental) body, proficiency of consciousnss, rectitude of the (mental) body, and rectitude of consciousness; these nineteen mental factors are termed the universal beautiful factors. [Larry: in other words, whenever sati arises all these other qualities also arise]. ch.7, #24 In the compendium of requisites of enlightenment, there are four foundations of mindfulness: (1) the foundation of mindfulness in contemplation of the body; (2) the foundation of mindfulness in contemplation of feelings; (3) the foundation of mindfulness in contemplation of consciousness; (4) the foundation of mindfulness in contemplation of mental objects. Larry: 'contemplation of mental objects' is a translation of 'dhammanupassana.' So the controversy is, does this 'dhamma' mean paramattha-dhamma or dhammarammana. I would think something would have to prevent sati from taking concepts as object, but I don't see what it would be. Do you have a source or reason for your interpretation? Larry 13002 From: Date: Mon Apr 29, 2002 6:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 5 (1-7) Hi Lucy, I messed up the definition of mudita. It's appreciative joy, not sympathetic joy. My mindfulness is operating on a three hour delay and it didn't occur to me until the middle of the night. What I find interesting about mudita is that it seems to open the door to liking people (and things). That's different! Larry 13003 From: Date: Mon Apr 29, 2002 6:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re:anicca (do concepts arise and fall?) Hi Goglerr, I've decided the most soothing way for my brain to understand concepts is if something is impermanent it is a reality (possibly an erroneous one). If it is not impermanent, it is as concept. So mathematics is a concept, but solving a mathematic problem is a reality. Also kings, and even governments, are realities. However, it would be very difficult to be mindful of a government. What do you think? Larry 13004 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Apr 29, 2002 7:45pm Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Dear Larry, > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > > ch. 2, guide to #5 > The word sati derives from a root meaning "to remember," but as a mental > factor it signifies presence of mind, attentiveness to the present, > rather than the faculty of memory regarding the past. It has the > characteristic of not wobbling, i.e. not floating away from the object. > Its function is absence of confusion or non-forgetfulness. It is > manifested as guardianship, or as the state of confronting an objective > field. Its proximate cause is strong perception (thirasanna) or the four > foundations of mindfulness. I think we will have to remember also that sati rises with all kusala (and sobhana vipaka and kiriya), even when sati is not itself satipatthana. There is sati at the sila level, at the dana level, at the tranquil meditation level, at satiipatthana level, at vipassana level, at magga level, etc. Does the manual say any more abou what the strong perception (thirasanna) is? > > ch.2, #5 > Faith, mindfulness, shame, fear of wrongdoing, non-greed, non-hatred, > neutrality of mind, tranquility of (mental) body, tranquility of > consciousness, lightness of (mental) body, lightness of consciousness, > malleability of the (mental) body, malleability of consciousness, > wieldiness of (mental) body, wieldiness of consciousness, proficiency of > the (mental) body, proficiency of consciousnss, rectitude of the > (mental) body, and rectitude of consciousness; these nineteen mental > factors are termed the universal beautiful factors. [Larry: in other > words, whenever sati arises all these other qualities also arise]. Yes. These are sobhana-sadarana-cetasikas. Sadrana means public (readily available to all sobhana), pretty much the same as in Pali as in Thai. > > ch.7, #24 > In the compendium of requisites of enlightenment, there are four > foundations of mindfulness: (1) the foundation of mindfulness in > contemplation of the body; (2) the foundation of mindfulness in > contemplation of feelings; (3) the foundation of mindfulness in > contemplation of consciousness; (4) the foundation of mindfulness in > contemplation of mental objects. > > Larry: 'contemplation of mental objects' is a translation of > 'dhammanupassana.' So the controversy is, does this 'dhamma' mean > paramattha-dhamma or dhammarammana. I would think something would have > to prevent sati from taking concepts as object, but I don't see what it > would be. Do you have a source or reason for your interpretation? I will have to pass here to others. However, as you don't appear to have problems with abhidhamma, I urge you to continue reading to find out what objects of Satipatthana could be. Let me give you the following observations: 1) B. Bodhi mentioned that there are at least 10 different meanings of the word dhamma, with some differences very subtle 2) Dhamayatana also includes only paramatha dhamma, and not concepts, but dhammaramana include concepts. 3) Concepts, as far as I know, have no ti-lakkhana (other members disagree, but I think you should read on), and since the object of the cittas immediately prior to magga citta is one of the ti-lakkhana, it does also make sense that concepts cannot be part of dhamma-nupassana (since concept doesn't have ti-lakkhana as its characteristics). 4) When you read satipathanna sutta, in the dhammayatna section, I believe all that are mentioned are paramatha dhammas: so this raises no confusion. The usual confusion comes in the kaya-nupassana, because it seems to include many conceptual objects. kom 13005 From: Date: Mon Apr 29, 2002 8:38pm Subject: ADL ch.6 (1-6) from: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life chapter 1, paragraphs 1-6 THE CHARACTERISTIC OF DOSA 1. When we are angry with other people we harm ourselves by our anger. The Buddha pointed out the adverse effects of anger (dosa). We read in the 'Gradual Sayings' (Book of the Sevens, Ch.VI, par. 10, Anger) about the ills a rival wishes his rival to have and which are actually the ills coming upon an angry woman or man. The sutta states: ...Monks, there is the case of the rival, who wishes thus of a rival: 'Would that he were ugly!'. And why? A rival, monks, does not like a handsome rival. Monks, this sort of person, being angry, is overwhelmed by anger; he is subverted by anger: and however well he be bathed, anointed, trimmed as to the hair and beard, clad in spotless linen; yet for all that he is ugly, being overwhelmed by anger. Monks, this is the first condition, fostered by rivals, causing rivals, which comes upon an angry woman or man. Again, there is the case of the rival, who wishes thus of a rival: 'Would that he might sleep badly!' And why? A rival, monks, does not like a rival to sleep well. Monks, this sort of person, being angry, is overwhelmed by anger... and in spite of his lying on a couch, spread with a fleecy cover, spread with a white blanket, spread with a woollen coverlet, flower embroidered, covered with rugs of antelope skins, with awnings above; or on a sofa, with crimson cushions at either end; yet for all that he lies in discomfort, being overwhelmed by anger. Monks, this is the second condition.... 2. We then read about other ills a rival wishes for his rival, which come upon an angry woman or man. We read that a rival wishes his rival to be without prosperity, wealth and fame. Further we read that a rival wishes a rival to be without friends and this happens to someone who is an angry person. 3. The text states: 'Monks, this sort of person, being angry... whatever friends, intimates, relations and kinsmen he may have, they will avoid him and keep far away from him, because he is overwhelmed by anger...' 4. A rival wishes his rival to have an unhappy rebirth and this can happen to an angry person. We read: ' ... ..Monks, this sort of person, being angry... he misconducts himself in deed, in word and thought; so living, so speaking and so thinking, on the breaking up of the body after death he is reborn in the untoward way, the ill way, the abyss, hell....' 5. We would like to live in a world of harmony and unity among nations and we are disturbed when people commit acts of violence. We should consider what is the real cause of war and discord between people: it is the defilements which people have accumulated. When we have aversion we think that other people or unpleasant situations are the cause of our aversion. However, our accumulation of dosa is the real cause that aversion arises time and again. If we want to have less dosa we should know the characteristic of dosa and we should be aware of it when it arises. 6. Dosa has many degrees; it can be a slight aversion or it can be more coarse, such as anger. We can recognize dosa when it is coarse, but do we realize that we have dosa when it is more subtle? Through the study of the Abhidhamma we learn more about the characteristic of dosa. Dosa is an akusala cetasika (mental factor) arising with an akusala citta. A citta rooted in dosa is called in Pali: dosa-mula.citta. The characteristic of dosa is different from the characteristic of lobha. When there is lobha, the citta likes the object which it experiences at that moment, whereas when there is dosa, the citta has aversion towards the object it experiences. We can recognize dosa when we are angry with someone and when we speak disagreeable words to him. But when we are afraid of something it is dosa as well, because one has aversion towards the object one is afraid of. There are so many things in life we are afraid of: one is afraid of the future, of diseases, of accidents, of death. One looks for many means in order to be cured of anguish, but the only way is the development of the wisdom which eradicates the latent tendency of dosa. 13006 From: Date: Mon Apr 29, 2002 9:14pm Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Hi Kom, Good reminders about what arises with sati; this is one very good cetasika! One possibility I thought of about reading 'dhamma' as 'paramattha-dhamma' in satipatthana is that it could simply be a rule, a part of the proceedure of a formal practice that leads somewhere. As you say, sati can arise in other situations outside satipatthana. Mostly I'm still a little puzzled about how to understand concept. Hopefully this will clear up as we go along. I couldn't find any more info on thirasanna. Maybe Nina has something. best wishes, Larry 13007 From: Date: Mon Apr 29, 2002 9:23pm Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Hi Kom, one more thought. I forgot about discursive thought during mindfulness practice. You're definitely not supposed to dwell on it. That probably factors in to the paramattha-dhamma 'rule'. Larry 13008 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Apr 29, 2002 10:00pm Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Dear Larry, > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > > Hi Kom, > > One possibility I thought of about reading 'dhamma' as > 'paramattha-dhamma' in satipatthana is that it > could simply be a rule, a > part of the proceedure of a formal practice that > leads somewhere. As you As far as I know, this is not a trick or a technique. It's simply just the truth. Only realities exist (even if infinitesmally briefly, even if it is dependently conditioned). > say, sati can arise in other situations outside > satipatthana. Mostly I'm > still a little puzzled about how to understand > concept. Hopefully this > will clear up as we go along. I understand this is really hard to understand (even intellectually, much harder in reality), even though I believe it is the most important distinction one could make. I am sure it will be easier if you keep reading and considering the different distinctions. The amount of explanation of the dhammas, both the tipitika and the commentaries themselves, is just mind boggling: this really shows the compassion of the Buddha. Let me summarize some points about realities and concepts: 1) Realities are directly known, without additional thinking. A baby doesn't know what a table is, but the baby can as well see what appears through the eye-door. Table requires thinking. Visible objects appear directly. 2) Realities have its own characteristics (visesa lakkhana) (including the ti-lakkhana). Concepts don't (again, controversial, at least in this group!). When realities appear through the mind door, it is quite different when concepts appear through the mind door. 3) For most suttas that are apparently about Satipatthana, the Buddha only mention realities (the 5 kandhas). When we compare something that doesn't directly relate to realities, like freedom, this may be easy to see. kom 13009 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 29, 2002 11:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mind Objects and Satipatthana Hi Howard, --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, all - > > I took the following from Nyanatiloka's dictionary: > > *********************************** > > Dhamma, as object of mind (dhammáyatana, s. áyatana) may be anything > past, > > present or future, corporeal or mental, conditioned or not (cf. > sankhára, > > 4), real or imaginary. > ************************** It's a good point and it was mentioned when we were discussing ayatanas. I think Nyantiloka's dictionary is excellent but there are a few errors. He equates dhammayatana with dhammarammana without any distinction and this doesn't accord with the text as we discussed. Dhammayatana (mind object base) consists of 16 sukhuma rupa (subtle rupa), 52 cetasika (mental factors) and nibbana. I believe this was quoted from Abhidhamatha Sangaha and other source after Num raised the question of pannatti (concepts). Nyantiloka doesn't give any reference to any contrary sources to support his comment. Let me know if you'd like the reference again. Dhammarammana (objects of consciousness) on the other hand, also include objects of sense experience and pannatti (concepts) and the quote above regarding 'real or imaginary' applies to them. Not all arammana are real and can be objects of satipatthana. > dhammánupassaná: 'contemplation of the mind-objects' is the last of > the 4 > foundations of > > mindfulness (satipatthána, q.v.) > > ************************************ > > This says to me that the last of the 4 foundations of mindfulness > is > the contemplation, as object of mind, of "anything past, present or > future, > corporeal or mental, conditioned or not (cf. sankhára, 4), real or > imaginary > ". Does this not seem to go well beyond so-called "realities"? Again, this seems to be a description of dhammarammana and not of dhammanupassana which only refers to any paramattha dhammas which can be objects of satipathana. I haven't seen any evidence or reference in the texts to the contrary, i'll be happy to look at any you find. I agree that the comment in the dictionary is surprising. Kom (I believe) wrote a clear post defining these different terms before. Pls let me know if you'd like me to repost this also. The terms can be very confusing, I know. Sarah ====== 13010 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 29, 2002 11:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Samatha bhavana - Rob Ep Dear Rob Ep, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > Well I may have ruined our agreement with my latest rant, but do me a > favor and > pick out the points worth addressing in that thing. I am running away > from it, as > one would if discovering that they had given birth to an elephant. I have no idea about your agreement with Jon (hope you know about agreements with lawyers;-)), but I appreciate your 'rant' with your carefully considered comments and sincere expressions of your understanding of dhamma to date. I'm glad you share them with us all and don't worry about giving birth to elephants (as long as they're not white elephants);-) I'm also enjoying your discussion with Sukin and I think it's very useful and practical. Thanks to you both. No need to run...(leave it to Num), Sarah ===== 13011 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 0:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Study/Meditation Dear Christine, I read your post with great interest and also appreciated Howard’s points on the prison escape;-). --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Sarah and All, > > Your on-list reply to my query about further suggestions for study > seemed a little negative to me at first, and rather startled me. > Then your words mentioning that I've probably read all there is to > read on Paticcasamuppada stimulated further reflection. Though I > have been reading lots and enjoying it, and 'feeling' that it is > helping understanding to grow by seeing the same teaching presented > in different ways - I now wonder if perhaps it was really just an > attempt at creating a structure, a feeling of 'doing' something. > Something to replace the sitting meditation I had ceased to practice. ..... I certainly didn’t mean to discourage any further study or reading and like you, I find it helpful to read different details. I think the point I was making, though, is whether we are studying, sitting in formal M or working in the hospital at this moment, it is the present state of mind that counts. I think we all agree on this. I think we all agree as well that while it is important, even essential, to hear and read the Teachings, the fomal S is not the same as the direct awareness of the realities we’ve just read about. We can never say how much it is useful for anyone to read about Paticcasamuppada or any other aspect of the Teachings. So much depends on our different inclinations and habits. Just as we can see that you and Lucy study maps a little differently from many others, so we all study the Tipitaka differently too. For all of us, though, the test of the study is always at this moment, just like the test of our map-reading is always whether it has helped or hindered at any given time. ..... > Time and again on other lists study is described by sincere, > experienced meditation practitioners as 'clinging to old books', > avoiding 'real' practice; that studying is fine as a small part of > buddhist life (mainly the suttas), but the 'real work' is done in > formal meditation, 'on the cushion'. ..... I think we’re all familiar with these ideas and have mostly thought the same at one time or other. I think it’s also clear that there are many different ideas of what M is. According to Goglerr’s use of the term, with reference to the texts and according to Rob Ep’s wide definition, then we’re all M practioners here. We have to know what ‘real practice’, ‘real work’ and ‘formal M’ are and where the definitions are supported in the Tipitaka as being the Teachings of the Buddha. I don’t think anyone would say that any followers in the Buddha’s life did not listen to the Teachings. Why would the Buddha have taught so extensively if it wasn’t necessary to hear and consider carefully? We seem to be discussing two opposite points here;-) ..... > It has always felt a little frustrating and 'unnatural' not to have > a method - everything else in life from academic learning to cooking > to driving a car, has a method that teaches one to first do this, > then that, and afterwards the next thing, until various milestones > and, eventually, the goal is reached, - except, it seems, in the > gaining of insight. In hindsight, I see that probably 'study' became > my 'method'. ..... I think you’ve understood the point beautifully. We like to be given a method, just as we like to cling to an idea of self and ‘control’ the progress. ..... > You mention the importance of 'developing awareness now and > understanding more about anatta'. I get confused between being > encouraged to 'develop' qualities like awareness, and being told that > these states will be arising regardless of any wishes....and I was > discouraged by my inability to ever fully comprehend 'anatta'. ..... Good points. There is a difference, however, between understanding the value of useful or wholesome qualities and having the idea of self doing something to increase them. You felt discouraged about *your* inability to comprehend anatta. May I suggest that it is discouraging only when there is still the clinging to the idea of *my* ability. or lack of. ..... > Recently though, I have corresponded with experienced people who have > pointed out to me that 'anatta' is not as difficult or complicated to > understand as I believe, or as some imply. That I may have been > making things more difficult for myself, and that increasing > concentration by meditation practice may do away with a lot of > unnecessary ruminating. That I will begin to 'know'.... ..... With all respect to those who have suggested the opposite, we read again and again in the texts about the just how deep in meaning the teaching is, how it cannot be comprehended without the help of the Buddha, how it is only for the very wise and so on. Rob K recently quoted this passage on this point: “in the Mahanidana sutta atthakatha it says that this is such a deep matter: "Its depth of penetration should be understood ..Deep is the meaning of consciousness as emptiness, abscence of an agent.." The tika continues: "Consciousness's meaning of emptiness is deep because consciousness is said to be the distinctive basis for the misapprehension of self. As it is said "for a long time the uninstructed worldling has been attached to this, appropriated it, and misapprehended it thus; 'This is mine this I am , this is self'"(samyutta XII 61 ii94)(bodhi p66)” ***** > When I was doing sitting meditation ( Mahasi), there was always > something to 'watch' and 'label', and be aware of. There was > seemingly some organisation, some structure, some method, some > purpose, something to do .... {- and, I know, some feeling of > some 'one' who is doing..}. I guess I am one of those people who > feel more secure with structure and a task to accomplish - feeling I > have 'some' influence on the way that my life will go. > I wouldn't regard 'becoming an abhidhamma scholar' as any part of my > aim. My learning style is simply to 'hear' or 'read' the Teachings > in many different ways (in print, in person, on tape). Perhaps I am > a little slow, but one presentation of a particular topic doesn't > often 'take'; my experience has been that understanding creeps up on > me, something I couldn't grasp initially, appears fairly simple a few > months later. ..... Chris, I find your comments and considerations here to be very pertinent and useful and there seems to be a clear recognition of the clinging to structure and task and ‘doing’, a recognition of the “’one’ who is doing”, and the way understanding develops naturally, unfolding in its own time. ..... > And so, I am wondering what the point of the last year's work has > been, I feel I have come in a giant loop and I am back at the > beginning again......wondering at the 'gathering of theories, > opinions and book knowledge', wondering why the majority of western > buddhists are involved in sitting meditation and wondering why a very > few aren't. ..... In a way, I think the development of understanding and awareness is rather like a ‘giant loop’ and being ‘back at the beginning again’. We begin to see that the realities and phenomena to be known are just as they’ve always been in ordinary daily life which is just as it is, having been ‘formed up’ by so many different factors. So some of our former ideas and methods may have given the illusion of another kind of daily life or a different set of phenomena or a kind of ‘running away’ from the baby elephant (Rob Ep). I’m not at all poetic, but I want to suggest that there can be the illusion of running or escaping for so long, following all sorts of maps, methods or escape routes, but sooner or later, panna has to develop and know the real phenomena and the roots of dukkha, regardless of the ‘situation’. I’d like to finish with a quote from a post of Kom’s (26 Feb) which I found helpful on the same point: “One understands that when the intricate conditions completely culminates, then the dhamma arises. One understands that one cannot control ANY of the condition as each condition is complexly conditioned by more than a few other dhammas. Pratice (pati-pati, well-rounded comprehension of the dhamma) works in similar ways. No conventional effort is required. When there is enough of other levels of panna, then panna at the pati-pati level rises effortlessly, without the self (tanha, mana, and dithi) directing one to do things to achieve specific results.” ***** Understanding anatta takes courage, sincerity, patience and many other qualities which are often lacking. If we underestimate the difficulty of the path, I believe we make it harder still. Many thanks, Chris, for your open and helpful comments. I fully appreciate that you have probably been diplomatic (read-self moderated) in the comments on your reactions to much of what you read in my earlier post, but please feel free to disagree or raise any discouragement or credulity you feel at anytime. You’ll be doing us all a favour as there will always be others who share similar reactions. metta, Sarah ======= 13012 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 0:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Study/Meditation Hi Christine (and Ken H) --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear KenH, > Did I hear they'd seen the Irukanji > in large numbers off Noosa? :-) :-) > > metta, > Chris Ok...I won't discuss the universal metta now as I'm out of time, but I'd like you to know that the Irukanji reference has been noted...hmmmm:-( :-( According to a short note in our Sunday papers here (for the none-too-wise on this subject), two tourists "have been killed by jellyfish while swimming in NE australian waters..." It seems the Irukanji are highly venomous and very hard to spot as they are only the size of a thumbnail, but with long stinging tentacles. "The Irukandji may habe been responsible for numerous unexplained fatalities, or supposed heart attacks, at sea." Chris, remember when you're sitting snuggly with your hot choc that you're also on lifeguard rescue call. Hope it's not called for. I suppose we could always consider visiting Frank in Hawaii with all the Ss and hopefully no Irukanji...Hmm... As I was saying about present moment realities and proliferations.... Sarah p.s Frank - best wishes in your new spot of dukkha and hope you keep grinning;-) ========= 13013 From: goglerr Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 1:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] re:anicca (do concepts arise and fall?) Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: Hi Goglerr, L:I've decided the most soothing way for my brain to understand concepts is if something is impermanent it is a reality (possibly an erroneous one). If it is not impermanent, it is as concept. G: In my opinion, I would say it in this manner. If it is a concept, it does no have an intrinsic nature (sabhava lakkhana), and without intrinsic nature it's beyond impermanent, unsatisfactorines and non- self. Little addition, Nibbana is still reality, because it has some intrinsic nature but it is beyond the three universal characteristics. L:So mathematics is a concept, but solving a mathematic problem is a reality. G:You're right, the changing mind which is 'working and thinking' trying to solve the problem is reality. But this mind is a very discursive and too 'energetic', they cloud the realities of the mind. The true nature of the mind cannot be seen b'cos it's too 'unstable'. That what happen to us almost every moment of the waking hours where the mind 'wants' to be filled with all kinds of concept. L:Also kings, and even governments, are realities. However, it would be very difficult to be mindful of a government. What do you think? G: On the contrary, kings and goverments are not realities. How could that be? King is a human (concept) but a human is made up of mind and materiality, other words is 5 Aggregates (realities). G: When we see (or hear or read) a 'king', conceptualization takes place. It gives a notion of a 'form' (of a human), aided by memory and perception, mental factor of sanna. This sanna which are already conditioned countless of time since we are born, perceives that form as a 'human' (or a king). Without understanding of the ultimate realities, we are actually dwelling in the world of concepts. G: Of course, in the everyday usage, or in conventional usage, we use these concepts for the sake of communication. It is perfectly OK, nothing wrong with that. The important point is that we should not grasp on these concepts. G: The differentiation between concepts and realities can be achived by vipassana. When we know what is real and what is not-so-real, then letting go will start to take place. Larry Best wishes, goglerr 13014 From: Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 2:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Hi, Kom (and Larry) - In a message dated 4/30/02 1:03:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kom@a... writes: > Let me summarize some points about realities and concepts: > > 1) Realities are directly known, without additional > thinking. A baby doesn't know what a table is, but the baby > can as well see what appears through the eye-door. Table > requires thinking. Visible objects appear directly. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm, maybe so. A baby also doesn't know what brown-wood-color is either, but sees it directly through the eye door. Brown-wood-color, at the sa~n~na level, requires thinking (or, better, mind involvement), though the visible object per se appears directly, without mental involvement. So, there is concept involved with a level of apprehension, the sa~n~na level, even of elementary experiences such as brown-wood-color, just as there is concept involved at the sa~n~na level of compounded experiences such as that of a table. The difference, it seems to me, is that the experience of a table is fabricated by mental functions from more elementary experiences, and involves not only the more elementary experienced objects, but also relations among them. It would seem that concepts of such alleged entities as tables are the standard means that humans have for apprehending patterns and relations. These concepts are powerful mental constructs with much genuine knowledge built in. They have "predictive capacity", to coin a term. By recognizing a pattern of direct experiences as a single "thing" called a table, we can, generally correctly, predict, for example, that carrying out the action we call "touching the table" will result in a feel of hardness. A baby, without that concept, likely would not make such prediction. The problem with concepts is that they are concepts of unitary "things", with separate own-being and identity, whereas the insight of an arahant is superior, giving knowledge and also being free of such reificational error. ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > 2) Realities have its own characteristics (visesa lakkhana) > (including the ti-lakkhana). Concepts don't (again, > controversial, at least in this group!). When realities > appear through the mind door, it is quite different when > concepts appear through the mind door. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: By concepts here, I presume what you are talking about is not concepts-as-ideas, such as the generic idea of 'table', but rather observed instances of such ideas, such as the table I see right now as I look into my living room. Now, in what sense does that table have no characteristics? It is brown, circular with scalloped edge, three-footed, about 3' 6" tall, and about 2' in diameter. It is also true that that table very gradually ages, becomes duller in color, etc, etc. So, it has characteristics, including the tilakkhana. A big difference that I see between that alleged table and the paramattha dhammas from which it is mentally constructed is that the paramattha dhammas are "internal" experiences of hardness, colors, etc, whereas the "table" is mentally projected as being "out there", a seemingly real, unitary "thing" outside of and independent of being discerned. So there is a greater degree of ignorance involved in our apprehension of such a thing as a table. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > 3) For most suttas that are apparently about Satipatthana, > the Buddha only mention realities (the 5 kandhas). When we > compare something that doesn't directly relate to realities, > like freedom, this may be easy to see. > > =========================== 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) 13015 From: Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 6:43am Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Hi Kom, I see what we are talking about now. I was confusing sati with manasikara (attention). I agree it is not a rule; sati cannot have concept for an object. However, isn't it also true sati cannot have any akusala citta for an object? Also, except for impermanence, what is the difference between kusala citta and nibbana? have a nice day, Larry 13016 From: wynn Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 7:58am Subject: Iddhi Hi, Sorry to interupt. Also, I am not sure this is the right place to ask these questions. Before answering my questions, please take note that I am aware that supranormal power is NOT a pre-requisite for enlightenment and it is not necessary to have it all. I am just being curious after readings several passages about it in several books. First Question. Are the KASINA MEDITATION mentioned in the Tipitaka? Second Question Visudhimagga do teaches how to develop supranormal powers. (see Visudhimagga Chapter XII & Chapter V, verse 27 onwards) But does the Tipitaka tell us how? I have never come across it. The nearest is this: ".......And what is the miracle of psychic power? There is the case where a monk wields manifold psychic powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds........." (Kevatta Sutta etc.) Third Question I understand that to have the supernormal power, one must have mastery over the 4 jhanas, right? But, the Visudhimagga said we must have mastery of all the 8 jhanas. But if this is true, does that mean that those who have supranormal powers have mastery of all the 8 jhanas? How do you explain the levitation perform by the yogis of TM (Transcendental Meditation) Regards, Wynn 13017 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 8:38am Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Dear Larry, > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 6:43 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom > > > Hi Kom, I see what we are talking about now. I > was confusing sati with > manasikara (attention). I agree it is not a > rule; sati cannot have > concept for an object. However, isn't it also > true sati cannot have any > akusala citta for an object? For satipatthana, any reality can be its object, including akusala citta. Otherwise, we can't tell the difference between kusala and akusala cittas. For non-satipatthana, concepts can be an object of sati. When we have metta, karuna, mudita, or upekkha toward other people, the object is a person or an animal, which is concept (thinking that the visible we see is a person, or a sound we hear belongs to a person, etc.). > Also, except for > impermanence, what is the > difference between kusala citta and nibbana? > 1) Nibbana is an unconditioned reality. Its characteristics doesn't depend on other realties. 2) Nibbana has neither impermanence nor dukkha as its characteristics. When we say something is conditioned, it means a variety of factors bring something else into existence, although very briefly. For example, we may feel compassionate toward other people when they are suffering. Seeing and hearing, along with our accumulations, condition the thinking about the person in a compassionate way. When we see something unfolding in our daily life, and we think of how the dhamma applies to the situation, having listened to the dhamma, our accumulations, and seeing or hearing (etc.) condition the consideration. When we are aware of the characteristic of a reality, having listened to the dhamma and considered the dhamma, firm memory of the teaching, and seeing/hearing (etc.) condition the rising of awareness. There is no self that does, no single factor that brings about. When conditions are ripe, the result of those conditions occurs. Even right now, can we force ourself to understand what other people are saying? Can we force ourself to have kusala or akusala? I am hearing a voice outside my condo, I feel slight anger because I dislike loud noises. Hearing conditions unwise reflection which conditions akusala states. This is despite the knowledge that akusala is not good, and the fact that we are dicussing dhammas! Nibbana has no such property. Nothing conditions nibbana, although nibbana can be an object of the citta. Because nibbana is unconditioned, it also doesn't fall away. This is why nibbana is the supreme reality (bliss?). No other dhamma can be truely relied on, because they all fall away (including jhana, panna, kusala, etc.), but nibbana can be truly relied on. Nina has explain that when we say we take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha, the dhamma here ultimately means nibbana, for it is an unconditioned reality. kom 13018 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 8:59am Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Dear Howard, > -----Original Message----- > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > > 1) Realities are directly known, without additional > > thinking. A baby doesn't know what a table is, > but the baby > > can as well see what appears through the > eye-door. Table > > requires thinking. Visible objects appear directly. > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Mmm, maybe so. A baby also doesn't know > what brown-wood-color is > either, but sees it directly through the eye > door. Brown-wood-color, at the > sa~n~na level, requires thinking (or, better, > mind involvement), though the > visible object per se appears directly, without > mental involvement. So, there > is concept involved with a level of apprehension, > the sa~n~na level, even of > elementary experiences such as brown-wood-color, > just as there is concept > involved at the sa~n~na level of compounded > experiences such as that of a > table. Thank you for the additional details adding depth to the discussions. The example of a table, and baby not cognizing table, and that we do are usually an effective example to explain the high-level differences between concepts and realities. The abhidhamma gives further explanation that even if the baby doesn't cognize the concept of a table (being a place to put things on, having 4 legs, being hard, called a table, etc.). By cognizing shape and form (this I have seen in the past, it is different from other shapes, it is located in such and such places, etc.), the baby is already cognizing a concept. When a visible object appears to the mind door, it also appears to the mind door that immediately follows afterward. After the repetition of the visible objects, elementary concepts form even without the knowledge of utility or a language. Animals also have concepts of things and selves. A full-grown human has more elaborate concepts (that more often mislead them) about a table because of the knowledge of utilities, language, etc. We mistake the concept as being real, identifying the concept with what just appeared through the eyedoor, and meanwhile missing all the sign of impermanence, dukkha, and non-self. > The difference, it seems to me, is that > the experience of a table is > fabricated by mental functions from more > elementary experiences, and involves > not only the more elementary experienced objects, > but also relations among > them. It would seem that concepts of such alleged > entities as tables are the > standard means that humans have for apprehending > patterns and relations. Agreeing with you so far. > These concepts are powerful mental constructs > with much genuine knowledge > built in. They have "predictive capacity", to > coin a term. By recognizing a > pattern of direct experiences as a single "thing" > called a table, we can, > generally correctly, predict, for example, that > carrying out the action we > call "touching the table" will result in a feel > of hardness. Yes, conventionally, this is a very useful knowledge. The problem is we take these tables as being what they are not: tables, without knowing that is a construct of realities (and beyond), and miss all the useful (dhammic) signs of visible objects as realities. > A baby, without > that concept, likely would not make such > prediction. The problem with > concepts is that they are concepts of unitary > "things", with separate > own-being and identity, whereas the insight of an > arahant is superior, giving > knowledge and also being free of such reificational error. I think we do agree quite a bit here, Howard. This conditions much joy and lobha. kom 13019 From: Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 0:34pm Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Hi Kom, How about this. Sati arises with all kusala cittas. Sati cetasika cannot arise with an akusala citta. However, a kusala consciousness stream practicing satipatthana can cognize an akusala consciousness which interrupts the satipatthana. This is called mindfulness of mind (cittanupassana-satipatthanam). This citta of cittanupassana which interrupts the satipatthana can be cognizing anything, even concepts as in discursive thinking. Also, I think panna must be present in satipatthana but not necessarily arise with all kusala cittas. Sati by itself is just presence of mind; panna brings the understanding. back to you, Larry 13020 From: Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 0:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re:anicca (do concepts arise and fall?) Hi Goglerr, I don't know if it does much good to distinguish between concept and reality since they both can be the object of lobha-dosa-moha. Conceit (mana) and personality belief (sakkaya-ditthi) are realities, not concepts; how can that be? The main difference I see is that we can see the arising and dissolution of paramattha dhammas, but we can also see the arising and dissolution of a cookie. What about that??? Larry 13021 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 1:42pm Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Dear Larry, > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > > > Hi Kom, > How about this. Sati arises with all kusala cittas. Sati cetasika cannot Sati also rises with sobhana vipaka and kiriya cittas. > arise with an akusala citta. However, a kusala consciousness stream Yes. > practicing satipatthana can cognize an akusala consciousness which > interrupts the satipatthana. This is called mindfulness of mind > (cittanupassana-satipatthanam). Yes, when there is satipatthana cognizing the citta as akusala (and as dhamma, not-self), this is called cittanupassana-satipatthanam. > This citta of cittanupassana which > interrupts the satipatthana can be cognizing anything, even concepts as > in discursive thinking. Yes. > > Also, I think panna must be present in satipatthana but not necessarily > arise with all kusala cittas. Yes. Panna is a necessary component in satipatthana, but panna doesn't rise with all kusala cittas (because we can give dana without any wisdom associated with it). In fact, not all panna is at the satipatthana level. There must be also panna in tranquil meditation, but it is panna that knows the differences between kusala and akusala states, and what brings about the kusala and akusala states. This is not panna at the satipatthana level, which requires the teaching of anattaness by a sammasam-Buddha (except for all the buddhas, of course!). > Sati by itself is just presence of mind; > panna brings the understanding. Yes. One thing that I notice is that you word it that Satipatthana is interrupted. In a person who just begins to develop satipatthana, it is more like satipatthana interrupting the stream of akusala, and not otherwise. kom 13022 From: Lucy Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 3:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 5 (1-7) Hi Larry You didn't mess it up. I've seen it as sympathetic joy too --- somehow, I think one has to like people at least a little to be able to develop mudita. Perhaps that's why it comes after metta and karuna. Reading the description of metta practice in the Vismg., it seems like hardly anyone I know qualifies as an object to start with (apart from myself!!!) - can't be a teacher or a close friend or someone from the opposite sex or a sick or dead person or ... so, to be on the safe side, I started by cultivating metta on animals : ) Lucy ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 2:03 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 5 (1-7) > Hi Lucy, I messed up the definition of mudita. It's appreciative joy, > not sympathetic joy. My mindfulness is operating on a three hour delay > and it didn't occur to me until the middle of the night. > > What I find interesting about mudita is that it seems to open the door > to liking people (and things). That's different! > > Larry 13023 From: Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 4:06pm Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Thanks Kom,I didn't know that panna at the satipatthana level includes recognition of anatta. Good to know. I have a much better appreciation of sati now. Thanks Larry 13024 From: Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 4:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 5 (1-7) Hi Lucy, regarding the develoment of metta, there's always regarding all beings as your mother from a previous life. I did that for a while but got some very funny looks. Larry 13025 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 7:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Samatha bhavana - Rob Ep --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob Ep, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > > Well I may have ruined our agreement with my latest rant, but do me a > > favor and > > pick out the points worth addressing in that thing. I am running away > > from it, as > > one would if discovering that they had given birth to an elephant. > > I have no idea about your agreement with Jon (hope you know about > agreements with lawyers;-)), but I appreciate your 'rant' with your > carefully considered comments and sincere expressions of your > understanding of dhamma to date. I'm glad you share them with us all and > don't worry about giving birth to elephants (as long as they're not white > elephants);-) > > I'm also enjoying your discussion with Sukin and I think it's very useful > and practical. Thanks to you both. > > No need to run...(leave it to Num), > > Sarah > ===== > thanks, Sarah, very much for your reassurance. sometimes I frighten myself a bit when I read my own posts. now let's see if Jon is equally forgiving of my baby elephant. : ) best, Robert 13026 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 7:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re:anicca (do concepts arise and fall?) this is very interesting. thanks! robert ep. --- goglerr wrote: > Hi Robert, Howard and all, > > Knock! Knock! I would like to barge in for a moment, if u don't > mind? > > The discussion on `concept' caught my eye. I have checked out a few > things from some books to add in, just to make the discussion more > interesting (or perhaps more confusing!). smile > > We understand that the 4 ultimate realities (paramattha dhamma) are > consisting of materiality, consciousness, mental factors and Nibbana. > And the `nature' of concepts (which are `natureless') are explained > from the by the excellent attachment posted by Robert > entitled`Philosophical Cornerstone of the ABHIDHAMMA' by Y. > Karunadasa, The Wheel Publication No. 412/413. > > Pa~n~nati (translated as concepts, idea or notion) are divided into > two categories. > > A. Concept which is made known (pa~n~napiyatiti) > It makes or fabricates a meaning for the mind. For e.g. the notion > of `a piece of machine with lighted screen which you're starring at', > therefore that `notion' begins to fabricate a meaning for the mind. > In other word a notion is born. This concept is also known as attha > pa~n~nati (concept-as-meanings or meaning-concept) > > B. Concepts which makes known (pa~n~napetiti) > It means labeling the notion with a name or a designation. For e.g. > the above notion `a piece of machine with lighted screen which > you're starring at', is mentally labeled as `monitor'. This > concepts is also known as nama pa~n~nati (concept-as-name or name- > concept). So the notion (attha pannati) is designated as `monitor' > (nama pannati). Then, this mental labeling is translated into > speech/words (sadda pannati), that means we actually say it out or > write it down. Just like what I understand (attha pannati) right now, > I put in down in words (nama/sadda pannati). Also we can translate > the notion into action like hand-sign. > > Let's go back to Atthapannathi. There are 6 classes of concept-as- > meaning. > > 1) Formal concepts (santhana pannati) > They correspond to form or configuration of things or the continuity > of things. They correspond to the 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional > world. For e.g. land, mountains, rivers etc. > > 2) Collective concept (samuha pannati) > They correspond to a collective or group of things. For e.g. house, > car, computer, man, woman, a being (satta pannati) etc. > > 3) Directional concepts (disa pannati) > They correspond to a locality or direction, the relationship from one > thing to another. For e.g. east, west, there, up, down, upward, > right, left etc. > > 4) Time concepts (kala pannati) > They correspond to periods or unit of time. They also built upon > recurrent and continuous flow of material and mental phenomena. For > e.g. morning, noon, week, months etc. In material sense, they involve > light and darkness (as in day or night). In mental sense, they > involve mental activities such as sleeping time, lunch time, working > time etc. (There is a book `Abhidhamma Studies: Buddhist > exploration of consciousness and time' by Nyanaponika Thera give wide > coverage on the idea of time from the Buddhist perspective). > > 5) Space concepts (akasa pannati) > They correspond to open spaces or to spatial regions void of > perceptible matter. For e.g. well, cave, hall, window etc. > > 6) Sign concepts (nimitta pannati) > They correspond to visualized images such the learner's sign and > mirror image of tranquility meditation (such as color kasina). Many > hallucination and imageries also come this category. > > Now we go to nama pannati (concept-as-name). They are also 6 ways of > labeling. > > 1) A (direct) concept of what is real. (vijjamana pannati) > Materiality, feelings, consciousness, greed, anger, mental factors, > Nibbana etc. really exist in ultimate sense, which can be directly > experienccs without conceptualisation. The concepts that designate > them (as in words) are called direct concepts of what is real. A > direct experience of the continous arising and ceasing of a real > phenomena (for e.g a painful feeling) is ultimate reality and terming > them as `impermanent' is a direct concept (of that painful feeling). > We have to convey the `activity' of a real phenomena to somebody, > therefore we have to the term `impermanent'. > > 2) A (direct) concept of what is unreal. (avijjamana pannati) > Land, river, hill, person, man, woman, etc. are not ultimate > realities but conventional entities established conceptually through > mental construction. Though these concepts are based on ultimate > realities, the meanings they convey are not things that are > themselves ultimate realities since they do not correspond to things > that exist of their own intrinsic nature (sabhavato). > > 3) A concept of the unreal by means of the real (vijjamanena > avijjamana pannati) > The following no. 3, 4, 5 and 6 will be a combination of no 1 and 2. > E.g. the meditator (person) is mindful. The `meditator' is not real > but `mindful' (with mindfulness) is something real. > > 4) A concept of the real by means of the unreal. (avijjamanena > vijjamana pannati) > E.g. the voice of a man. The `voice' is real but the 'man' is not > real. > > 5) A concept of real by means of real (vijjamanena vijjamana pannati) > E.g. the consciousness of greed. The `consciousness' and 'greed' are > real. > > 6) A concept of unreal by means of unreal (avijjamanena vijjamana > pannati) > E.g. Today is my birthday. `Today', `my', and 'birthday' are not real > ultimately. > > There is also another 6 ways of description of concepts but they are > actually a mixture of both type of concepts (attha and nama pannati) > which are presented above. > > So we may see from here how concepts are formed and conveyed to each > other. The world of concepts, without a doubt, still important in our > everyday life as we need to communicate with each other. We also need > to remind ourselves not to be too engrossed with them. Instead, we > need to look for the world of realities where the end of suffering > lies. > > There are some references for `concepts'. Visuddhimagga (trans by > Nanamoli, VII, footnote 18), Comprehensive manual of Abhidhamma > (trans by B. Bodhi, VIII, pg 325-328), The psychology & philosophy of > Buddhism (by Jayasuriya), Compendium of Philosophy (PTS, 1979 > Anuruddha), Essentials of Insight Meditation (Sujiva) > > Ok. That all for now. > > Goglerr > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > > Hi, Robert - > > > > > > In a message dated 4/26/02 3:11:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > > robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: 13027 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 7:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Supportive spiritual practices (was, what is extreme? ...) Dear Jon, For me personally, I tend to judge practices by their effects rather than by their designation. I tend to see Buddhist thought as the clearest expression of the true human condition, but do see other philosophies as having a place on the continuum of the spiritual life of our species. As regards yoga, I think that it has positive effects, and that it is a practice that can create conditions for the development of peacefulness, concentration, perceptual clarity, the ability to observe thoughts and calm emotions. While I appreciate the possibility you have mentioned several times that such practices can give 'false readings' through suppressing akusala without eradicating it, or create pleasant feelings with attachment that are not really kusala but seem to be [see, I do pay attention at times], I think the overall effect of yoga is positive. To me, the overall state of the body and mind, including the condition of the nervous system, and the psychic energy channels which correspond to what an acupuncurist would talk about, all have an influence on how capable someone is to view realities clearly as they arise, and distinguish thought from object, concept from thought, etc., all the things that denote mindfulness and the development of wisdom. I do not think that yoga by itself can take a person to an understanding of anatta and anicca, but I do think that yoga has a lot to teach about the changing nature of phenomena, control, dissatisfaction, all of which are confronted every time someone works through a pose. In other words, I think it is a positive conditioning agent and a powerful aid on the path. Like any corrolary medicine, it can take one in the wrong direction if used incorrectly. When the friend/teacher I mentioned did his Vipassana retreats, he was used to doing a little yoga inbetween sittings. This was generally discouraged at the retreat center, but they decided in his case to approve it, because the way that he used the yoga was to deal with his body in a way that promoted discernment. He had some medical conditions that the yoga handled to some extent. Anyway, if one has Buddhist principles and path in mind, and uses yoga as a corrolary agent, I think its preparation of the body and mind can be very helpful. Best, Robert Ep. ========================== --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob E > > I note your impassioned (and articulate) arguments in favour of 'supportive > spiritual practices' from outside the teachings (for example, yoga) in the > development of the understanding that is the heart of the teachings. > > Just to clarify where you stand on this issue, would you say that the view > that, 'There is no connection between the practice of yoga and the development > of insight' is in accordance with, or is contrary to, the teachings as you > understand them. > > I ask this not to be picky or anything like that, but to draw out a point ;-). > > Jon > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > hi. > > I am one of those strange people who think that supportive spiritual > > practices do > > increase one's spiritual state. That is one of the reasons I keep arguing in > > favor of meditation, and I would also argue in favor of yoga. To me, the > > path > > involves understanding Dhamma, everyday discernment and skillful practices > > that > > increase one's Right Energy, Right View, etc. When the mind is cleared of > > obscuring concepts in meditation, or the body made more relaxed and the > > nerves > > cleared out through yoga, to me these create conducive conditions for > > understanding and insight. > > > > I have never been able to put the Dhamma in a box where there is one right > > interpretation and one right practice. Has my knowledge of Hindu Advaita > > Vedanta > > or Zen or Tibetan Dzogchen been inconsequential to my understanding of > > Dhamma? To > > me, having a cross-reference of enlightened knowledge is a great asset which > > serves as an underlying commentary to rightly understand teachings. > > > > The fact that the 'modern' father of Yoga, Patanjali, wrote of an Eight-fold > > Path > > [Ashtanga], does not seem totally coincidental to me with the Buddha's Noble > > Eightfold Path. One who has a sense of history will see that there are often > > more > > than coincidences in these sorts of synchronies. Sometimes they mean > > something, > > sometimes they don't. But I don't personally find it helpful to see > > Theravadan > > Buddhism, or Abhidhamma in particular, or whatever one adopts as one's main > > approach to Realization, as an isolated study, an island in the middle of a > > sea of > > inconsequential things that are all thoroughly 'other'. I personally like a > > synergistic approach, as I believe that there is a dialectic in the history > > of > > thought, philosophy and even enlightenment, which comes up in different forms > > throughout history. > > > > The idea that there is a fixed 'Buddhism' which is the only right one, and > > that it > > is not developed but either found as a whole or lost as a static whole, does > > not > > seem right to me. Rather, it seems to me that the principles of Buddhism are > > the > > core that doesn't change, but that the outer form does change, and not only > > changed after the Buddha's parinibbana, but even during the Buddha's > > lifetime, as > > he spoke to different groups, and to my mind, probably became more skillful > > and > > precise at expressing the Dhamma throughout his long career. To see the > > Buddha as > > a static entity who was 'perfect' and thus fixed in stone from the moment of > > his > > Enlightenment, to me also turns the Buddha into a Godhead, and takes away the > > practical skillful development which he himself always praised, and which all > > Buddhist teachers have partaken of throughout their careers. > > > > So for me, the ultimate state of Realization may be a very definite > > experience and > > may not be variable, the principles of Buddhism may be unique, particularly > > Buddha's teaching of Anatta, but the evolution of Buddhism and many of its > > elements are not only shared by various forms of Buddhist practice, but even > > have > > elements in common with other traditions, and which may shed light on the > > true > > nature of the Dhamma. > > > > I know this is not a popular standpoint, but I thought I would take the > > occasion > > to speak my mind. Of course I will go back to the Dhamma, and attempt to be > > in > > the presence of its true meaning, but I will not erase my sense that the > > world is > > in a state of spiritual evolution, and that it is something that all of us > > share > > in various forms. > > > > If Frank *had* meant that his yoga had an influence on his spiritual opening > > or > > understanding of Buddhism, I personally would accept it as a good and > > worthwhile > > possibility. I don't want to be dogmatic about Buddhism, and assume that > > anything > > that isn't expressly from the official version of Buddhism as we imperfectly > > understand it at this time, is the only area from which to draw valuable > > experiences along the path. > > > > Take Care, > > Robert Ep. 13028 From: Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 8:23pm Subject: ADL ch. 6 (7-17) from: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life chapter 6, paragraphs 7-17 7. Dosa is conditioned by lobha: we do not want to lose what is dear to us and when this actually happens we are sad. Sadness is dosa, it is akusala. If we do not know things as they are, we believe that people and things last. However, people and things are only phenomena which arise and fall away immediately. The next moment they have changed already. If we can see things as they are we will be less overwhelmed by sadness. It makes no sense to be sad about what has happened already. 8. In the 'Psalms of the Sisters' (Therigatha, 33) we read that the king's wife Ubbiri mourned the loss of her daughter Jiva. Every day she went to the cemetery. She met the Buddha who told her that in that cemetery about eighty-four thousand of her daughters (in past lives) had been burnt. 9.The Buddha said to her: 'O, Ubbiri, who wails in the wood Crying, O Jiva! O my daughter dear! Come to yourself! See, in this burying-ground Are burnt full many a thousand daughters dear, And all of them were named like unto her. Now which of all those Jivas do you mourn?' 10. After Ubbiri pondered over the Dhamma thus taught by the Buddha she developed insight and saw things as they really are; she even attained arahatship. 11. There are other akusala cetasikas which can arise with cittas rooted in dosa. Regret or worry, in Pali: kukkucca, is an akusala cetasika which arises with dosa-mula-citta at the moment we regret something bad we did or something good we did not do. When there is regret we are thinking of the past instead of knowing the present moment. When we have done something wrong it is of no use having aversion. 12. Envy (issa) is another cetasika which can arise with dosa-mula-citta. There is envy when we do not like someone else to enjoy pleasant things. At that moment the citta does not like the object it experiences. We should find out how often envy arises, even when it is more subtle. This is a way to know whether we really care for someone else or whether we only think of ourselves when we associate with others. 13. Stinginess (macchariya) is another akusala cetasika which may arise with dosa-mula-citta. When we are stingy there is dosa as well. At that moment we do not like someone else to share in our good fortune. 14. Dosa always arises with an unpleasant feeling (domanassa vedana). Most people do not like to have dosa because they do not like to have an unpleasant feeling. As we develop more understanding of realities we want to eradicate dosa not so much because we dislike unpleasant feeling but rather because we realize the adverse effects of akusala. 15. The doorways through which dosa can arise are the five sense-doors and the mind-door. It can arise when we see ugly sights, hear harsh sounds, smell unpleasant odours, taste unappetizing food, receive painful bodily impressions and think of disagreeable things. Whenever there is a feeling of uneasiness, no matter how slight, it is a sign that there is dosa. Dosa may often arise when there are unpleasant impressions through the senses, for example, when the temperature is too hot or too cold. Whenever there is a slightly unpleasant bodily sensation dosa may arise, be it only of a lesser degree. 16. Dosa arises when there are conditions for it. It arises so long as there is still attachment to the objects which can be experienced through the five senses. Everybody would like to experience only pleasant things and when we do not have them any more, dosa can arise. 17. Another condition for dosa is ignorance of Dhamma. If we are ignorant of kamma and vipaka, cause and result., dosa may arise very easily on account of an unpleasant experience through one of the senses and thus dosa is accumulated time and again. An unpleasant experience through one of the senses is akusala vipaka caused by an unwholesome deed we perforrned. When we, for example, hear unpleasant words from someone else we may be angry with that person. Those who have studied Dhamma know that hearing something unpleasant is akusala vipaka which is not caused by someone else but by an unwholesome deed we performed ourselves. A moment of vipaka falls away immediately, it does not stay. Are we not inclined to keep on thinking about an unpleasant experience? If there is more awareness of the present moment one will be less inclined to think with aversion about one's akusala vipaka. 13029 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 10:32pm Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Dear Larry, > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > > Thanks Kom,I didn't know that panna at the > satipatthana level includes > recognition of anatta. Good to know. I have a > much better appreciation > of sati now. Thanks Regarding cognition of anattaness, it is said that the first time that the anattaness truely appears is when the distinction between nama and rupa (nama-rupa-paricheta-nana) appears. This is when it is (temporarily) clear that there is only nama and rupa, and that there is no self. This is also when it is clear that conditioned realities come into existence because of conditions, and not a self that wills it. kom 13030 From: wangchuk37 Date: Tue Apr 30, 2002 11:10pm Subject: buddhist bibliography May update the May update to the Buddhist bibliography is now online at : http://www.cyberdistributeur.com/buddbib.html enjoy your reading ! 13031 From: Buddhist Environmental Network Date: Wed May 1, 2002 1:17am Subject: Buddhist Enironmental Network This month (May 2002) sees the launch of the Buddhist Enironmental Network (BEN). We need subscribers (it's free!) and also volunteers. If you simply want to be kept informed of progress and our campaigns, please reply, inserting the word "News" in the subject field. We aim to be an active, fully engaged network and are keen to recruit volunteers to help in BEN's development or to be more actively involved in campaigning work. If you think you could help then please reply to this email substituting the word "Help" in the subject field. (You will also automatically receive our update and campaign mailings.) In addition to working through email, we hope to set up local groups where members can meet and network on environmental issues. Below you will find more information in the form of BEN's Mission Statement MISSION STATEMENT The Buddhist Environmental Network (B-E-N) works with Buddhists from all traditions to create environmental solutions that are rooted deeply within the Buddhist Precepts and the acknowledgement of the interdependence of all life. Through public education, publications, practice groups and outreach, B-E-N seeks to link Buddhist teachings of compassion, wisdom, tolerance and non-violence with efforts and campaigns to create a sustainable environment together with a culture of reduced consumption and waste, serving as a catalyst for socially engaged Buddhism." With apologies for any cross-postings. David Meanwell - BEN 13032 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed May 1, 2002 2:41am Subject: A question on enlightenment Dear All, While reading Summary of Paramattha Dhammas, I came across a passage that raised some questions. http://www.dhammastudy.com/paramat.html In SPD Part 1, it is said about the Buddha, " Enlightenment rendered him without defilement, and he manifested the Dhamma so that those who practice accordingly would also eradicate their defilements. Therefore Buddhists should study and examine to know the Dhamma, the truth with which the Buddha became enlightened, and how the latter differs from the truth as we imagine or believe it to be." Would it be possible for a person to think they were following 'right teachings of the Dhamma' and have various experiences they thought were 'right' mindfullness, 'right concentration' and 'right jhana' right up to an experience they felt was 'right' Nibbana - but all the time it was not 'right' but 'wrong' teachings of the Dhamma, 'wrong' mindfullness, 'wrong' concentration, 'wrong' jhana and even (is it possible) to experience 'wrong' nibbana? ....and, if so, how would they ever know? Feelings of peace and delight, and an inner certainty could deceive a person couldn't they? metta, Christine 13033 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 1, 2002 4:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] A question on enlightenment Dear Christine, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > > Would it be possible for a person to think they were following 'right > teachings of the Dhamma' and have various experiences they thought > were 'right' mindfullness, 'right concentration' and 'right jhana' > right up to an experience they felt was 'right' Nibbana - but all the > time it was not 'right' but 'wrong' teachings of the Dhamma, 'wrong' > mindfullness, 'wrong' concentration, 'wrong' jhana and even (is it > possible) to experience 'wrong' nibbana? .... ..... Yes. It's called wrong view which always thinks wrong is right. The Tipitaka is full of references. ..... >and, if so, how would > they ever know? ..... Only panna (wisdom) can know, which is why it is so essential. ..... >Feelings of peace and delight, and an inner certainty > could deceive a person couldn't they? ..... Certainly. Lobha (attachment), mana (conceit), ditthi.(wrong view)..... Sarah ======= 13034 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 1, 2002 5:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Samatha bhavana - Rob Ep Rob E --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > Well I may have ruined our agreement with my latest rant, but do me a favor and > pick out the points worth addressing in that thing. I am running away from it, as > one would if discovering that they had given birth to an elephant. Well, there was no agreement that said you couldn't have a rant -- feel free any time! I'll certainly get back to you on that post. In the meantime, I hope you don’t mind me picking up on the non-rant side of our discussion ;-)). You said: > > > … being present to the reality of the moment to the greatest extent > > > possible is … something that can be done at any time > > > and which is surely the correct practice in daily life. I'm sure this wasn’t just a throw-away remark on your part, Rob, and I believe it's well worth following up. Regardless of one's view of the relevance or importance of samatha to the development of the path, the fact is that for most if not all of the day we are in a situation other than a 'samatha practice' situation. What is the 'correct practice in daily life' at those times? I believe your characterisation of 'being present to the reality of the moment' is fine, assuming of course that reality here means the same as in the suttas. In the suttas, the emphasis is on the reality of the moment being something quite different from how it appears to us, namely as being the 5 khandhas, the six sets of six, the 'all' etc. In the Satipatthana Sutta, it is given a 4-fold classification. But it comes down to the same dhammas that make up the world as we know it. I would be interested to know whether you draw on these sutta descriptions in your use of the term 'reality of the moment'. Jon PS I would still like to hear your comments on my own attempt at your 'being present to the reality of the moment'. Do you see any major differences here? "> > ………. the crux of the development of > > insight is the knowing of the true nature of the realities of the present > > moment, and that this includes any reality of any present moment, regardless of > > the nature of the reality (nama or rupa, wholesome or unwholesome, internal or > > external), on the basis that all realties are taken as being permanent, > > satisfactory and self (in one of the 3 aspects), yet in reality are not so?" > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Rob E > > > > I particularly liked your remarks that: > > > … being present to the reality of the moment to the greatest extent > > > possible is … something that can be done at any time > > > and which is surely the correct practice in daily life. So that may be > > > something we can all agree on, while we argue about everything else. > > > > As you say, we can keep up the discussion on other (doctrinal) points, but > > let's not neglect giving each other support in understanding the reality of the > > present moment at any time. > > > > Personally, I see this as the most useful thing that can be discussed on this > > list. It is the understanding of the realities ('dhammas') of the present > > moment that leads to the realisation of the Noble Eightfold Path. > > > > In my view this is also by far the most difficult aspect of the teaching to > > come to terms with. > > > > Jon 13035 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 1, 2002 5:43am Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Thanks Kom, I see my mistake. I was equating satipatthana with vipassana > but that's not quite correct. I think I found the source of the > controversy over objects of satipatthana, but first here are some > interesting snippets from "A Comprehensive Manual Of Abhidhamma". … > ch.7, #24 > In the compendium of requisites of enlightenment, there are four > foundations of mindfulness: (1) the foundation of mindfulness in > contemplation of the body; (2) the foundation of mindfulness in > contemplation of feelings; (3) the foundation of mindfulness in > contemplation of consciousness; (4) the foundation of mindfulness in > contemplation of mental objects. > > Larry: 'contemplation of mental objects' is a translation of > 'dhammanupassana.' So the controversy is, does this 'dhamma' mean > paramattha-dhamma or dhammarammana. I would think something would have > to prevent sati from taking concepts as object, but I don't see what it > would be. Do you have a source or reason for your interpretation? The Satipatthana Sutta itself gives a detailed explanation of the things that comprise dhammanupassana. It says (quoting from the translation in 'The Way of Mindfulness', http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html): "And how, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental objects in mental objects? "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the mental objects in the mental objects of the five hindrances, … of the five aggregates of clinging, … of the six internal and the six external sense-bases, … of the seven factors of enlightenment, … of the Four Noble Truths." According to my reading of the texts, these sets are all references to paramattha dhammas, not concepts. The commentary to the sutta (same translation) relates each of the 4 foundations of mindfulness to corresponding dhammas comprising the 5 aggregates (khandhas): "Further, … in the contemplation on the body, the laying hold of the aggregate of corporeality or materiality [J: rupa-khandha] was spoken of by the Master; "in the contemplation on feeling, the laying hold of the aggregate of feeling [J: vedana-khandha]; "in the contemplation on mind, the laying hold of the aggregate of consciousness [J: vinnana-khandha]; "and now [i.e. in the contemplation on mental objects] … the laying hold of the aggregates of perception and formations [J: sanna-khandha, sankhara-khandha], …" To my knowledge, all the ancient texts support the interpretation of the 5 khandhas and dhammanupassana as excluding concepts. Some modern-day commentators, however, assert that concepts are included in these classifications. Jon 13036 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 1, 2002 5:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Antidotes to lobha Lucy --- Lucy wrote: > > > > 3. We should also know the more subtle lobha which arises when we enjoy > > a fragrant smell or beautiful music. It seems that there are no akusala > > cittas when we do not harm others, but also the more subtle lobha is > > akusala; it is different from generosity which is kusala. We cannot > > force ourselves not to have lobha, but we can get to know the > > characteristic of lobha when it appears. > > > > Hi all ! > > One of the "M" antidotes for lobha is to "offer" the object of enjoyment to > the Buddha when we notice lobha has arisen - If I'm mindful (not very > often), a drive from home to anywhere has me constantly piling up > mountains, sheep, colours, flowers, trees etc., etc. on the mental altar - > and then one has to remember dedicating the merit of the offerings... Don't > know whether there's much merit in it or not, but it's an interesting > little exercise because it can serve as a constant reminder of lobha. > > "M" is full of these "antidotes" - are there any similar practices in the > Theravada ? > > Best wishes > Lucy In the Theravada texts, the emphasis is on understanding the dhammas of the present moment as and when they arise, and this includes of course all kinds of lobha, although not especially lobha in preference to any other kind of reality. Seeing dhammas as they truly are is the only 'antidote' of any lasting efficacy. Lobha that has already arisen or has not yet arisen, is not regarded as being capable of being 'dealt with' in any sense, as far as I know. There is, however, a wholesome mental factor of 'wise attention' that has the function described as guarding the sense-doors. Jon 13037 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 1, 2002 5:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? TG --- TGrand458@a... wrote: > In the Samyutta Nikaya the Buddha describes the 5 Khandhas as... > > "...form should be seen as a bursting bubble, feeling should be seen as a > lump of foam, perception should be seen as a mirage, mental formations should > > be seen as a plantian tree (coreless), consciousness should be seen as a > conjurers trick..." > > Doesn't sound to me like the Buddha wants them to be thought of as ultimate > realities. Seems like he wants them to be seen as unsubstantial as humanly > possible. Calling them "ultimate realities" seems to against that grain to > me. I wonder if seeing them as ultimate realities embeds a type of > substantiality and self view that is counter-productive to detaching from > conditions (non-attachment). I understand the reasoning behind describing > them as ultimate realities, I'm just not sure its a very good idea? > > TG An interesting observation -- 'ultimate reality', yet like a bubble or a lump of foam. Well, I suppose it's an example of looking at the same thing from different perspectives. They are 'ultimate' in the sense of being the underlying phenomena of what we take for people and things, yet they also have no intrinsic merit. Both aspects need to be understood. Jon 13038 From: frank kuan Date: Wed May 1, 2002 7:28am Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom the controversy: --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: (4) the foundation > of mindfulness in > > contemplation of mental objects. ...So the controversy is, does > this 'dhamma' mean > > paramattha-dhamma or dhammarammana. > The Satipatthana Sutta... > "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the > mental objects in the mental objects > of the five hindrances, … of the five aggregates of > clinging, … of the six internal and > the six external sense-bases, … of the seven factors > of enlightenment, … of the Four > Noble Truths." > > According to my reading of the texts, these sets are > all references to paramattha > dhammas, not concepts. Can you explain how you read it that way? I've always wondered what the hell is that sutta talking about with the 4th foundation of mindfulness being "mind-objects" when it appears to me dhamma is referring to concepts, specifically buddhist concepts. I mean, come on, 5 hindrances, 7 factors of enlightenment as paramatta ultimate realities? How do you make a case for that? Might as well say Frank is an ultimate reality too. As I see it, one could only make a case for that only if the 4th foundation of mindfulness of dhamma referred exclusively to the 3 marks, 5 aggregates, 6 sense bases. And even so, many buddhists would argue that even the 3 marks are concepts, not ultimate realities to be wrongly grasped. Now I should say that I'm still open to the possibility that the 4th foundtion of mindulness starts with concepts, but there is some special technique where one should contemplate these buddhist dhammic concepts in such a way that their "utlimate realities" can be seen, but where are the details on how this is done? It's not in the sutta. -fk 13039 From: Date: Wed May 1, 2002 4:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] A question on enlightenment Hi, Sarah (and Christine) - In a message dated 5/1/02 7:45:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Dear Christine, > > --- christine_forsyth wrote: > > > > Would it be possible for a person to think they were following 'right > > teachings of the Dhamma' and have various experiences they thought > > were 'right' mindfullness, 'right concentration' and 'right jhana' > > right up to an experience they felt was 'right' Nibbana - but all the > > time it was not 'right' but 'wrong' teachings of the Dhamma, 'wrong' > > mindfullness, 'wrong' concentration, 'wrong' jhana and even (is it > > possible) to experience 'wrong' nibbana? .... > ..... > > Yes. It's called wrong view which always thinks wrong is right. The > Tipitaka is full of references. > ..... > > >and, if so, how would > > they ever know? > ..... > Only panna (wisdom) can know, which is why it is so essential. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: This is certainly true. However, how does one KNOW that what one sees to be the case is a matter of wisdom or of error? As I see it, there is no completely certain independent guarantee on this. I would suppose that one could use certain yardsticks (metre rods?) such as seeing that one has become calmer, more loving, less compulsive, less grasping, less aversive etc, etc. For stream entry and the more advanced stages, the Buddha laid out certain behavioral and personality criteria. All of these, I think, provided, of course, that one has confidence in the Buddha, could be used as indicators that one is moving in the right direction, but I doubt that one can know incontestably. ---------------------------------------------------- > ..... > > >Feelings of peace and delight, and an inner certainty > > could deceive a person couldn't they? > ..... > Certainly. Lobha (attachment), mana (conceit), ditthi.(wrong view)..... > > Sarah > ============================ 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) 13040 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed May 1, 2002 8:20am Subject: RE: [dsg] attachment to concept Hi Kom; > Perhaps another way to "deal" with concept is the fact that we learn > from the Abhidhamma that concepts cannot be objects satipatthana. k: Would you like to share some commentary sayings on this statement. So are we saying that breathing which is a concept is not applicable in the satipatthana sutta or in which Buddha started the sutta by taking breathing at the forefront of satipatthana. To say concepts cannot be objects of satipatthana could be misleading, all of us started with concepts even Buddha. But to say that to obtain enlightment then concepts cannot be objects of satipatthana, it is paramtha that are objects of satipatthana in order to first discard wrong view (to enter stream winner stage)(talking Abidhammically). Hence we cannot conclude that concepts cannot be objects of satipatthana. It can but not effective in last few stages leading to enlightment kind rgds Ken O 13041 From: Date: Wed May 1, 2002 4:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? Hi, Jon (and TG) - In a message dated 5/1/02 8:49:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > TG > > --- TGrand458@a... wrote: > In the Samyutta Nikaya the Buddha describes > the 5 Khandhas > as... > > > > "...form should be seen as a bursting bubble, feeling should be seen as a > > > lump of foam, perception should be seen as a mirage, mental formations > should > > > > be seen as a plantian tree (coreless), consciousness should be seen as a > > conjurers trick..." > > > > Doesn't sound to me like the Buddha wants them to be thought of as > ultimate > > realities. Seems like he wants them to be seen as unsubstantial as > humanly > > possible. Calling them "ultimate realities" seems to against that grain > to > > me. I wonder if seeing them as ultimate realities embeds a type of > > substantiality and self view that is counter-productive to detaching from > > > conditions (non-attachment). I understand the reasoning behind > describing > > them as ultimate realities, I'm just not sure its a very good idea? > > > > TG > > An interesting observation -- 'ultimate reality', yet like a bubble or a > lump of foam. > Well, I suppose it's an example of looking at the same thing from different > perspectives. > They are 'ultimate' in the sense of being the underlying phenomena of what > we take for > people and things, yet they also have no intrinsic merit. > > Both aspects need to be understood. > > Jon > ========================== I think that TG makes an excellent point (as will not surprise you, Jon! ;-) I have long bristled at the term 'paramattha dhamma'. The actual experiences subsumed by the concept of 'paramattha dhamma' are, speaking precisely, actual elements of experience as opposed to imagined self-existent things "out there". For example, the experience of 'red' per se is a function of consciousness, and, when we can isolate it, it *seems* that way. But the experience of 'a red fire engine' always seems to be the experience of some self-existent thing "out there", a thing which has 'red' as a characteristic. A conceptual dhamma is always something imagined to be "out there". But, on close examination of an alleged red fire engine, for example, all that one actually comes upon are the direct experiences of 'red' and other colors, 'hardness', various shapes, etc, plus the thoughts of water, fires, etc. It is these internally experienced phenomena subsumed by 'the red fire engine', actually experienced without additional fabricating activity of the mind, which are the so-called "paramattha dhammas" involved. But the name 'paramattha dhamma' and, even worse, the English 'ultimate reality' do strike me as substantialist and terribly misleading. What these things are are actual elements of direct experience. They are fleeting and conditioned things-in-relation (except for nibbana), more like phantoms and shadows than separate, self-existent "ultimate realities". There's GOT to be a better term! ;-) What's in a name? I think an awful lot. THIS name we are discussing is, in my estimation, injurious to correct understanding, and injurious to the public image of Abhidhamma and, more generally, Theravada. 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) 13042 From: goglerr Date: Wed May 1, 2002 10:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] re:anicca (do concepts arise and fall?) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: Larry said: Hi Goglerr, I don't know if it does much good to distinguish between concept and reality since they both can be the object of lobha-dosa-moha. Conceit (mana) and personality belief (sakkaya- ditthi)are realities, not concepts; how can that be? G: Hi Larry, in every day life, distinguishing between p.dh and concept, can help us to reduce of the attachment/aversion to them especially concept. For instance, when we are in pain (of cancer or something of that sort) we can, at least, understand something like 'this pain is not mine, it just terrible pain/feeling' rather than 'I'm so hurt, I'm in so much in pain, why me? why me?'. They are two totally different minds at work, the former mind are turning an obstacle to a spritual growth which involve wisdom and wise reflection whereas the latter mind are drown in misery and deep sorrow, which involve mana and ditthi and also dosa. Even more so, especially when it comes to developing insight, where fine tuning the bare mindfilness observation between what are the meditation objects or just drowing into conceptualization, thinking, or intellectualizaton. It's a very fine line to distinguish them from practical point of view, not as easy as what we read. We have been so conditioned by concepts since time immemorial. For e.g. when a idea or thought arises, during meditation we may grasp it wrongly thinking that is a p.dh. It happens to a lot of meditators, even those who very well read on the sutta and abhidhamma. In the mindfulness practice, sometimes when the mindfulness unknowingly slipped away, we are sort of drowned into our thoughts, mental images, reflections, concepts or series sensual fantansies. And when the mindfulness arises again, we may notice (if we are keen) that there is a seperation between what is a knowing mind and the thoughts which are running through. Larry said: The main difference I see is that we can see the arising and dissolution of paramattha dhammas, but we can also see the arising and dissolution of a cookie. What about that??? G: Seeing the the arising and passing away between a paramattha dhamma and cookie involve two different kinds of panna. The former one belongs to bhavana maya panna (wisdom arises from insight) whereas the latter one belongs to cinta maya panna (wise reflection). No doubt that the two minds are wholesome. Wisdom from insight will lead to Nibbana, end of suffering, uprooting of defilements and wise reflection will give a deeper understanding of what life is all about, though less suffering but still there. These two panna complement each other. Usually from wise reflection and we will gradually have the wholesome urge to begin to to make an inward journey to truly understand the mind and body. Unless, one wish just to stop at wise reflection. Without the a Buddha's teaching, this special panna of insight cannot arise to uproot the defilement. The cookie may cure the hunger but the seeing the p. dh. may cure the craving!! Your call. ;-) Goglerr 13043 From: goglerr Date: Wed May 1, 2002 11:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., frank kuan wrote: > the controversy: > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > (4) the foundation > > of mindfulness in > > > contemplation of mental objects. > ...So the controversy is, does > > this 'dhamma' mean > > > paramattha-dhamma or dhammarammana. > > The Satipatthana Sutta... > > "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the > > mental objects in the mental objects > > of the five hindrances, … of the five aggregates of > > clinging, … of the six internal and > > the six external sense-bases, … of the seven factors > > of enlightenment, … of the Four > > Noble Truths." > > > > According to my reading of the texts, these sets are > > all references to paramattha > > dhammas, not concepts. Frank: Can you explain how you read it that way? I've always wondered what the hell is that sutta talking about with the 4th foundation of mindfulness being "mind-objects" when it appears to me dhamma is referring to concepts, specifically buddhist concepts. I mean, come on, 5 hindrances, 7 factors of enlightenment as paramatta ultimate realities? How do you make a case for that? Might as well say Frank is an ultimate reality too. G: 5 Hind and 7 F of Enl. are actually mentals factors, cetasika with eventually becomes a 'mind object' when they become prominent to the knowing mind. We can be aware of greed when it arises or aversion, or even that we are calm or even energertic. Mental states are very subtle and swift. Usually meditation teachers will not instruct beginners to take these mind object as the initial object of contemplation. These states of mind will become clear when there are sufficient mindfulness and clarity, also when the mindfulness are 'swift' and 'flexible', as swift as the object flows the knowing mind will flow with it. Frank: As I see it, one could only make a case for that only if the 4th foundation of mindfulness of dhamma referred exclusively to the 3 marks, 5 aggregates, 6 sense bases. And even so, many buddhists would argue that even the 3 marks are concepts, not ultimate realities to be wrongly grasped. G: in my opinion the 3 marks are a 'direct' concept, because we have to 'label' that such and such an actual experince of the paramattha object arising and passing away are 'termed' as anicca, dukkha or anatta. Frank: Now I should say that I'm still open to the possibility that the 4th foundtion of mindulness starts with concepts, but there is some special technique where one should contemplate these buddhist dhammic concepts in such a way that their "utlimate realities" can be seen, but where are the details on how this is done? It's not in the sutta. G: It's may be not in the sutta, Frank, but it is the the actual practice. Take the in-breath out breath at the nostril. Initially, the whole 'form' of the breath will be seen. And when the mindfulness gradually develops, the 'form' sort of dissappear from the knowing but only the different motions, smoothness, tensions, of breath or the heat or coolness of breath remain. Also one may know the knowing mind, which may be clear, steady, energertic yet calm, and so on. These Dhamma are for one to realize for himself. When one actually experince them, then one may know what is the 'hidden meaning' of His words in the sutta. Goglerr 13044 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed May 1, 2002 2:34pm Subject: RE: [dsg] attachment to concept Dear Ken O, > -----Original Message----- > From: Kenneth Ong [mailto:ashkenn@y...] > Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 8:21 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [dsg] attachment to concept > > > Hi Kom; > > > Perhaps another way to "deal" with concept is the fact that we learn > > from the Abhidhamma that concepts cannot be objects satipatthana. > > k: Would you like to share some commentary sayings on this statement. So > are we saying that breathing which is a concept is not applicable in the > satipatthana sutta or in which Buddha started the sutta by taking > breathing at the forefront of satipatthana. To say concepts cannot be > objects of satipatthana could be misleading, all of us started with > concepts even Buddha. But to say that to obtain enlightment then concepts > cannot be objects of satipatthana, it is paramtha that are objects of > satipatthana in order to first discard wrong view (to enter stream winner > stage)(talking Abidhammically). Hence we cannot conclude that concepts > cannot be objects of satipatthana. It can but not effective in last few > stages leading to enlightment If you see Jon's previous message on the thread, I think you will see why some members in this group say that only paramatha objects are objects of satipatthana. Breathing in itself has paramatha components too (like hardness, heat, tension). The paramatha components can be objects of satipatthana. Again, as I understand it, only paramatha dhamma can be objects of satipatthana, from the beginning, to the end (magga). As far as references to the commentaries, Jon, Sarah, and Robert K. have posted some related materials in the past archived in the group. Although I have some access (requires lots of efforts) to the Thai commentaries, I am not that diligent to look them up or translate them to prove the point, but I do urge anybody who are interested to look them up themselves because I think this point (which I think you agree; otherwise, you wouldn't ask!) is fairly important (and controversial). Would only snips of passages (which can be selective!) satisfy your skepticism/wise question in this area? On the other hand, there can be wise reflection (with wisdom) on the concepts of realities too. It is just, as far as I know, not at the level of satipatthana, even if it may condition satipathana. kom 13045 From: Lucy Date: Wed May 1, 2002 3:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Antidotes to lobha Hi Jon Looks like we're talking from two different levels. You talk of *seeing* and *understanding*, but I'm barely preparing the ground here, picking up stones, weeding, raking, watering, digging in manure ... all very basic and with an awful lot of preparation work still to be done. Meanwhile, lobha for hills, wild flowers, lambs and May bird songs piles up, making the mind ground even harder to clear for *the* seeing to happen. If I'm not careful, I might forget there's such thing as a Path and a seeing until, whoops, too late!!! I'd be truly lost without my little bag of "upaya" ... No "antidotes" in the real sense, but a useful reminder of the Path, especially in May, blackbirds and thrushes singing among droopy cherry blossoms.... So, I offer all and look forward going out tomorrow looking for more offerings : ) Best wishes (and happy May Day) Lucy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonothan Abbott" > --- Lucy wrote: > > > > > 3. We should also know the more subtle lobha which arises when we enjoy > > > a fragrant smell or beautiful music. It seems that there are no akusala > > > cittas when we do not harm others, but also the more subtle lobha is > > > akusala; it is different from generosity which is kusala. We cannot > > > force ourselves not to have lobha, but we can get to know the > > > characteristic of lobha when it appears. > > > > > > > One of the "M" antidotes for lobha is to "offer" the object of enjoyment to > > the Buddha when we notice lobha has arisen - If I'm mindful (not very > > often), a drive from home to anywhere has me constantly piling up > > mountains, sheep, colours, flowers, trees etc., etc. on the mental altar - > > and then one has to remember dedicating the merit of the offerings... Don't > > know whether there's much merit in it or not, but it's an interesting > > little exercise because it can serve as a constant reminder of lobha. > > > > "M" is full of these "antidotes" - are there any similar practices in the > > Theravada ? > > > > In the Theravada texts, the emphasis is on understanding the dhammas of the present > moment as and when they arise, and this includes of course all kinds of lobha, although > not especially lobha in preference to any other kind of reality. Seeing dhammas as they > truly are is the only 'antidote' of any lasting efficacy. > > Lobha that has already arisen or has not yet arisen, is not regarded as being capable of > being 'dealt with' in any sense, as far as I know. There is, however, a wholesome mental > factor of 'wise attention' that has the function described as guarding the sense-doors. > > Jon > 13046 From: Date: Wed May 1, 2002 4:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re:anicca (do concepts arise and fall?) Goglerr: "The cookie may cure the hunger but the seeing the p. dh. may cure the craving!! Your call. ;-)" Hi Goglerr, actually I started to analyze the cookie and found that a good portion of its experinced identity was a kind of wet hunger sensation located in my mouth. I guess that's both not self and not cookie. Larry 13047 From: Date: Wed May 1, 2002 5:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 6 (7-17) Hi all, With reference to the paragraph below, I find there is even aversion to being in the present. Imagination is a kind of refuge from all the kamma vipaka which is invariably unpleasant. Not to mention boredom or fear of being undefined, fear of not self which is part of aversion to the present. It's good to remember the present is a kusala 'place', sati, even though it is witness to dosa and unpleasant feeling. Larry 17. Another condition for dosa is ignorance of Dhamma. If we are ignorant of kamma and vipaka, cause and result., dosa may arise very easily on account of an unpleasant experience through one of the senses and thus dosa is accumulated time and again. An unpleasant experience through one of the senses is akusala vipaka caused by an unwholesome deed we perforrned. When we, for example, hear unpleasant words from someone else we may be angry with that person. Those who have studied Dhamma know that hearing something unpleasant is akusala vipaka which is not caused by someone else but by an unwholesome deed we performed ourselves. A moment of vipaka falls away immediately, it does not stay. Are we not inclined to keep on thinking about an unpleasant experience? If there is more awareness of the present moment one will be less inclined to think with aversion about one's akusala vipaka. 13048 From: Date: Wed May 1, 2002 9:15pm Subject: ADL ch. 6 (18-23) from: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life chapter 6, paragraphs 18-23 18. When we study the Abhidhamma we learn that there are two types of dosa-mula-citta; one is asankharika (unprompted) and one is sasankharika (prompted). Dosa is sasankharika (prompted) when, for example, one becomes angry after having been reminded of the disagreeable actions of someone else. When dosa is asankharika (unprompted) it is more intense than when it is sasankharika. Dosa-mula-cittas are called patigha.sampayutta, or accompanied by patigha, which is another word for dosa. Dosa.mula-cittas are always accompanied by domanassa (unpleasant feeling). The two type of dosa-mula-citta are: 1. Accompanied by unpleasant feeling, arising with anger, unprompted (Domanassa-sahagatam, patigha-sampayuttam, asankharikam ekam) 2. Accompanied by unpleasant feeling, arising with anger, prompted (Domanassa-sahagatam, patigha-sampayuttam, sasankharikam ekam) 19. As we have seen, there are many degrees of dosa; it may be coarse or more subtle. When dosa is coarse, it causes akusala kamma-patha (unwholesome deeds) through body, speech or mind. Two kinds of akusala kamma-patha through the body can be performed with dosa-mula-citta: killing and stealing. If we want less violence in the world we should try not to kill. When we kill we accumulate a great deal of dosa. The monk's life is a life of non-violence; he does not hurt any living being in the world. However, not everyone is able to live like the monks. Defilements are anatta (not self); they arise because of conditions. The purpose of the Buddha's teachings is not to lay down rules which forbid people to commit ill deeds, but to help people to develop the wisdom which eradicates defilements. 20. As regards stealing, this can either be performed with lobha-mula-citta or with dosa-mula-citta. It is done with dosa-mula-citta when there is the intention to harm someone else. Doing damage to someone else's possessions is included in this kamma-patha. 21. Four kinds of akusala kamma-patha through speech are performed with dosa-mula-citta: lying, slandering, rude speech and frivolous talk. Lying, slandering and frivolous talk can either be done with lobha-mula-citta or with dosa-mula-citta. Slandering, for example, is done with dosa-mula-citta when there is the intention to cause damage to someone else, such as doing harm to his good name and causing him to be looked down upon by others. Most people think that the use of weapons is to be avoided, but they forget that the tongue can be a weapon as well, which can badly wound. Evil speech does a great deal of harm in the world; it causes discord between people. When we speak evil we harm ourselves, because at such moments akusala kamma is accumulated and it is capable of producing akusala vipaka. We read in the 'Sutta Nipata' (the Great Chapter, 'Khuddaka Nikava'): Truly to every person born An axe is born within his mouth Wherewith the fool cuts himself When he speaks evil. 22. As regards akusala kamma-patha through the mind performed with dosa-mula-citta, this is the intention to hurt or harm someone else. 23. People often speak about violence and the ways to cure It. Who of us can say that he is free from dosa and that he will never kill? We do not know how much dosa we have accumulated in the course of many lives. When the conditions are there we might commit an act of violence we did not realize we were capable of. When we understand how ugly dosa is and to what deeds it can lead we want to eradicate it. 13049 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed May 1, 2002 10:54pm Subject: RE: [dsg] attachment to concept Kom Everything has paramatha elements in it. Unless we assume we are able to observe them at this moment, then I would agree that only paramatha are the objects of satipatthana. If concepts are not objects of satipatthana, then Buddha is wasting his time teaching breathing as an object of satipatthana in Maha Satipatthana sutta. Definitely we know that breathing do as paramatha elements but to totally discard the notion of objects as satipatthana is to me far stretch and not in line with the sutta intention. The method of satipatthana is from the easiest to the hardest starting with breathing. Whether or not, or we like it or not, to totally discard the notion that concepts are not objects of satipatthana is not in line with what Buddha says conventionally in Maha Satipatthana. Everything can be intrepretted with Abhidhamma but I believe we should not cling to just what Abhidhamma has said, we got to be open minded to what the sutta says. Another big issue abt control/no control recently, if we read the definition of right effort in the suttas, it indicates there is control. But we stick our concept of Abhidhamma then there is no control. There is control but the control does not mean there is a need to "cling" to a self for control. If there is no control, why would Buddha seek enlightment to get out of the birth-death cycle, isn't it this intention (to get out of the birth cycle) attached to a desire. Buddha knows that we need a goal to relieve ourselve, isn't the goal of Abhidhamma is enlightment. So isn't it fits into our mental image of going to nirvana that let us eventually condition us to practise satipatthana. These are my train of thought, may sound confusing though. Kind regards Ken O --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Ken O, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kenneth Ong [mailto:ashkenn@y...] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 8:21 AM > > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: RE: [dsg] attachment to concept > > > > > > Hi Kom; > > > > > Perhaps another way to "deal" with concept is the fact that we learn > > > from the Abhidhamma that concepts cannot be objects satipatthana. > > > > k: Would you like to share some commentary sayings on this statement. > So > > are we saying that breathing which is a concept is not applicable in > the > > satipatthana sutta or in which Buddha started the sutta by taking > > breathing at the forefront of satipatthana. To say concepts cannot be > > objects of satipatthana could be misleading, all of us started with > > concepts even Buddha. But to say that to obtain enlightment then > concepts > > cannot be objects of satipatthana, it is paramtha that are objects of > > satipatthana in order to first discard wrong view (to enter stream > winner > > stage)(talking Abidhammically). Hence we cannot conclude that concepts > > cannot be objects of satipatthana. It can but not effective in last > few > > stages leading to enlightment > > If you see Jon's previous message on the thread, I think you will see > why > some members in this group say that only paramatha objects are objects > of > satipatthana. Breathing in itself has paramatha components too (like > hardness, heat, tension). The paramatha components can be objects of > satipatthana. > > Again, as I understand it, only paramatha dhamma can be objects of > satipatthana, from the beginning, to the end (magga). As far as > references > to the commentaries, Jon, Sarah, and Robert K. have posted some related > materials in the past archived in the group. Although I have some > access > (requires lots of efforts) to the Thai commentaries, I am not that > diligent > to look them up or translate them to prove the point, but I do urge > anybody > who are interested to look them up themselves because I think this point > (which I think you agree; otherwise, you wouldn't ask!) is fairly > important > (and controversial). Would only snips of passages (which can be > selective!) > satisfy your skepticism/wise question in this area? > > On the other hand, there can be wise reflection (with wisdom) on the > concepts of realities too. It is just, as far as I know, not at the > level > of satipatthana, even if it may condition satipathana. > > kom 13050 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 1, 2002 11:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 6 (7-17) Hi Larry, Thanks for all the good questions and comments and the excellent discussion with Kom and others. I think your points below show some real understanding of what we are studying in the book. No one is asking to have aversion, boredom or fear (which are never pleasant), but they arise when there are conditions, even when we’re reading about their uwholesome qualities. I liked Kom’s example about dosa for the noise yesterday, even when he was writing dhamma. It creeps in all the time, doesn’t it? When there is awareness (sati of satipatthana) of these mental states, there is no doubt at that moment that they are paramatha dhammas --whatever we call them-- as opposed to concepts. At that instant of awareness, the consciousness is wholesome and calm and there is no wrong view of self or special effort to have it. Then there is more thinking of concepts, so often accompanied by lobha, dosa or moha again. Isn’t it better to know and recognize, even the fear of anatta, than to continue in ignorance? In appreciation of these comments, Sarah ===== --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi all, > > With reference to the paragraph below, I find there is even aversion to > being in the present. Imagination is a kind of refuge from all the kamma > vipaka which is invariably unpleasant. Not to mention boredom or fear of > being undefined, fear of not self which is part of aversion to the > present. It's good to remember the present is a kusala 'place', sati, > even though it is witness to dosa and unpleasant feeling. 13051 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed May 1, 2002 11:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A question on enlightenment Howard, I have nothing intelligent to add at the moment, but I wanted to let you know that I think your recent posts, including this one and the one on paramatha dhammas, are very sharp. Robert Ep. ==== --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sarah (and Christine) - > > In a message dated 5/1/02 7:45:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > sarahdhhk@y... writes: > > > > Dear Christine, > > > > --- christine_forsyth wrote: > > > > > > Would it be possible for a person to think they were following 'right > > > teachings of the Dhamma' and have various experiences they thought > > > were 'right' mindfullness, 'right concentration' and 'right jhana' > > > right up to an experience they felt was 'right' Nibbana - but all the > > > time it was not 'right' but 'wrong' teachings of the Dhamma, 'wrong' > > > mindfullness, 'wrong' concentration, 'wrong' jhana and even (is it > > > possible) to experience 'wrong' nibbana? .... > > ..... > > > > Yes. It's called wrong view which always thinks wrong is right. The > > Tipitaka is full of references. > > ..... > > > > >and, if so, how would > > > they ever know? > > ..... > > Only panna (wisdom) can know, which is why it is so essential. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > This is certainly true. However, how does one KNOW that what one sees > to be the case is a matter of wisdom or of error? As I see it, there is no > completely certain independent guarantee on this. I would suppose that one > could use certain yardsticks (metre rods?) such as seeing that one has become > calmer, more loving, less compulsive, less grasping, less aversive etc, etc. > For stream entry and the more advanced stages, the Buddha laid out certain > behavioral and personality criteria. All of these, I think, provided, of > course, that one has confidence in the Buddha, could be used as indicators > that one is moving in the right direction, but I doubt that one can know > incontestably. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > ..... > > > > >Feelings of peace and delight, and an inner certainty > > > could deceive a person couldn't they? > > ..... > > Certainly. Lobha (attachment), mana (conceit), ditthi.(wrong view)..... > > > > Sarah > > > ============================ > With metta, > Howard 13052 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed May 1, 2002 11:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > TG > > --- TGrand458@a... wrote: > In the Samyutta Nikaya the Buddha describes the 5 > Khandhas > as... > > > > "...form should be seen as a bursting bubble, feeling should be seen as a > > lump of foam, perception should be seen as a mirage, mental formations should > > > > be seen as a plantian tree (coreless), consciousness should be seen as a > > conjurers trick..." > > > > Doesn't sound to me like the Buddha wants them to be thought of as ultimate > > realities. Seems like he wants them to be seen as unsubstantial as humanly > > possible. Calling them "ultimate realities" seems to against that grain to > > me. I wonder if seeing them as ultimate realities embeds a type of > > substantiality and self view that is counter-productive to detaching from > > conditions (non-attachment). I understand the reasoning behind describing > > them as ultimate realities, I'm just not sure its a very good idea? > > > > TG > > An interesting observation -- 'ultimate reality', yet like a bubble or a lump of > foam. > Well, I suppose it's an example of looking at the same thing from different > perspectives. > They are 'ultimate' in the sense of being the underlying phenomena of what we > take for > people and things, yet they also have no intrinsic merit. > > Both aspects need to be understood. > > Jon Which makes Howard's and others' case that the word 'ultimate' is misleading and incorrect. It constantly needs to be re-explained and qualified, because it implies something other than what it means. Ultimate in common parlance means the height of something much more than it means the final particle that cannot be broken down. In math, which is Howard's area, I think there are terms that describe this kind of thing more generically, numbers that can't be broken down any further, equations that cannot be divided down to a lesser amount on either side. The least common denominator which unites equivalent mathematical terms. For myself, I would propose 'primary realities' or even 'basic realities', but primary accomplishes what you would want, it establishes them as indivisible and 'first and foremost' without the baggage of 'ultimate'. Now I may be paranoid, but it does seem like the term 'paramatha', if it is indeed 'ultimate' betrays a kind of idealization of these fleeting actualities, and perhaps is a way in which the idea of entity creeps back into Abhidhamma. Terms have a 'flavor' of meaning, and 'paramatha' seems to have precisely the wrong one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I recall the prefix 'para' as having a sense of something like 'great'. Is this not so? Best, Robert Ep. 13053 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed May 1, 2002 11:48pm Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Larry > > --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Thanks Kom, I see my mistake. I was equating satipatthana with vipassana > > but that's not quite correct. I think I found the source of the > > controversy over objects of satipatthana, but first here are some > > interesting snippets from "A Comprehensive Manual Of Abhidhamma". > … > > ch.7, #24 > > In the compendium of requisites of enlightenment, there are four > > foundations of mindfulness: (1) the foundation of mindfulness in > > contemplation of the body; (2) the foundation of mindfulness in > > contemplation of feelings; (3) the foundation of mindfulness in > > contemplation of consciousness; (4) the foundation of mindfulness in > > contemplation of mental objects. > > > > Larry: 'contemplation of mental objects' is a translation of > > 'dhammanupassana.' So the controversy is, does this 'dhamma' mean > > paramattha-dhamma or dhammarammana. I would think something would have > > to prevent sati from taking concepts as object, but I don't see what it > > would be. Do you have a source or reason for your interpretation? > > The Satipatthana Sutta itself gives a detailed explanation of the things that > comprise > dhammanupassana. It says (quoting from the translation in 'The Way of > Mindfulness', > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html): > > "And how, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental objects in mental > objects? > > "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the mental objects in the > mental objects > of the five hindrances, … of the five aggregates of clinging, … of the six > internal and > the six external sense-bases, … of the seven factors of enlightenment, … of the > Four > Noble Truths." > > According to my reading of the texts, these sets are all references to > paramattha > dhammas, not concepts. > > The commentary to the sutta (same translation) relates each of the 4 foundations > of > mindfulness to corresponding dhammas comprising the 5 aggregates (khandhas): > > "Further, … in the contemplation on the body, the laying hold of the aggregate > of > corporeality or materiality [J: rupa-khandha] was spoken of by the Master; > "in the contemplation on feeling, the laying hold of the aggregate of feeling > [J: > vedana-khandha]; > "in the contemplation on mind, the laying hold of the aggregate of consciousness > [J: > vinnana-khandha]; > "and now [i.e. in the contemplation on mental objects] … the laying hold of the > aggregates of perception and formations [J: sanna-khandha, sankhara-khandha], Can someone explain to me, please, how 'corporeality', 'materiality', 'feeling', etc., are not concepts? I can understand that a particular experience of corporeality, such as hardness or smoothness, would be a primary reality, and that a particular feeling as well, but it seems to me that these general terms that we are given to contemplate are general categories that are being referrred to, in other words: concepts. If they are concepts, then concepts are included in the objects of contemplation; if they are not concepts, I would like to have an explanation as to how these can be directly perceived in the way that primary realities must be: directly in an actual moment. Paramatha Dhammas must have their own characteristic. But 'corporeality' *is* a characteristic, not an object. It is a category or a quality that attends rupas, but it is not a rupa itself. Neither it is an actual mental event that takes place, so I don't think it can be a nama. In other words, corporeality as a category of the khandas can only be a concept until filled in with a specific example which has it as its characteristic. It will never be the rupa itself, it is the example that has the characteristic that is the rupa. So it will always be a concept as far as I can see. Yet it is an object of satipatthana along with the other kandhas? > To my knowledge, all the ancient texts support the interpretation of the 5 > khandhas and > dhammanupassana as excluding concepts. Some modern-day commentators, however, > assert > that concepts are included in these classifications. > > Jon 13054 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 1, 2002 11:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Antidotes to lobha Dear Lucy, > I'd be truly lost without my little bag of "upaya" ... No "antidotes" > in > the real sense, but a useful reminder of the Path, especially in May, > blackbirds and thrushes singing among droopy cherry blossoms.... So, I > offer all and look forward going out tomorrow looking for more offerings > : ) We had a public holiday in Hong Kong yesterday, so we also went out enjoying the countryside. On an early morning hike up the Peak, there were no lambs here, but squirrels, white cockatoos, other exotic birds and hot, humid, tropical conditions. And then, we came across a beautiful small silver and green snake on the path. It didn’t look injured at all, but it turned out to be dead. I decided to take it home by way of an ‘offering’ for my students, thinking they might enjoy it as much as ‘my’ lobha did. So Jon kindly put it in a bag in his backpack and when we got home, we put it in the freezer I have a group of so-called ‘gifted’ (you know,calculus at age 8,bored by everything at school, enjoy unusual offerings) students coming soon. I Just went to take out my beautiful snake, but instead found what looks like a limp, brown giant worm. Oh dear, how hard we work to try and maintain the illusion of beauty and permanence and how disappointed we are when it doesn't last;-( ..... > Best wishes (and happy May Day) ..... Thanks for the reminders of an English May Day. Actually as well as being a holiday here (thanks to being part of China) , it is also my birthday, so it’s always a happy day;-) I think that any reminders of the Teachings at anytime can be helpful. If your bag of upaya serve as reminders, then continue enjoying Spring, looking for offerings and developing awareness;-)) Sarah ===== 13055 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed May 1, 2002 11:59pm Subject: RE: [dsg] attachment to concept Dear Ken O, I think you are doing just fine in articulating your thoughts. > -----Original Message----- > From: Kenneth Ong [mailto:ashkenn@y...] > > Kom > > Everything has paramatha elements in it. Unless > we assume we are able to > observe them at this moment, then I would agree > that only paramatha are > the objects of satipatthana. If concepts are not > objects of satipatthana, > then Buddha is wasting his time teaching > breathing as an object of > satipatthana in Maha Satipatthana sutta. > Definitely we know that > breathing do as paramatha elements but to totally > discard the notion of > objects as satipatthana is to me far stretch and > not in line with the > sutta intention. > > The method of satipatthana is from the easiest to > the hardest starting > with breathing. Whether or not, or we like it or > not, to totally discard > the notion that concepts are not objects of > satipatthana is not in line > with what Buddha says conventionally in Maha > Satipatthana. Everything can > be intrepretted with Abhidhamma but I believe we > should not cling to just > what Abhidhamma has said, we got to be open > minded to what the sutta says. I disagree with you on this point (until I change my mind, obviously!). It is one of those things that I think we can say the Buddha definitely said either (but not both): 1) Concept can be an object of satipatthana 2) Concept cannot be an object of satipatthana. I think the difference is so substantial that there would be no ambiguity / different meanings in the 3 tipitakas. Also, it would make sense to have an interpretation of the teachings that are consistent across all the 3 tipitakas, not just suttanta or abhidhamma, and as far as I know, the position that a concept cannot be an object of satipatthana is the most consistent explanation among the 3 tipitakas, the commentaries, and Visuddhimagga. Of course, not knowing all the texts (or even a good part of the text), I will read on... Also, I think your point on the teaching being easiest (from the beginning of satipatthana sutta) is not consistent with what I know. Each person are pre-inclined to different sets of dhammas. We hear in the commentaries that the Buddha: 1) taught about Kandhas for those who are occupied (upadana) with the mental states (1 group of rupa, 4 in nama) 2) taught about ayatana for those who are occupied with the rupa (10 1/2 rupa, and 1 1/2 nama) 3) taught about dhatus for those who are occupied with both (10 1/2 rupa, 7 1/2 nama) We each pay attention to these different states very differently. An object that readily appears to some, may not appear very much to the others. When we talk about hardness as a paramatha dhamma, it is readily understood by most people. When we talk about the bhava rupa (male / female), most people's heads just spin. Paticasamudpada may be distinctly obvious to V. Ananda in the most fundamental (paramatha) sense, but we hardly even understand it conceptually. These are all dhammas that rise appropriately to their causes. > Another big issue abt control/no control > recently, if we read the > definition of right effort in the suttas, it > indicates there is control. > But we stick our concept of Abhidhamma then there > is no control. There is > control but the control does not mean there is a > need to "cling" to a self > for control. If there is no control, why would > Buddha seek enlightment to > get out of the birth-death cycle, isn't it this > intention (to get out of > the birth cycle) attached to a desire. Buddha > knows that we need a goal > to relieve ourselve, isn't the goal of Abhidhamma > is enlightment. So isn't > it fits into our mental image of going to nirvana > that let us eventually > condition us to practise satipatthana. These are > my train of thought, may > sound confusing though. Again, as far as I know, given the complexities of conditions that cause the dhamma to arise, no control (dhamma arises only because of conditions, and not a single agent causing the dhamma to arise) is the best explanation of the Buddha teachings. This theory doesn't support random arising: if there are no (or not enough) conditions for a dhamma to arise, then it cannot arise. If there is, then it must arise. This is regardless of the intention of the person (since intention is not the *only* dhamma that conditions). This theory doesn't preclude the situation like: I know there is a true teaching and it is readily accessible to me, if I listen to the dhamma, panna will (or may) develop. But every single step of the way on that path depends on conditions. If I have no done a good kamma in the past, then being born in the Buddha time, having the opportunity to hear, being in the affinity of the kalayanamitta who can explain the teachings so that I can understand correctly, being able to undestand the dhamma, all are impossible. Even if all those things apply, if I have no accumulation in the past to listen to the dhamma (my brother thinks it is scary that I am so absorbed in something commonly thought of as something you do in old ages, and that I believe in something that isn't immediately provable), then I will not listen to it. Have you tried unsuccessfully to convince your loved ones to listen to the dhammas? Many Thais have the opportunities to listen to the dhammas (public broadcasts, days and nights), but many think it is too boring, too dull, too unbelievable, too hard. I fall asleep occasionally (probably often) in dhamma discussions even though I expend great energy and efforts to go listen to it. When I narrow down my analysis further and further, I see that there are no choices at all that one is making: only dhammas are doing their things. No person, no animal, no me, and definitely no self. kom 13056 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 2, 2002 0:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] ..... MN117 and jhana in the last sentence of MN 152 Hi Jaran, Good to hear from you. I hoped someone more knowledgable might help, but anyway, here goes. (I’ve looked at the translation you refer to and also B.Bodhi’s translation and notes.) ..... --- Jaran Jainhuknan wrote: > Hi All and Sarah: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn152.html > > Mindfulness develops, on the basis of right view, so that one is > precipient of the qualities (characteristics) of what 'comes > through' all six doorways. Indriya-bhavana Sutta (above) is a > good example of this. I enjoyed this sutta a lot because it > emphasizes that mindfulness develops in daily life (as no time > [to do this] is specified). It also states in the beginning that > 'blocking' anything from coming through the doorway -- as the > brahman Parasiri teaches his followers 'not to see forms with the > eye and not to hear sound with the ear' -- is not the development > of faculties. > > Q1. But at the end the Buddha pointed out to Ven. Ananda to > practice jhana. I am sure someone has asked this question, 'What > does this mean'? Ven. Ananda should practice jhana because it's > his way of life and the Buddha knows that his accumulation is for > him develop jhana? Does it mean anything is 'right practice' as > long as it is based firmly on the 'right view'? ..... OK, at the end of the ATI translation, we read “Practice jhana, Ananda. don’t be heedless...” We’ve discussed the Pali for similar phrases before with Jim. The following is a quote from a post of his ages ago which Rob K also requoted quite recently with further notes: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/11524 ..... QUOTE from Jim: >"Jhaayatha, Cunda, maa pamaadattha maa pacchaa vippa.tisaarino ahuvattha ..." -- M i 46 (near the end of MN 8). Also found at M i 118 (MN 19) with 'bhikkhave' instead of Cunda. Here, the commentary interprets "Meditate" as "Increase samatha and vipassanaa". "Samatha~nca vipassana~nca va.d.dhethaa ti vutta.m hoti." --MA ii 195 (there's a bit more just before this) Jim: >> I know about this translation of 'jhaayatha'. I find >> that it does not >> quite agree with the commentary which includes both >> samatha and >> vipassanaa. That's why I think 'Meditate' is a >> better translation than >> 'Practice jhana'. "Jhaayatha' is a verb in the 2nd person plural with the -tha ending. In the PED, the verbs are entered in their 3rd pers. sing. forms with the -ti ending. So you will have to look for 'jhaayati' for which you will find two entries. The first one has the following senses: to meditate, contemplate, think upon, brood over (c. acc.): . . . -- and for the second: to burn, to be on fire: . . . They are derived from two distinct roots. In the commentarial passage from which I quoted "Increase samatha and vipassanaa" in explaining 'jhaayatha' there is also the following comment that helps to clarify the difference between samatha and vipassana: "Meditate (upanijjhaayatha) on the 38 objects (aaramma.na) with the meditation (upanijjhaana) on an object and on aggregates, bases, etc. according to anicca, etc. with the meditation on a characteristic (lakkha.na)." -- MA i< END QUOTE ***** > [Right view begins with the right understanding that all > realities arise due to conditions, and then fall away as they > arise, and because they don't last, they are impermanent. These > processes of arising and falling away of realities (minfulness > and concentration included) and the conditions are > uncontrolable.] > > I understand the next sentence, though: "Don't be heedless". It > means 'be mindful now'. > > Q2. Also, I see phrase 'if he wants' all over the sutta, what > does it say in Pali? Anyone has access to co.. ..... Jaran, I thought you were helping us with the Pali??? I’m not sure. In BB’s translation, he uses “if he should wish..” Let us know if you find out. Maybe Suan. Stegan or someone else may help. ..... > Q3. And the last question, where it says ... "Furthermore, when > cognizing an idea with the intellect,.... in Thai version it > includes all dhammaramana (cittas, cetasikas, other rupas and (I > think) pannati). Can't this be right? Or it means only cittas, > cetasikas, the rest of rupas and the cittas (and accompanying > cetasikas) that 'think' about concepts? ..... In BB’s transl, he uses “cognizes a mind-object with the mind”. I would have assumed that the object would refer to dhammarammana including pannati as suggested in the Thai version. Why not? The passage is surely referring to pleasant, unpleasant and neutral feelings and other mental states on account of what is seen, heard, smelt, tasted, touched and experienced through the mind door (inc. concepts). It is discussed how ‘development of the faculties’ is not a matter of not seeing, hearing.......experiencing mind objects, but of understanding and developing detachment or equanimity on account of what is seen, heard ....’cognizable by the mind’ Let me know if this still isn’t clear or if I’ve misunderstood you or the passage. ...... > PS. Four of us from my family, my father included, are going to > Sri Lanka. It's going to be fun. :-) See you there. ..... Great news, thanks :-)) Sarah ==== 13057 From: Date: Thu May 2, 2002 1:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] A question on enlightenment Hi, Robert - In a message dated 5/2/02 2:17:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@Y... writes: > Howard, > I have nothing intelligent to add at the moment, but I wanted to let you > know that > I think your recent posts, including this one and the one on paramatha > dhammas, > are very sharp. > > Robert Ep =========================== Thank you. I always appreciate approval from you, because I have great respect for you and for your positions on matters of Dhamma. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13058 From: yuzhonghao Date: Thu May 2, 2002 1:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] attachment to concept > When I narrow down my analysis further and further, I see > that there are no choices at all that one is making: only > dhammas are doing their things. No person, no animal, no > me, and definitely no self. > > kom See the following passage from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn117.html "And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with fermentations [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path. "And what is the right view that has fermentations, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has fermentations, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions. "And what is the right view that is without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from fermentations, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path. 13059 From: Date: Thu May 2, 2002 9:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] ..... MN117 and jhana in the last sentence of MN 152 Hi Jaran and Sarah, This is a quick mail. I am now in a lurking mode of operation. I have never read this sutta before. I looked it up. It's very good. Thanks for bringing it up. <>> My understanding is as long as there is citta, sati can be aware of the citta and nature of its arammana. Jhana citta can be arammana of satipathana as well, in case that person develops jhana to the point that it becomes his second nature, although most of the arammanas of jhana citta are pannatti. I do not think the Buddha told Ven. Ananda to practice jhana as a stepping-stone to satipathana. In nnana or magga level, all 5 or 8 factors come all together. <> I looked up from my CD, "if you want" in Pali is "sace akankhati". I have no access to this particular com. <> I looked up the sutta in Thai and in Pali. <> Pali: <> And <> < >. Sound like this refers to the nature of the flow in paticcasamuppada. I feel that satipatthana and paticcasamuppada refer to the same thing, nature of dhamma, trilakkhana. Have to run. Hope everyone have a good time in Sri Lanka. Bon Voyage. Run. Num PS. Larry, I appreciate your ADL series and still keep my eyes on it. I have learned a lot from a lot of good input from the wise :-) 13060 From: Date: Thu May 2, 2002 9:50pm Subject: ADL ch. 6 (24-30) from: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life chapter 6, paragraphs 24-30 24. In doing kind deeds to others we cannot eradicate the latent tendency of dosa, but at least at those moments we do not accumulate more dosa. The Buddha exhorted people to cultivate lovingkindness (metta). We read in the 'Karaniya Metta-sutta'; (Sutta Nipata, vs. 143-152 : I am using the translation by Nanamoli Thera, Buddhist Publicafion Society, Kandy, Sri Lanka.) what one should do in order to gain the 'state of peace'. One should have thought of love for all living beings: . ...In safety and in bliss May creatures all be of a blissful heart. Whatever breathing beings there may be, No matter whether they are frail or firm, With none excepted, be they long or big Or middle-sized, or be they short or small Or thick, as well as those seen or unseen, Or whether they are dwelling far or near, Existing or yet seeking to exist, May creatures all be of a blissful heart. Let no one work another one's undoing Or even slight him at all anywhere; And never let them wish each other ill Through provocation or resentful thought. And just as might a mother with her life Protect the son that was her only child, So let him then for every living thing Maintain unbounded consciousness in being, And let him too with love for all the world Maintain unbounded consciousness in being Above, below, and all around in between, Untroubled, with no enemy or foe.... 25. The Buddha taught us not to be angry with those who are unpleasant to us. We read in the Vinaya (Mahavagga X, 349 : Translation by Nanamoli Thera.) that the Buddha said to the monks: They who (in thought) belabour this: That man has me abused, has hurt, has worsted me, has me despoiled: in these wrath is not allayed. They who do not belabour this: That man has me abused, has hurt, has wosted me, has me despoiled: in them wrath is allayed. Nay, not by wrath are wrathful moods allayed here (and) at any time, but by not-wrath are they allayed: this is an (ageless) endless rule.... 26. At times it seems impossible for us to have metta instead of dosa. For example, when people treat us badly we may feel very unhappy and we keep on pondering over our misery. When dosa has not been eradicated there are still conditions for it to arise. In being mindful of all realities which appear the wisdom is developed which can eradicate dosa. 27. Dosa can only be eradicated stage by stage. The sotapanna (who has attained the first stage of enlightenment) has not yet eradicated dosa. At the subsequent stage of enlightenment, the stage of the sakadagami (once-returner), dosa is not yet eradicated completely. The anagami (non-returner, who has attained the third stage of enlightenment) has eradicated dosa completely; he has no more latent tendency of dosa. 28. We have not eradicated dosa, but when dosa appears, we can be mindful of its characteristic in order to know it as a type of nama, arising because of conditions. When there is no mindfulness of dosa when it appears, dosa seems to last and we take it for self; neither do we notice other namas and rupas presenting themselves. Through mindfulness of namas and rupas which present themselves one at a time, we will learn that there are different characteristics of nama and rupa, none of which stays; and we will also know the characteristic of dosa as only a type of nama, not self. 29. When a clearer understanding of realities is developed we will be less inclined to ponder for a long time over an unpleasant experience, since it is only a type of nama which does not last. We will attend more to the present moment instead of thinking about the past or the future. We will also be less inclined to tell other people about unpleasant things which have happened to us, since that may be a condition both for ourselves and for others to accumulate more dosa. When someone is angry with us we will have more understanding of his conditions; he may be tired or not feeling well. Those who treat us badly deserve compassion because they actually make themselves unhappy. 30. Right understanding of realities will help us most of all to have more lovingkindness and compassion towards others instead of dosa. Questions 1. Why is lobha a condition for dosa? 2. Lying, slandering and frivolous talk are akusala kamma-patha through speech which can be performed either with lobha-mula-citta or with dosa-mula-citta. When are they performed with dosa-mula-citta? 3. Is there akusala kamma-patha through the mind performed with dosa-mula-citta? 13061 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu May 2, 2002 10:06pm Subject: RE: [dsg] attachment to concept Dear Victor, Thank you for your helpful post, like usual. > -----Original Message----- > From: yuzhonghao [mailto:victoryu@s...] > > "And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, > is of two sorts: > There is right view with fermentations [asava], > siding with merit, > resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and > there is noble right > view, without fermentations, transcendent, a > factor of the path. > > "And what is the right view that has > fermentations, sides with merit, > & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is > given, what is offered, > what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of > good & bad actions. > There is this world & the next world. There is > mother & father. There > are spontaneously reborn beings; there are > priests & contemplatives > who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, > proclaim this world & the > next after having directly known & realized it > for themselves.' This > is the right view that has fermentations, sides > with merit, & results > in acquisitions. > > "And what is the right view that is without > fermentations, > transcendent, a factor of the path? The > discernment, the faculty of > discernment, the strength of discernment, > analysis of qualities as a > factor for Awakening, the path factor of right > view in one developing > the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is > free from > fermentations, who is fully possessed of the > noble path. This is the > right view that is without fermentations, > transcendent, a factor of > the path. > Of course, like any other sayings of the Buddhas, it is subject to interpretation fitting our own accumulations! kom 13062 From: Sarah Date: Fri May 3, 2002 0:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? Dear TG, I’m glad to read your comments and see you are following the ADL studies. --- TGrand458@a... wrote: > In the Samyutta Nikaya the Buddha describes the 5 Khandhas as... > > "...form should be seen as a bursting bubble, feeling should be seen as > a > lump of foam, perception should be seen as a mirage, mental formations > should > be seen as a plantian tree (coreless), consciousness should be seen as a > > conjurers trick..." ..... S:Hope you don’t mind if I add some commentary notes I typed in for an earlier post of mine(11th December, the 9fold Path) and which I just came across (Spk refers to the SN commentary): ====================================================== From the Phena Sutta (A Lump of Foam) Spk notes translated by B.Bodhi: ***** note 190: “Spk: a bubble (bubbu.la) is feeble and cannot be grasped, for it breaks up as soon as it is seized; so too feeling is feeble and cannot be grasped as permanent and stable. As a bubble arises and ceases in a drop of water and does not last long, so too with feeling: 100,000 ‘ko.tis’ of feelings arise and cease in the time of a fingersnap (one ko.ti = 10 million). As a bubble arises in dependence on conditions, so feeling arises in dependence on a sense base, an object, the defilements, and contact.” “Spk: Perception is like a mirage (marikaa) in the sense that it is insubstantial, for one cannot grasp a mirage to drink or bathe or fill a pitcher. As a mirage deceives the multitude, so does perception, which entices people with th idea that the colourful object is beautiful, pleasurable, and permanent.” ***** Sarah:Does this mean feelings, perceptions and other paramatha dhammas (realities) don’t have lakhana (characteristics) or sabhava (nature) or that they don’t exist momentarily in their different ‘activities’? No. ***** “Spk: As a plaintain trunk (kadalikkhandha) is an assemblage of many sheaths, each with its own characteristic, so the aggregate of volitional formations is an assemblage of many phenomena, each with its own characteristic.” “Spk: Consciousness is like a magical illusion (maayaa) in the sense that it is insubstantial and cannot be grasped. Consciousness is even more transient and fleeting than a magical illusion. For it gives the impression that a person comes and goes, stands and sits, with the same mind, but the mind is different in each of these activities. Consciousness deceives the multitude like a magical illusion.” ***** ====================================================== TG> Doesn't sound to me like the Buddha wants them to be thought of as > ultimate > realities. Seems like he wants them to be seen as unsubstantial as > humanly > possible. ..... S:Though insubstantial, each ‘with its own characteristic’, however fleeting, transient and deceptive. Because there is no understanding of the ‘paramatha’ nature of these phenomena, like a magical illusion, we’re deceived and take them for a ‘whole’, for a self of substance. ..... TG:>Calling them "ultimate realities" seems to against that grain > to > me. I wonder if seeing them as ultimate realities embeds a type of > substantiality and self view that is counter-productive to detaching > from > conditions (non-attachment). I understand the reasoning behind > describing > them as ultimate realities, I'm just not sure its a very good idea? ..... S:You might like to read Jon’s comments in the following post to Rob Ep: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/10241 There are also many other detailed posts on this topic in Useful Posts under ‘Concepts and Realities’: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts ‘Ultimately’ the label isn’t important. Ultimate is a direct translation of paramattha. We can use paramatha or any other word that helps us understand that these are the phenomena that can be and must be known directly by sati and panna and should be distinguished from ‘worldly’ or conceptual realities. I would suggest that seeing them as ‘substantial’ or with ‘self view’ is more a problem of the limited understanding than of the phenomena themselves or the labels we use. I’d also like to use this post to thank Goglerr for his very helpful and detailed recent posts (re: anicca -do concepts arise and fall? -)on pannatti (concepts). I think that the more we read about the various kinds of concepts, the less inclined we’ll be to take them for realities and the less likely to be deceived by the 'magical illusions'. Look forward to any further comments you many have, TG, Sarah ===== 13063 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Fri May 3, 2002 1:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? --- Dear Sarah, TG , Howard and all, Here are some quotes from a sutta and commentary to add to those that Sarah gave: 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 The Udanaatthakatha (trans. masefield p.878) Blind from birth chapter: "since they do not know dhamma, they do not know that which is not dhamma either. For these, on account of pervesenesses, take dhamma though skilled as unskilled, take dhamma though unskilled as skilled. And not only are they confused where dhamma and what is not dhamma are concerened, but also the ripening thereof are concerned..Similarly, they neither know dhamma to be a thing having an own nature (sabhava), nor do they know that which is not dhamma to be a thing lacking an own nature. (Dhammam sabhavadhammam..adhammam asabhavadhammam) And as such they declare a thing having an own nature as though it were a thing lacking an own nature.."" endquote Dhammas like feeling and anger and greed and hardness are real - unlike concepts such as human and man - but dhammas are impermanent. A dhamma cannot be changed into something other than what it is right now, but it lasts for an infinitely brief instant only, no matter we want it to stay or go. best wishes robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Dear TG, > > I'm glad to read your comments and see you are following the ADL studies. > > --- TGrand458@a... wrote: > In the Samyutta Nikaya the Buddha > describes the 5 Khandhas as... > > > > "...form should be seen as a bursting bubble, feeling should be seen as > > a > > lump of foam, perception should be seen as a mirage, mental formations > > should > > be seen as a plantian tree (coreless), consciousness should be seen as a > > > > conjurers trick..." > ..... > > S:Hope you don't mind if I add some commentary notes I typed in for an > earlier post of mine(11th December, the 9fold Path) and which I just came > across (Spk refers to the SN commentary): > ====================================================== > From the Phena Sutta (A Lump of Foam) Spk notes translated by B.Bodhi: > ***** > note 190: "Spk: a bubble (bubbu.la) is feeble and cannot be grasped, for > it > breaks up as soon as it is seized; so too feeling is feeble and cannot be > grasped as permanent and stable. As a bubble arises and ceases in a drop > of > water and does not last long, so too with feeling: 100,000 `ko.tis' of > feelings arise and cease in the time of a fingersnap (one ko.ti = 10 > million). > As a bubble arises in dependence on conditions, so feeling arises in > dependence > on a sense base, an object, the defilements, and contact." > > "Spk: Perception is like a mirage (marikaa) in the sense that it is > insubstantial, for one cannot grasp a mirage to drink or bathe or fill a > pitcher. As a mirage deceives the multitude, so does perception, which > entices > people with th idea that the colourful object is beautiful, pleasurable, > and > permanent." > ***** > Sarah:Does this mean feelings, perceptions and other paramatha dhammas > (realities) > don't have lakhana (characteristics) or sabhava (nature) or that they > don't > exist momentarily in their different `activities'? No. > ***** > "Spk: As a plaintain trunk (kadalikkhandha) is an assemblage of many > sheaths, > each with its own characteristic, so the aggregate of volitional > formations is > an assemblage of many phenomena, each with its own characteristic." > > "Spk: Consciousness is like a magical illusion (maayaa) in the sense that > it is > insubstantial and cannot be grasped. Consciousness is even more transient > and > fleeting than a magical illusion. For it gives the impression that a > person > comes and goes, stands and sits, with the same mind, but the mind is > different > in each of these activities. Consciousness deceives the multitude like a > magical illusion." > ***** > > ====================================================== > TG> Doesn't sound to me like the Buddha wants them to be thought of as > > ultimate > > realities. Seems like he wants them to be seen as unsubstantial as > > humanly > > possible. > ..... > > S:Though insubstantial, each `with its own characteristic', however > fleeting, transient and deceptive. Because there is no understanding of > the `paramatha' nature of these phenomena, like a magical illusion, we're > deceived and take them for a `whole', for a self of substance. > ..... > TG:>Calling them "ultimate realities" seems to against that grain > > to > > me. I wonder if seeing them as ultimate realities embeds a type of > > substantiality and self view that is counter-productive to detaching > > from > > conditions (non-attachment). I understand the reasoning behind > > describing > > them as ultimate realities, I'm just not sure its a very good idea? > ..... > S:You might like to read Jon's comments in the following post to Rob Ep: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/10241 > > There are also many other detailed posts on this topic in Useful Posts > under `Concepts and Realities': > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts > > `Ultimately' the label isn't important. Ultimate is a direct translation > of paramattha. We can use paramatha or any other word that helps us > understand that these are the phenomena that can be and must be known > directly by sati and panna and should be distinguished from `worldly' or > conceptual realities. > > I would suggest that seeing them as `substantial' or with `self view' is > more a problem of the limited understanding than of the phenomena > themselves or the labels we use. > > I'd also like to use this post to thank Goglerr for his very helpful and > detailed recent posts (re: anicca -do concepts arise and fall? -)on > pannatti (concepts). I think that the more we read about the various > kinds of concepts, the less inclined we'll be to take them for realities > and the less likely to be deceived by the 'magical illusions'. > > Look forward to any further comments you many have, TG, > > Sarah > ===== 13064 From: ranil gunawardena Date: Fri May 3, 2002 5:07am Subject: News >From: "Buddhist Environmental Network" >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: , , >, , >, , >, >Subject: [dsg] Buddhist Enironmental Network >Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 09:17:44 +0100 > >This month (May 2002) sees the launch of the Buddhist Enironmental Network >(BEN). > >We need subscribers (it's free!) and also volunteers. > >If you simply want to be kept informed of progress and our campaigns, >please reply, inserting the word "News" in the subject field. > >We aim to be an active, fully engaged network and are keen to recruit >volunteers to help in BEN's development or to be more actively involved in >campaigning work. If you think you could help then please reply to this >email substituting the word "Help" in the subject field. (You will also >automatically receive our update and campaign mailings.) > >In addition to working through email, we hope to set up local groups where >members can meet and network on environmental issues. > >Below you will find more information in the form of BEN's Mission Statement > >MISSION STATEMENT >The Buddhist Environmental Network (B-E-N) works with Buddhists from all >traditions to create environmental solutions that are rooted deeply within >the Buddhist Precepts and the acknowledgement of the interdependence of all >life. Through public education, publications, practice groups and outreach, >B-E-N seeks to link Buddhist teachings of compassion, wisdom, tolerance and >non-violence with efforts and campaigns to create a sustainable environment >together with a culture of reduced consumption and waste, serving as a >catalyst for socially engaged Buddhism." > >With apologies for any cross-postings. >David Meanwell - BEN 13065 From: Date: Fri May 3, 2002 1:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? Hi, Robert - In a message dated 5/3/02 4:48:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > > Dear Sarah, TG , Howard and all, > > Here are some quotes from a sutta and commentary to add to those > that Sarah gave: > 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 > The > Udanaatthakatha > (trans. masefield p.878) > Blind from birth chapter: > "since they do not know dhamma, they do not know that > which is not dhamma either. For these, on account of > pervesenesses, take dhamma though skilled as > unskilled, take dhamma though unskilled as skilled. > And not only are they confused where dhamma and what > is not dhamma are concerened, but also the ripening > thereof are concerned..Similarly, they neither know > dhamma to be a thing having an own nature (sabhava), > nor do they know that which is not dhamma to be a > thing lacking an own nature. (Dhammam > sabhavadhammam..adhammam > asabhavadhammam) And as such they declare a thing > having an own nature as though it were a thing lacking > an own nature.."" endquote > > Dhammas like feeling and anger and greed and hardness are real - > unlike concepts such as human and man - but dhammas are impermanent. > A dhamma cannot be changed into something other than what it is > right now, but it lasts for an infinitely brief instant only, no > matter we want it to stay or go. > best wishes > robert > > ============================ Yes, these dhammas exist, conditions exist - they are not imagined. The question is what their mode of existence is. They are things-in-relation, arising in dependence on other, similarly empty conditions, including discernment (vi~n~nana). We tend to see them as separate and self-existing, and that is avijja. The preceding is not all of avijja, but it is a part of it. Seeing dhammas as personal is another critical part. And seeing alleged referents of many concepts as existent is yet another critical part. 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) 13066 From: goglerr Date: Fri May 3, 2002 6:49am Subject: Away for a month! Dear all, I'll be away for month (more or less), to do a little contemplate on this mind and body. See u guys then. A poem for reflection.......Bye. Many a door is open to us with knowledge as the key. We discover paths to lead us to our dreams of what could be. We find that we have choices and that life has much to give. If only we are wise enough to keep learning as we live. For each day that lies ahead brings joys for us to see.... Many a door is open to us with knowledge as the key. ~anonymous goglerr p.s. Cheer up! Life is short, for soon we all be dead! :-) 13067 From: Lucy Date: Fri May 3, 2002 0:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Antidotes to lobha Dear Sarah Happy birthday ! (sorry a bit late - will remember next year) I liked the tale of the snake - though felt sorry for the poor thing (I'm rather fond of snakes, had one as pet for a short while) - of course, my little upaya bag has a few mantras for dead critters : ) I really, really liked your comment: > Oh dear, how hard we work to try and > maintain the illusion of beauty and permanence and how disappointed we are > when it doesn't last;-( Funny you bringing it up --- Most of today I was thinking about lambs and what a good illustration they are of samsara. When you see them playing carefree on the fields, it is such a joy! --- until you remember that in a few weeks time they are someone's Sunday roast. And then also remember the sad, desperate, all night long crying of the mother sheeps when their lambs are all taken away one evening... so the sight of the lambs didn't make me very happy today. I think all the joys of samsara are like that Best wishes Lucy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sarah" > Dear Lucy, > > > I'd be truly lost without my little bag of "upaya" ... No "antidotes" > > in > > the real sense, but a useful reminder of the Path, especially in May, > > blackbirds and thrushes singing among droopy cherry blossoms.... So, I > > offer all and look forward going out tomorrow looking for more offerings > > : ) > > We had a public holiday in Hong Kong yesterday, so we also went out > enjoying the countryside. On an early morning hike up the Peak, there were > no lambs here, but squirrels, white cockatoos, other exotic birds and > hot, humid, tropical conditions. > > And then, we came across a beautiful small silver and green snake on the > path. It didn't look injured at all, but it turned out to be dead. I > decided to take it home by way of an 'offering' for my students, thinking > they might enjoy it as much as 'my' lobha did. So Jon kindly put it in a > bag in his backpack and when we got home, we put it in the freezer > > I have a group of so-called 'gifted' (you know,calculus at age 8,bored by > everything at school, enjoy unusual offerings) students coming soon. I > Just went to take out my beautiful snake, but instead found what looks > like a limp, brown giant worm. Oh dear, how hard we work to try and > maintain the illusion of beauty and permanence and how disappointed we are > when it doesn't last;-( > ..... > > Best wishes (and happy May Day) > ..... > Thanks for the reminders of an English May Day. Actually as well as being > a holiday here (thanks to being part of China) , it is also my birthday, > so it's always a happy day;-) > > I think that any reminders of the Teachings at anytime can be helpful. If > your bag of upaya serve as reminders, then continue enjoying Spring, > looking for offerings and developing awareness;-)) > > Sarah > ===== 13068 From: Lucy Date: Fri May 3, 2002 0:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 6 (18-23) Hi Larry and all ADL's I don't really get the prompted and unprompted ... Unprompted makes me think of "uncaused", but we know that's impossible. Everything arises from a cause (in the case of dosa, it'd be past dosa and latent tendencies to develop dosa whenever the condition appears). So any dosa is always *prompted* by its cause. What seems to be prompted or unprompted are conditions for dosa to arise, not dosa itself. Comments, anyone? Lucy > from: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm > > Abhidhamma In Daily Life > chapter 6, paragraphs 18-23 > > 18. When we study the Abhidhamma we learn that there are two types of > dosa-mula-citta; one is asankharika (unprompted) and one is sasankharika > (prompted). Dosa is sasankharika (prompted) when, for example, one > becomes angry after having been reminded of the disagreeable actions of > someone else. When dosa is asankharika (unprompted) it is more intense > than when it is sasankharika. Dosa-mula-cittas are called > patigha.sampayutta, or accompanied by patigha, which is another word for > dosa. Dosa.mula-cittas are always accompanied by domanassa (unpleasant > feeling). The two type of dosa-mula-citta are: > > 1. Accompanied by unpleasant feeling, arising with anger, unprompted > (Domanassa-sahagatam, patigha-sampayuttam, asankharikam ekam) > 2. Accompanied by unpleasant feeling, arising with anger, prompted > (Domanassa-sahagatam, > patigha-sampayuttam, sasankharikam ekam) > > 19. As we have seen, there are many degrees of dosa; it may be coarse or > more subtle. When dosa is coarse, it causes akusala kamma-patha > (unwholesome deeds) through body, speech or mind. Two kinds of akusala > kamma-patha through the body can be performed with dosa-mula-citta: > killing and stealing. If we want less violence in the world we should > try not to kill. When we kill we accumulate a great deal of dosa. The > monk's life is a life of non-violence; he does not hurt any living being > in the world. However, not everyone is able to live like the monks. > Defilements are anatta (not self); they arise because of conditions. The > purpose of the Buddha's teachings is not to lay down rules which forbid > people to commit ill deeds, but to help people to develop the wisdom > which eradicates defilements. > > 20. As regards stealing, this can either be performed with > lobha-mula-citta or with dosa-mula-citta. It is done with > dosa-mula-citta when there is the intention to harm someone else. Doing > damage to someone else's possessions is included in this kamma-patha. > > 21. Four kinds of akusala kamma-patha through speech are performed with > dosa-mula-citta: lying, slandering, rude speech and frivolous talk. > Lying, slandering and frivolous talk can either be done with > lobha-mula-citta or with dosa-mula-citta. Slandering, for example, is > done with dosa-mula-citta when there is the intention to cause damage to > someone else, such as doing harm to his good name and causing him to be > looked down upon by others. Most people think that the use of weapons is > to be avoided, but they forget that the tongue can be a weapon as well, > which can badly wound. Evil speech does a great deal of harm in the > world; it causes discord between people. When we speak evil we harm > ourselves, because at such moments akusala kamma is accumulated and it > is capable of producing akusala vipaka. We read in the 'Sutta Nipata' > (the Great Chapter, 'Khuddaka Nikava'): > Truly to every person born > An axe is born within his mouth > Wherewith the fool cuts himself > When he speaks evil. > > 22. As regards akusala kamma-patha through the mind performed with > dosa-mula-citta, this is the intention to hurt or harm someone else. > > 23. People often speak about violence and the ways to cure It. Who of us > can say that he is free from dosa and that he will never kill? We do not > know how much dosa we have accumulated in the course of many lives. When > the conditions are there we might commit an act of violence we did not > realize we were capable of. When we understand how ugly dosa is and to > what deeds it can lead we want to eradicate it. 13069 From: Date: Fri May 3, 2002 6:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 6 (18-23) Hi Lucy (& Christine at the end), according to "A comprehensive Manual Of Abhidhamma", 'prompting occurs through inducement by another or by personal deliberation'. So when I watch 'The Nightly Business Report' and learn that the stock market is going to keep going down, dosa arises concerning my prospects. But in walking up and down stairs all day dosa spontaneously arises; I don't have to be convinced of anything. I'm finding that there is a certain satisfaction in identifying dosa but in identifying lobha there was aversion. Maybe identifying these states slightly disidentifies us from them. Also I noticed that dosa isn't a feeling and the object of dosa is neither the dosa nor the unpleasant feeling. This gives a new perspective in the process of dosa arising with unpleasant feeling regarding an object. Christine, how did you fare with this chapter? Larry 13070 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 3, 2002 8:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Away for a month! Goglerr --- goglerr wrote: > Dear all, > > I'll be away for month (more or less), to do a little contemplate on > this mind and body. See u guys then. Have fun! Will miss your useful contributions in the meantime. When you come back, do let us know whether dhammas are any different under intensive contemplation than in ordinary life ;-)). And thanks for the poem below. I like the sentiment (knowledge is the key). Jon > A poem for reflection.......Bye. > > Many a door is open to us > with knowledge as the key. > > We discover paths to lead us > to our dreams of what could be. > > We find that we have choices > and that life has much to give. > > If only we are wise enough > to keep learning as we live. > > For each day that lies ahead > brings joys for us to see.... > > Many a door is open to us > with knowledge as the key. > > ~anonymous > > goglerr > p.s. Cheer up! Life is short, for soon we all be dead! :-) 13071 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 3, 2002 8:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Prompted/unprompted (was, ADL ch. 6 (18-23)) Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Lucy (& Christine at the end), > > according to "A comprehensive Manual Of Abhidhamma", 'prompting occurs > through inducement by another or by personal deliberation'. So when I > watch 'The Nightly Business Report' and learn that the stock market is > going to keep going down, dosa arises concerning my prospects. But in > walking up and down stairs all day dosa spontaneously arises; I don't > have to be convinced of anything. Thanks for this definition from CMA. See also the definition from Nyanatiloka’s ‘Buddhist Dictionary’ below, under the Pali terms ‘asankharika’ (umprompted) and ‘sasankharika’ (prompted), and the example given in Visuddhimagga. Just wanted to add the point that the prompted/unprompted classification applies to all kinds of kusala and akusala cittas (not just dosa citta). The arising of a tendency unprompted indicates a stronger disposition towards the tendency (wholesome or unwholesome) in that particular circumstance. Note that, on the basis of the Vis. example, your example of dosa on hearing the daily financial news report may not count as prompted, since the dosa arises spontaneously and without any prompting as to the nature of the response. In that situation, it is the kusala response that could only arise with prompting (in my case, anyway!) Jon A. BUDDHIST DICTIONARY asankhárika-citta: “An Abhidhamma term signifying a 'state of consciousness arisen spontaneously', i. e. without previous deliberation, preparation, or prompting by others; hence: 'unprepared, unprompted'. “This term and its counterpart (sasankhárikacitta), probably go back to a similar distinction made in the Suttas (A. IV, 171).” sasankhárika-citta: “A prepared, or prompted. state of consciousness, arisen after prior deliberation (e.g. weighing of motives) or induced by others (command, advice, persuasion).” B. VISUDDHIMAGGA XIV, 84 “(1) When a man is happy on encountering an excellent gift to be given, or recipient, etc., or some such cause for joy, or by placing right view foremost in the way that occurs beginning ‘There is [merit in] giving’ (M. I, 288), he unhesitatingly and unurged by others perform such merit as giving, etc., then his consciousness is accompanied by joy, associated with knowledge, and unprompted. “(2) But when a man is happy and content in the way aforesaid, and, while placing right view foremost, yet he does it hesitatingly through lack of free generosity, etc., or urged on by others, then his consciousness is of the same kind as the last but prompted; for in this sense ‘prompting’ is a term for prior effort exerted by himself or others.” 13072 From: Date: Fri May 3, 2002 10:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Prompted/unprompted (was, ADL ch. 6 (18-23)) Hi Jon, Thanks for this further clarification. So you are saying the response has to be suggested by another or one has to talk oneself into it. Another point, prompting can be by body, speech, or mind (as I recall). But I can't think of a good example for body. Unprompted is said to be more intense but I think this might be a factor of speed. Unprompted happens immediately (habitual/automatic), but prompted takes a couple of seconds (for deliberation). Maybe if someone hits you and it takes a couple of seconds before you decide to be angry, that is dosa prompted by body.??? Larry ------------ Jon Thanks for this definition from CMA. See also the definition from Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' below, under the Pali terms 'asankharika' (umprompted) and 'sasankharika' (prompted), and the example given in Visuddhimagga. Just wanted to add the point that the prompted/unprompted classification applies to all kinds of kusala and akusala cittas (not just dosa citta). The arising of a tendency unprompted indicates a stronger disposition towards the tendency (wholesome or unwholesome) in that particular circumstance. Note that, on the basis of the Vis. example, your example of dosa on hearing the daily financial news report may not count as prompted, since the dosa arises spontaneously and without any prompting as to the nature of the response. In that situation, it is the kusala response that could only arise with prompting (in my case, anyway!) Jon 13073 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 4, 2002 1:08am Subject: RE: [dsg] Satipatthana and concepts/realities Frank --- frank kuan wrote: > the controversy: > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > (4) the foundation > > of mindfulness in > > > contemplation of mental objects. > ...So the controversy is, does > > this 'dhamma' mean > > > paramattha-dhamma or dhammarammana. > > The Satipatthana Sutta... > > "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the > > mental objects in the mental objects > > of the five hindrances, … of the five aggregates of > > clinging, … of the six internal and > > the six external sense-bases, … of the seven factors > > of enlightenment, … of the Four > > Noble Truths." > > > > According to my reading of the texts, these sets are > > all references to paramattha > > dhammas, not concepts. > > Can you explain how you read it that way? I've > always wondered what the hell is that sutta talking > about with the 4th foundation of mindfulness being > "mind-objects" when it appears to me dhamma is > referring to concepts, specifically buddhist concepts. > > I mean, come on, 5 hindrances, 7 factors of > enlightenment as paramatta ultimate realities? How do > you make a case for that? Might as well say Frank is > an ultimate reality too. > > As I see it, one could only make a case for that > only if the 4th foundation of mindfulness of dhamma > referred exclusively to the 3 marks, 5 aggregates, 6 > sense bases. And even so, many buddhists would argue > that even the 3 marks are concepts, not ultimate > realities to be wrongly grasped. My reading is based on the commentaries and other ancient texts. I’ll do my best to share my thinking with you. I think you accept that the 5 aggregates and 6 sense bases are dhammas (phenomena of existence), but you question whether the 5 hindrances or the 7 factors of enlightenment are dhammas. The texts contain many classifications or groupings of dhammas. Some of these are ways of classifying all dhammas (and may or may not include concepts also), while others are ways of grouping certain dhammas by a common factor. A. Examples of ways of classifying all phenomena are— aggregates (khandhas) ayatanas (bases) dhatus (elements) the all the six sixes nama’s and rupa’s B. Examples of ways of grouping akusala dhammas are— asava’s (cankers or poisons) ogha’s (floods) yogha’s (yokes) upadana’s (ways of clinging) nivarana (hindrances) anusaya (latent tendencies) samyogana’s (fetters) C. Examples of ways of grouping kusala dhammas are— padhana’s (right efforts, strivings, perseverences) iddhi-pada (roads to power) indriya (spiritual faculties) bala (mental powers) bojjhanga’s (factors of enlightenment) According to the texts (including the abhidhamma and the commentaries to the suttas), all these classifications and groupings refer to specific dhammas. The groupings of the kusala and akusala dhammas (B. and C.) refer to particular mental factors/cetasikas (there is 1 exception to this that I will ignore for the moment). These mental factors/cetasikas are included among the cetasikas that comprise the aggregate known as sankhara khandha. So all these factors are as much ‘realties’ as each other, and the hindrances are no less ‘real’ than the aggregates. The groupings at C. are part of the 37 bodhi-pakkhiya dhamma (factors pertaining to enlightenment). The texts explain that these 37 factors are in fact different ways of describing just 14 cetasikas. Frank, this is a necessarily cursory treatment, but I hope it gives a sense of how I read the texts, based on a study of the tipitaka as a whole and its commentaries. I would be happy to expand on these groupings, with references, in a later post if you would like to see more detail. > Now I should say that I'm still open to the > possibility that the 4th foundtion of mindulness > starts with concepts, but there is some special > technique where one should contemplate these buddhist > dhammic concepts in such a way that their "utlimate > realities" can be seen, but where are the details on > how this is done? It's not in the sutta. I think the short answer to this is that the Satipatthana Sutta should be read as dealing with the contemplation of dhammas *as and when they arise*. As I think you are suggesting, unless a dhamma is presently arising, there is no reality of that dhamma, and only its concept can be contemplated. And the contemplating is merely a form of *thinking about* the concept, rather than the *direct experience of* the presently arising reality. Jon 13074 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 4, 2002 1:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Antidotes to lobha Lucy --- Lucy wrote: > Hi Jon > > Looks like we're talking from two different levels. You talk of *seeing* > and *understanding*, but I'm barely preparing the ground here, picking up > stones, weeding, raking, watering, digging in manure ... all very basic and > with an awful lot of preparation work still to be done. Meanwhile, lobha > for hills, wild flowers, lambs and May bird songs piles up, making the mind > ground even harder to clear for *the* seeing to happen. If I'm not careful, > I might forget there's such thing as a Path and a seeing until, whoops, too > late!!! Hang on -- we’re actually talking from the same level here. I’m just trying to explain the teaching as I understand it in theory – that there’s no real antidote to kilesa other the understanding that is developed by satipatthana. Everyone has heaps of lobha (and not just in spring when the flowers and birds are out and about), so we’re all equally ‘disadvantaged’ in this regard. I do believe, however, that understanding of the present moment reality can be developed regardless of whether there is lobha or not. Even lobha itself is after all one of the hindrances that are specifically given as objects of satipatthana in the Satipatthana Sutta (section on mind-object), so when it’s present, its characteristic can be known. If on the other hand we have the idea that it can’t be the object of understanding then its characteristic will never be known by direct experience. I thing that proper study of understanding at a theoretical level is the most useful preparation of the soil for the cultivation of the real thing. > I'd be truly lost without my little bag of "upaya" ... No "antidotes" in > the real sense, but a useful reminder of the Path, especially in May, > blackbirds and thrushes singing among droopy cherry blossoms.... So, I > offer all and look forward going out tomorrow looking for more offerings > : ) Have fun! Don’t forget, though, that there’s a lot more kilesa than just the obvious lobha, and there’s a lot more to be understood for what it is, so we are told, than just the kilesas. > Best wishes (and happy May Day) > Lucy Best wishes to you (and thanks, it was) Jon 13075 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 4, 2002 2:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Prompted/unprompted (was, ADL ch. 6 (18-23)) Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Thanks for this further clarification. So you are saying the response > has to be suggested by another or one has to talk oneself into it. That's how i would read your original passage from CMA (btw, do you have a reference for it? Thanks.) > Another point, prompting can be by body, speech, or mind (as I recall). > But I can't think of a good example for body. I don't recall having seen this, but it sounds OK. A person could prompt another by giving an indication by hand signal or facial expression, for example, reminding someone to be considerate of another's sensitivities (kusala) or to show strong(er) disapproval (akusala). > Unprompted is said to be more intense but I think this might be a factor > of speed. Unprompted happens immediately (habitual/automatic), but > prompted takes a couple of seconds (for deliberation). Yes, the unprompted has the element of spontenaity. The prompted on the other hand could take a lot longer than a couple of seconds! > Maybe if someone hits you and it takes a couple of seconds before you > decide to be angry, that is dosa prompted by body.??? Well, if someone hit you and I said, "you're not going to let him get away with that, are you", and that made a difference to the level of your response, then there would be an aspect of prompted akusala (prompted by speech) involved. Jon > Larry > ------------ > Jon > Thanks for this definition from CMA. See also the definition from > Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' below, under the Pali terms > 'asankharika' (umprompted) and 'sasankharika' (prompted), and the > example given in Visuddhimagga. > Just wanted to add the point that the prompted/unprompted classification > applies to all kinds of kusala and akusala cittas (not just dosa citta). > The arising of a tendency unprompted indicates a stronger disposition > towards the tendency (wholesome or unwholesome) in that particular > circumstance. > Note that, on the basis of the Vis. example, your example of dosa on > hearing the daily financial news report may not count as prompted, since > the dosa arises spontaneously and without any prompting as to the nature > of the response. In that situation, it is the kusala response that could > only arise with prompting (in my case, anyway!) > Jon 13076 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat May 4, 2002 2:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 6 (18-23) Hi Larry, and All, Dosa is not my favourite kilesa .... it is mostly unpleasant to experience, and I personally have difficulty with it in the forms of frivolous talk, and anger. Particularly coming from another religious tradition where 'righteous anger' was commended..... Chapter 6 on Dosa is a very timely chapter and the hardest one for me so far. I find some of the points a little unrealilstic, others I just find a little unpalatable. But mostly it is difficult for me to understand and put into action what the Teachings regarding dosa require of me. These comments are a little back-to-front ... I am commenting on what I see as a major difficulty for me.... The four kinds of akusala kamma-patha through speech - of which frivolous talk is the one I need to watch the most. Being part of a 'talking profession', I use speech as a tool all day, I analyse and assess situations and behaviour all day. It is too easy to slip from the work role of discussing, assessing and analysing situations and behaviour in a professional manner, to doing it in my personal life.... and to chatter for the sake of chattering. I would regard it more as frivolous talk rather than slander, but I could be fooling myself.... Regarding the sutta on Anger - I've been angry with people many times in my life, particularly with those who intentionally harm others (verbally or physically), or with those who ignore distress when it is within their power and their duty to protect. I find this sutta's description of reactions doesn't match my experience - I don't think my reaction of choice was ever to hope those doing the harming 'weren't handsome', 'didn't sleep well', were 'without prosperity, wealth or fame', or hope that they would have 'an unhappy rebirth'. My reaction was to hope they would stop harming, or that someone would stop them from harming, and that they would live with kindness and in harmony. A part I find unpalatable, though the truth, and something I am prone to, is "When we have aversion we think that other people or unpleasant situations are the cause of our aversion. However, our accumulation of dosa is the real cause that aversion arises time and again. If we want to have less dosa we should know the characteristic of dosa and we should be aware of it when it arises." This is a difficulty for me, because of instantaneous reactions, though I'm trying to deal with these. I don't think being aware of dosa means we should have a passive, let it happen, attitude to cruel or unjust behaviour, whether physical or verbal, do you think? I think it means the problem is mainly with the thoughts and emotional reaction. But that, while endeavouring to stop cruelty and injustice, we should try to do so with understanding of causes (within everyone concerned), awareness of our own feelings, and without creating further injustice. [And I wonder what the difference is between 'indifference' and 'equanimity' ?] With regard to 'prompted' 'unprompted' - nothing much to add, except it could also be seen as referring to something like 'the angry young man' syndrome........ People (in this case, only as an example, a young man) who carry with them a palpable sense or anger or subdued violence, without an immediate discernible cause. Just angry at the world in general, and viewing every occurrence through that filter.... This mail is a bit of a hodge podge, but I'm still thinking, integrating and internally arguing ... :-) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Lucy (& Christine at the end), > > according to "A comprehensive Manual Of Abhidhamma", 'prompting occurs > through inducement by another or by personal deliberation'. So when I > watch 'The Nightly Business Report' and learn that the stock market is > going to keep going down, dosa arises concerning my prospects. But in > walking up and down stairs all day dosa spontaneously arises; I don't > have to be convinced of anything. > > I'm finding that there is a certain satisfaction in identifying dosa but > in identifying lobha there was aversion. Maybe identifying these states > slightly disidentifies us from them. Also I noticed that dosa isn't a > feeling and the object of dosa is neither the dosa nor the unpleasant > feeling. This gives a new perspective in the process of dosa arising > with unpleasant feeling regarding an object. > > Christine, how did you fare with this chapter? > > Larry 13077 From: anders_honore Date: Sat May 4, 2002 4:00am Subject: skilful means in the group Imo, the Buddha never taught a single fixed Dhamma. He taught what was skilful *in relation* to the listener(s) in question, in order to best help them free their minds. Thus his teachings to one person might be different for one person, than to another. The key then, lies in figuring out "what is skilful for me on the path" and then simply discarding that which is not. Not rejecting it, because there might come a time later on when it does become skilful. However, what is the sense of studying the Jhanas, if you haven't even seen a nimitta yet? Here is some excerpts of what I would deem skilful *in relation* to this group: ________________________________ If he recites many teachings, but -- heedless man -- doesn't do what they say, like a cowherd counting the cattle of others, he has no share in the contemplative life. If he recites next to nothing but follows the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma; abandoning passion, aversion, delusion; alert, his mind well-released, not clinging either here or hereafter: he has his share in the contemplative life. (Dhammapada 19-20) ___________________________________ For those who go studying, learning as much as they can about the Dhamma, all I have to say is: What profit is there in counting the treasures of others? 13078 From: anders_honore Date: Sat May 4, 2002 4:05am Subject: On the truth of Buddhism Any view, even if it is supreme, is a fetter binding you to Samsara. Some people here have in the past aired the views about the untruth of Mahayana. This hwoever, is merely a consequence of their own need for affirmation of their own tradition. The Paramatthaka Sutta says: When dwelling on views as "supreme," a person makes them the utmost thing in the world, &, from that, calls all others inferior and so he's not free from disputes. When he sees his advantage in what's seen, heard, sensed, or in precepts & practices, seizing it there he sees all else as inferior. That, too, say the skilled, is a binding knot: that in dependence on which you regard another as inferior. So a monk shouldn't be dependent on what's seen, heard, or sensed, or on precepts & practices; nor should he conjure a view in the world in connection with knowledge or precepts & practices; shouldn't take himself to be "equal"; shouldn't think himself inferior or superlative. 13079 From: anders_honore Date: Sat May 4, 2002 4:19am Subject: Sutta commentary The Dutthatthaka Sutta of the Sutta Nipata says: One whose doctrines aren't clean -- fabricated, formed, given preference when he sees it to his own advantage -- relies on a peace dependent on what can be shaken. ------------------------------- Fabricated doctrines here refers to dcotrines that are of the nature of views and not of true seeing of reality that comes from enlightenment. Of course the minute you become a Buddhist, to avoid giving preference to Buddhist doctrine over non-Buddhist ones is virtually impossibe. In fact, it is needed initially in order to set one up on the Buddhist path. However, for someone solidly grounded in Buddhism, who knows what is means to be mindful and knows about the doctrine of not-self and can work on one's own mind with this, lending preference to this becomes and obstruction. Why? Because he relies on a knowledge that can be shaken, due to its fabricated nature. By giving preference to it, he clings to it, and sustains it, obstructing the realisation of true knowledge. ------------------------------- Because entrenchments in views aren't easily overcome when considering what's grasped among doctrines, that's why a person embraces or rejects a doctrine -- in light of these very entrenchments. ------------------------------- Almost self-explanatory. Because we have the tendency to entrench ourselves in views, we naturally lend preference to one above the other, and thus cling to it. So what can be done to avoid clinging to it? ------------------------------- Now, one who is cleansed has no preconceived view about states of becoming or not- anywhere in the world. Having abandoned conceit & illusion, by what means would he go? He isn't involved. For one who's involved gets into disputes over doctrines, but how -- in connection with what -- would you argue with one uninvolved? He has nothing embraced or rejected, has sloughed off every view right here -- every one. ------------------------------- This part should answer my question above. An Aryan has cast off all views of anything in this world, has no preferences, and through this, he is liberated. 13080 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat May 4, 2002 1:13am Subject: RE: what is extreme? Re: [dsg] Re: Study/Meditation Dear Christine, For someone who lived on Oahu before (me), I think you can do the direction thing much better than I can! kom > -----Original Message----- > From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] > After this, please never ask me a geographical > question again. :) > First, let's clarify two terms. 1. R.H.S. if > L..A..M. = On the > right hand side, if looking at the map. > 2. L.H.S. if L.O.S. = On the left hand side, if > looking out to sea. > For the rest, you are on your own..... > Hanauma Bay was created by volcanic action 10,000 > years ago when Pele > made her last attempt to find home on Oahu. (and > who can prove > anything different I ask?) It's in Koko Head > Park, out of > Honolulu. So, if you ever get bored with Kauai, > you can start on the > other Islands. > Kauai is to the left of Oahu if looking at the > map - which means Oahu > is on the right, right? Hanauma Bay is on R.H.S. > of Diamond Head, if > L.A.M. and Diamond Head is on the R.H.S. of > Hanauma Bay if L.O.S. > With regard to Hanauma Bay's position relative to > Honolulu - it > is 'down below' Honolulu and a bit to the R.H.S. > if L.A.M. and a bit > to the L.H.S. if L.O.S. > In addition to the fact that I (only > momentarily) mix up Left and > Right, can you understand why I'm never allowed > to navigate on car > journeys with friends or family? :) :) > Personally, I think they miss > out on all sorts of adventures by being so 'stuffy and > conventional'..... :) > kom 13081 From: Lucy Date: Sat May 4, 2002 6:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Antidotes to lobha Hi Jon > > Hang on -- we're actually talking from the same level here. I'm just trying to explain > the teaching as I understand it in theory - that there's no real antidote to kilesa other > the understanding that is developed by satipatthana. > I misunderstood your use of the words seeing and understanding. I'm more used to reading these words to imply experiential, largely non-conceptual realisations - especially when addressing the uprooting of kilesa - So the way I read your post was along the lines of "the effective way to deal with lobha is to realise enlightenment" - which is very true, of course, but unlikely to happen to this citta-stream in a hurry. Sorry if I got you wrong. > Everyone has heaps of lobha (and not just in spring when the flowers and birds are out > and about), so we're all equally 'disadvantaged' in this regard. I do believe, however, > that understanding of the present moment reality can be developed regardless of whether > there is lobha or not. Even lobha itself is after all one of the hindrances that are > specifically given as objects of satipatthana in the Satipatthana Sutta (section on > mind-object), so when it's present, its characteristic can be known. If on the other > hand we have the idea that it can't be the object of understanding then its > characteristic will never be known by direct experience. > I agree it's useful to know lobha etc. You see it arise ( = it's already been and gone), you examine it inside out, measure it, identify it, give it a name, look for the roots, project the consequences of its manifestation, remember the teachings, recognise that it's a hindrance, etc. .... and then, what do you do ? That was really the gist of my question. How to go about relinquishing the objects of attachment? and relinquishing the tendency to develop attachment? on a moment to moment basis. I know the answer is cultivation, but expedient means can help to keep the mind on the cultivation track, you need to aspire to cultivation and remember to keep it going. At least, in my example of offering hills, if you have an accident and die right there, citta will be pointing in the right direction. At best, you develop a habit of remembering the Path when you're out and about clinging to everything you see. It's all training! > I thing that proper study of understanding at a theoretical level is the most useful > preparation of the soil for the cultivation of the real thing. > The theoretical level on its own doesn't work very well for me, though it may well work for others. This mind needs a lot more field work on all fronts. It may be that in science one acquires a very healthy disrespect for anything "theoretical" and you can't really trust something you always take with a pinch of salt. Now, combined with the lab / field work, it starts making more sense. Glad you enjoyed the holiday - ours is on Monday. Best wishes Lucy 13082 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 4, 2002 7:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] skilful means in the group Anders Nice to have you back with us. And thanks for the Dhammapada passages --- anders_honore wrote: > Imo, the Buddha never taught a single fixed Dhamma. He taught what > was skilful *in relation* to the listener(s) in question, in order to > best help them free their minds. Thus his teachings to one person > might be different for one person, than to another. The key then, > lies in figuring out "what is skilful for me on the path" and then > simply discarding that which is not. Not rejecting it, because there > might come a time later on when it does become skilful. > However, what is the sense of studying the Jhanas, if you haven't > even seen a nimitta yet? > > Here is some excerpts of what I would deem skilful *in relation* to > this group: > ________________________________ > > If he recites many teachings, but > -- heedless man -- > doesn't do what they say, > like a cowherd counting the cattle of others, > he has no share in the contemplative life. > > If he recites next to nothing > but follows the Dhamma > in line with the Dhamma; > abandoning passion, > aversion, delusion; > alert, > his mind well-released, > not clinging > either here or hereafter: > he has his share in the contemplative life. > > (Dhammapada 19-20) > > ___________________________________ > > For those who go studying, learning as much as they can about the > Dhamma, all I have to say is: > > What profit is there in counting the treasures of others? You seem to be equating a person who studies the Dhamma with the person described in Dhp 19 above. However, the person described in Dhp 19 is a person who knows the teachings *but who doesn't do what they say, is heedless*. It is because of not paying any attention to the teachings that he is said to be 'counting the treasure of others' (not because he knows the Dhamma, surely?). Dhp 20 is interesting. It seems to be saying that if one develops the path correctly, one is regarded as living the contemplative life (i.e., regardless of whether one has taken ordination as a monk). Is this your reading also? Jon 13083 From: Lucy Date: Sat May 4, 2002 7:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 6 (18-23) Hi Larry & Jon Thanks for the clarification - I'll have to remember to look things up in the "Manual", keep on forgetting about it. Also N's wonderful dictionary. It looks like this "prompted" and "unprompted" is another case of the English words not meaning quite what the original intended. If you read "prompted" - next you think it's someone else's fault. As for the "unprompted" - it's nobody's fault. Adding the extended meaning to prompted and unprompted, it's easy to see why the unprompted dosa is the strongest, being the deeper rooted. > I'm finding that there is a certain satisfaction in identifying dosa but > in identifying lobha there was aversion. Maybe identifying these states > slightly disidentifies us from them. Also I noticed that dosa isn't a > feeling and the object of dosa is neither the dosa nor the unpleasant > feeling. This gives a new perspective in the process of dosa arising > with unpleasant feeling regarding an object. > Yeah, you're right there on both counts. It's uncomfortable to identify lobha. With dosa, you feel like shouting "gotcha!". The dosa decreases or even melts away while you're looking at it in this new perspective(s) and the exercise stops you reacting on the spot. But it's harder to distract lobha in the same way. Best wishes Lucy 13084 From: frank kuan Date: Sat May 4, 2002 10:14am Subject: RE: [dsg] Satipatthana and concepts/realities Hi Jon, I appreciate the explanation, but ultimately my confusion with the mindfulnless sutta (MN 10) has to do with lack of distinction between foundation #4 (mindfulness of "mind objects") and the other foundations. In other words, foundation #4 seems to overlap heavily with the other 3 foundations, even though contemplation of "mind-objects" implies a distinct technique worth its own catgeory. Here's an example. Under contemplation of mind (3rd foundation): "He understands mind affected by lust as mind as mind affected by lust..." Under contemplation of "mind-objeccts" (4th foundation) 5 hindrances section: "a monk understands, there is sensual desire in me; or ... there is no sensual desire in me." Is there overlap/redundancy between 3rd and 4th foundation, or is there a distinct difference between those two methods of mindfulness? To me, it seems like foundation #4 is just saying that any of the buddhist concepts/classifications that the buddha taught can be used as a framework or template to do the first 3 foundations of mindulness. Understood in this way, it makes sense to me. But if I treat the 4th foundation as a separate distinct method, as "mind-object" tends to imply, then I just become confounded because of so much overlap with the first 3 foundations. Jon, in your previous post you point out that the 4th foundation is a "real time" operation contemplating dhammas, but ALL FOUR foundations are real time, so again it is not something special to distinguish the 4th foundation. Jon, I appreciate the time you took to explain some of the buddhist classifications that you use to interpret the 4th foundation, but to me, those classificaitons still do not separate the 4th foundation in such a way to make it very distinct, in the same way for example as mindfulness of form and mindfulness of feeling are very distinct. -fk 13085 From: Date: Sat May 4, 2002 10:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 6 (18-23) Hi Christine, I think 'what the teachings require' of you is just what you wrote, a good close look at what is going on. I think it is important to remember that this isn't a course in self improvement. Just see what is happening and move on. Maybe if you play around with little aversions you will develop a taste for recognition of this quality. I love it. I think it would be helpful for many if others shared their experiences and insight concerning recognition of dosa. Larry 13086 From: asterix_wins Date: Sat May 4, 2002 5:26pm Subject: Re: Sirima, the Courtesan and Compassion dear sarah, Thanks for the wonderful reminder of the Sirima Story,..no matter how many times one reads it..it comes up with a deeper meaning everytime. my confession is that there was desire imagining the 'fresh' new dead human body on public display (Before worms found the way out from it) happy to be back in DSG, lurking... and going through the billions of messages that I have missed., I thought of posting ( thereby making this a contributing post ) this particular message received from a friend, ------------------------ The happiness that you feel when you satisfy a desire is not due to the satisfaction of the desire, but to the momentary cessation of the desire. But the desire returns. Therefore desires can never be satisfied; they can only be overcome, abandoned. -Sangharakshita (Peace is a Fire) -------------------------- rgds, gayan --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Dear Christine, > > As I mentioned in my note to Num about Jivaka, the physician, I was > reminded of your comments on list (and in person when we last met) about > Sirima, the courtesan, who was Jivaka's younger sister. Sometime after I > returned to Hong Kong, I came across the details of her story in the > Vimana Stories (PTS trans of Vimanavatthu and commentary by P.Masefield) > and read these with particular interest after your comments. > > ***** > Christine: > >On the plane, random memories of my reading about death in the > scriptures arose, Two stories stuck uncomfortably in my memory > where the Buddha had acted in a ways I find difficult to understand; > I know that obviously cultural and legal differences (and my > ignorance) come into play. The first was the story of how the Buddha > auctioned the corpse of Sirima the Courtesan......which seems, > well...., horrifyingly brutal...I could only read it once..... > > > And I thought - What is this compassion? Is it really seeking of > your own particular goal for an individual, what you - think is best > for them - rather than immediate comfort, support and kindness? > And detachment is encouraged - with connotations of remaining aloof > from the world and suffering. How is this different from apathy, > indifference? > Shouldn't compassion be a 'doing' thing?.......< end quote> > ***** > > In brief --for others not so familiar with the details-- in the second > part of Sirima's story, we read about how Sirima-- who was exceedingly > beautiful-- became a sotapanna after listening to the Buddha, changed her > lifestyle and from that day gave daily alms to monks in her house. > > The part of the story that Christine found disturbing was that concerning > a young monk who had heard of her great beauty and went to her house with > other monks. Sirima was sick at the time, but was brought into the hall to > pay her respects. Even though she was very sick, the monk was overcome > with lust and unable to eat. That day Sirima died, but the Buddha gave > instructions that the body was not to be burnt and that all the citizens > should come to gaze at it. > > The Buddha made the king auction the body, starting with a high price and > gradually reducing it to nothing. No one was interested to take it. The > Buddha pointed out how even those who would have paid a thousand to spend > one night with Sirima a short while ago would not even take the body as a > gift now. > > What is really interesting as well is that after death, Sirima was reborn > in a heavenly realm and visited `her own' cremation with 500 chariots. > While the Buddha was preaching, she became an anagami in another account > (but no mention in this one).. The young monk became an arahant (in all > accounts) and.84,000 people became enlightened at Sirima's cremation. > > ***** > Let me say straight away, Christine, that there are some parts of the > Tipitaka that are very difficult or disturbing for me to read. I'm > particularly thinking of some of the Peta stories which would be hard for > me to even quote from. I see these as an acquired taste but perhaps we can > say that all parts of the Tipitaka are an acquired taste, the rate of a > acquiring depending on our different accumulations. I know Rob K really > appreciates the Peta stories, for example. > > This is by way of saying that the Vimana stories in general and Sirima's > in particular are very uplifting and inspiring for me and I'm happily > re-reading this one as I write. > ***** > To add a few more details which I appreciate: > > The young monk had lain for four days without eating after being > overwhelmed with lust. "He became witless" and his friends were unable to > help him. The food in his bowl "had become putrid and a mould has sprung > up in his bowl too." > > Unknown to him, Sirima had died and by the fourth day "the body became > bloated and worms oozed out through the openings of nine sores. the > entire body was like a pot containing boiled rice of broken grain". > > After the auction in which no one would take the body, the Buddha said: > > "Behold the painted orb, a body of wounds, a thing compunded, afflicted, > the subject of much imagination, for which there is no enduring stability" > > As I mentioned, at this point, the young monk became an arahant and 84,000 > others reached various stages of enlightenment. > > As I read and reflect on these details, they seem to me to be the act of > extraordinary compassion by the Buddha, who understood the monk's > accumulations so well and also for all the other people who had been so > impressed before by the beauty. Don't we see the beautiful in the foul all > the time as Frank and others were discussing before? > > Meanwhile the deva Sirima, in a `visible body' joined the large number of > people standing round the body that had been hers and recounts the happy > rebirth, how she became a sotapanna and how there was `no miserable > destiny' for her.On the topic of compassion, she says: > > "I was gladdened in heart, elated, when I saw the Sage, the Tathagata, the > most excellent of men and charioteer of the tamable who cuts off craving > and delights in what is skilled, the guide. I salute the one possessing > pity with the highest benefit". > ***** > > I'm not sure if this is helpful to you, Chris, or anyone else, but it is > inspiring for me to read and I thank you for bringing it to my > attention;-) I think it's very helpful indeed to consider what kindness, > compassion, detachment or equanimity really are and I'll be interested to > hear any further comments from anyone.. > > metta, > Sarah > ====== 13087 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat May 4, 2002 7:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] skilful means in the group Hi Anders and Jon, Interesting posts. Anders, much the same ideas occurred to me a while back - but I think a proper 'balance' of study and practice tailored to individual needs is important. You may be interested in an essay by Bhikkhu Bodhi addressing this issue. metta, Christine The Case For Study by Bhikkhu Bodhi http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/news/essay05.htm The recent upsurge of interest in Buddhism, both East and West, has been marked by a vigorous practical orientation and a drive to discover the peace and freedom to which the practice of Dhamma leads. This zeal for practice, however, has often been accompanied by another trait which may not be so fruitful, namely, a tendency to neglect or even belittle the methodical study of the Buddha's teachings. The arguments offered in defense of this attitude have already become familiar currency among us. It is said, for example, that study is concerned with words and concepts, not with realities; that it leads only to learning, not to wisdom; that it can change only our ideas but fails to touch us at the deeper levels of our lives. To clinch the case the testimony of the Buddha himself is enlisted, with his famous remarks that to learn much without practicing is like counting the cows of others or like carrying a raft on one's head instead of using it to cross the stream. This contention, to be sure, has its aspect of truth, but also suffers from a one-sided emphasis which may actually thwart rather than aid our progress on the Buddhist path. It is certainly true that learning without practice is fruitless, but the other side of the issue also should be considered. Should a person gather cows if he knows nothing about how to take care of them? Should he try to cross a rough and dangerous river without knowing how to operate a raft? The Buddha himself insisted that his followers learn and transmit the Dhamma both in the letter and the spirit, but rather than appealing to traditional formulations, let us inquire ourselves into the value and function of Dhamma study. The point at issue, it must be stressed, is not study as an academic discipline or the accumulation of a wealth of learning, but the acquisition of a sound and solid working knowledge of the basic Buddhist doctrines. Now to see why this is so essential, we must recall that the entire practice of the proper Buddhist path develops out of the act through which we enter the path -- the going for refuge to the Triple Gem. If we have taken this step honestly, with correct motivation, it implies that we have acknowledged our need for spiritual guidance and have entrusted ourselves to the Buddha as our guide and to his teaching as our vehicle of guidance. By taking refuge in the Dhamma we accept not merely a technique of meditation that we can use at liberty for our own self-appointed purposes, but a profound and comprehensive teaching on the true nature of the human condition, a teaching designed to awaken in us a perception of this truth as the means for reaching the full and final end of suffering. The liberation offered by the Dhamma comes, not from simply practicing meditation in the context of our own preconceptions and desires, but from practicing upon the groundwork of the right understanding and right intentions communicated to us by the Buddha. This cognitive character of the Buddhist path elevates doctrinal study and intellectual inquiry to a position of great importance. Though the knowledge that frees the mind from bondage emerges only from intuitive insight and not from a mass of doctrinal facts, genuine insight always develops on the basis of a preliminary conceptual grasp of the basic principles essential to right understanding, in the absence of which its growth will inevitably be obstructed. The study and systematic reflection through which we arrive at this preparatory right view necessarily involve concepts and ideas. But before we hasten to dismiss Dhamma study as being therefore only a worthless tangle of verbiage, let us consider that concepts and ideas are our indispensable tools of understanding and communication. Concepts, however, can be valid and invalid tools of understanding; ideas can be fruitful or useless, capable of bringing immense benefit or of entailing enormous harm. The object of studying the Dhamma as part of our spiritual quest is to learn to comprehend our experience correctly: to be able to distinguish the valid from the invalid, the true from the false, the wholesome from the unwholesome. It is only by making a thorough and careful investigation that we will be in a position to reject what is detrimental to our growth and to apply ourselves with confidence to cultivating what is truly beneficial. Without having reached this preliminary conceptual clarification, without having succeeded in "straightening out our views," there can indeed be the earnest practice of Buddhist meditation techniques, but there will not be the practice of the meditation pertaining to the integral Noble Eightfold Path. And while such free-based meditation may bring its practitioners the mundane benefits of greater calm, awareness and equanimity, lacking the guidance of right view and the driving power of right motivation, it is questionable whether it can lead to the penetrative realization of the Dhamma, or to its final goal, the complete cessation of suffering. It is almost impossible to give a single word of counsel on the subject of study applicable to all followers of the Dhamma. Needs and interests vary so greatly from one person to another that each will have to strike the balance between study and practice that suits his or her own disposition. But without hesitation it can be said that all who earnestly endeavor to live by the Buddha's teaching will find their practice strengthened by the methodical study of his Dhamma. Such an undertaking, of course, will not be easy, but it is just through facing and surmounting the challenges we meet that our understanding will ripen and mature in the higher wisdom. --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Anders > > Nice to have you back with us. And thanks for the Dhammapada passages > > --- anders_honore wrote: > > Imo, the Buddha never taught a single fixed Dhamma. He taught what > > was skilful *in relation* to the listener(s) in question, in order to > > best help them free their minds. Thus his teachings to one person > > might be different for one person, than to another. The key then, > > lies in figuring out "what is skilful for me on the path" and then > > simply discarding that which is not. Not rejecting it, because there > > might come a time later on when it does become skilful. > > However, what is the sense of studying the Jhanas, if you haven't > > even seen a nimitta yet? > > > > Here is some excerpts of what I would deem skilful *in relation* to > > this group: > > ________________________________ > > > > If he recites many teachings, but > > -- heedless man -- > > doesn't do what they say, > > like a cowherd counting the cattle of others, > > he has no share in the contemplative life. > > > > If he recites next to nothing > > but follows the Dhamma > > in line with the Dhamma; > > abandoning passion, > > aversion, delusion; > > alert, > > his mind well-released, > > not clinging > > either here or hereafter: > > he has his share in the contemplative life. > > > > (Dhammapada 19-20) > > > > ___________________________________ > > > > For those who go studying, learning as much as they can about the > > Dhamma, all I have to say is: > > > > What profit is there in counting the treasures of others? > > You seem to be equating a person who studies the Dhamma with the person described in Dhp > 19 above. However, the person described in Dhp 19 is a person who knows the teachings > *but who doesn't do what they say, is heedless*. It is because of not paying any > attention to the teachings that he is said to be 'counting the treasure of others' (not > because he knows the Dhamma, surely?). > > Dhp 20 is interesting. It seems to be saying that if one develops the path correctly, > one is regarded as living the contemplative life (i.e., regardless of whether one has > taken ordination as a monk). Is this your reading also? > > Jon 13088 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat May 4, 2002 7:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 6 (18-23) Actually, Larry, that is an interesting way of looking at life. I have always thought that any buddhist teachings are studied as a gradual path for self improvement (leaving 'not-self' aside). That one of the purposes was to teach us to learn to recognise the causes of suffering, so we may eliminate them. That the three categories of the mind states which lead to suffering are 1) ignorance: holding on to wrong views - the inability to recognize the true nature of reality 2) negative emotions: anger, pride, jealousy, envy, greed, miserliness 3) false desires: of aversion and clinging. You say: "Maybe if you play around with little aversions you will develop a taste for recognition of this quality. I love it." Ummm .... wouldn't that be like playing with fire? Certainly if you mean in the context of recognising what is happening, and so slowing or halting the process of reaction/action, I could agree.... but, at the moment, my aversions seem to be the large economy size and are strongly vying for control of me [there has to be a word other than control :-)]. Guarding the fortress wall, and weakening the power of the invaders to cause bad behaviour is about all I can try - and this does involve recognition. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Christine, > > I think 'what the teachings require' of you is just what you wrote, a > good close look at what is going on. I think it is important to remember > that this isn't a course in self improvement. Just see what is happening > and move on. Maybe if you play around with little aversions you will > develop a taste for recognition of this quality. I love it. > > I think it would be helpful for many if others shared their experiences > and insight concerning recognition of dosa. > > Larry 13089 From: Date: Sat May 4, 2002 8:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? In a message dated 5/3/2002 1:48:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: Hi Jon, Howard, Robert Ep., Sarah, Robert, > "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 > I think the above quote is a "one-sided" view of the Buddha's teaching. Compare it with this quote... “… one who sees the arising of the world as it really is, does not believe in the non-existent of the world. One who sees the cessation of the world as it really is, does not believe in the existence of the world.â€? (The Buddha . . . Samyutta Nikaya, Book II, Ch. 1, 15 (5)) One comment regarding this matter went like this... >A dhamma cannot be changed into something other than what it is > right now, but it lasts for an infinitely brief instant only, no > matter we want it to stay or go. This statement, if I'm understanding it at all, seems to indicate that "dhamma" is a thing...that can't be changed? It sounds like it says...that something is a self for a infinitely brief time and then it is gone. This kind of of approach to dhamma is exactly what I fear the term "Ultimate Reality" inculcates. Yes, I believe the term is important. More to come. TG 13090 From: Date: Sat May 4, 2002 9:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? In a message dated 5/3/2002 12:18:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Though insubstantial, each ‘with its own characteristic’, however > fleeting, transient and deceptive. Because there is no understanding of > the ‘paramatha’ nature of these phenomena, like a magical illusion, we’re > deceived and take them for a ‘whole’, for a self of substance. > I would be interested to know how "dhamma's," that are completely dependent on something else (Dependent Arising), are 'with its own characteristic.' How can something have "its own characteristic" if it doesn't have any self at all? The way I see it...it is "something else's characteristic" that is responsible for arisen states/dhammas. But that "something else" had something else responsible for "its" characteristic, and so on and so on indefinitely. I have a hard time imagining how a mind can consider something an "ultimate reality" and not thereby see it as substantial. Howard used the term phantoms. This I think is good. After object-states are broken down into fundamental elements...these elements need to be further broken down by principles (dependent arising, impermanence, unsatisfactory, no-self). And then these elements are not seen as "ultimate realities," but are more likely seen as phantoms. (I am only considering conditioned phenomena here.) TG 13091 From: Lucy Date: Sun May 5, 2002 2:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 6 (18-23) Hi Larry > I think it would be helpful for many if others shared their experiences > and insight concerning recognition of dosa. > Sorry I'm packing for a week off in Norfolk, no time to add more to the reconition of dosa - an ongoing process. But as recognition brings the question of how to deal with it, I thought this might be an appropriate quote. It's from "A Treatise on the Påramis" by Acariya Dhammapåla (Wheel 409/411): ------------------------------------- "Patience has the characteristic of acceptance; its function is to endure the desirable and undesirable; its manifestation is tolerance or non-opposition; seeing things as they really are is its proximate cause." < .... > The perfection of patience should be considered next: "Patience is the unimpeded weapon of the good in the development of noble qualities, for it dispels anger, the opposite of all such qualities, without residue. It is the adornment of those capable of vanquishing the foe; the strength of recluses and brahmins; a stream of water extinguishing the fire of anger; the basis for acquiring a good reputation; a mantra for quelling the poisonous speech of evil people; the supreme source of constancy in those established in restraint. Patience is an ocean on account of its depth; a shore bounding the great ocean of hatred; a panel closing off the door to the plane of misery; a staircase ascending to the worlds of the gods and Brahmås; the ground for the habitation of all noble qualities; the supreme purification of body, speech and mind." Patience should be further fortified by reflection: "Those who lack patience are afflicted in this world and apply themselves to actions which will lead to their affliction in the life to come." And: "Although this suffering arises through the wrong deeds of others, this body of mine is the field for that suffering, and the action which is its seed was sown by me alone." And: "This suffering will release me from the debt of that kamma." And: "If there were no wrong-doers, how could I accomplish the perfection of patience?" And: "Although he is a wrong-doer now, in the past he was my benefactor." And: "A wrong-doer is also a benefactor, for he is the basis for developing patience." And: "All beings are like my own children. Who becomes angry over the misdeeds of his own children?" And: "He wrongs me because of some residue of anger in myself; this residue I should remove." And: "I am just as much the cause as he for the wrong on account of which this suffering has arisen." And: "All those phenomena by which wrong was done, and those to whom it was done-all those, at this very moment, have ceased. With whom, then, should you now be angry, and by whom should anger be aroused? When all phenomena are non-self, who can do wrong to whom?" --------------------------------------- Hope you don't rush to finish the whole book while I'm away ! Have a nice week Lucy 13092 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 5, 2002 5:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Iddhi Dear Wynn, Thanks for dropping by;-) Sorry for the delay and hope you're still reading all the posts. ..... --- wynn wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry to interupt. ..... You’re never interrupting and never any need to apologise. Your questions are fine ones, but difficult ones and I’ve been waiting to hear from someone who may know more;-) ..... > Also, I am not sure this is the right place to ask these questions. > Before answering my questions, please take note that I am aware that > supranormal power is NOT a pre-requisite for enlightenment and it is not > necessary to have it all. I am just being curious after readings several > passages about it in several books. > > First Question. > Are the KASINA MEDITATION mentioned in the Tipitaka? ..... I’m glad you wrote that you appreciate that it is NOT a pre-requisite for enligtenment and that you are just curious. I can’t tell you where all the references are off-hand, but someone else may do a search on this. One place in the Tipitaka I know of where there are some fairly detailed notes on kasina and supernormal powers is in the section on “Treatise on success (Supernormal Power) at the end of Patisambhidamagga (Path of discrimination). To give one quote from it (PTS p379): “He goes unhindered through walls, through enclosures, through mountains, as though in open space: naturally he is an obtainer of the space kasina attainment. He adverts: “Through the wall, through the enclosure, through the mountain’; having adverted, he decides with knowledge ‘Let there be space’. there is space. He goes unhindered through the wall, through the enclosure, through the mountain. Just as men naturally not possessed of success (supernormal power) go unhindered where there is no obstruction or enclosure, so too this possessor of success (supernormal power) attained to mastery of will goes unhindered through the wall, through the enclosure, through the mountain, as though in open space.” ***** ..... > > Second Question > Visudhimagga do teaches how to develop supranormal powers. (see > Visudhimagga > Chapter XII & Chapter V, verse 27 onwards) But does the Tipitaka tell us > how? I have never come across it. > > The nearest is this: > > ".......And what is the miracle of psychic power? There is the case > where a > monk wields manifold psychic powers. Having been one he becomes many; > having > been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded > through > walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out > of > the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if > it > were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a > winged > bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so > mighty > and powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the > Brahma > worlds........." (Kevatta Sutta etc.) ..... I don’t know if you read my posts on Sri Lanka study corner, but in those I discussed a little about how Mahinda and the other enlightened followers used these powers, always for the benefit of others. We read in the Vism in detail about the various kasinas and the development of jhanas in general. In Patisambhidamagga (same section as above), we read about the 16 roots of success and how the consciousness is not perturbed by indolence, agitation, greed, ill-will, (wrong) view, zeal and greed, greed for sensual-deaires, defilement and so on. We are talking about very fine and highly developed states of wholesomeness indeed, which are not related by a desire to experience jhanas or supernormal powers or concentration without very clear right understanding of how the ksaina in question conditions calm. ..... > > Third Question > I understand that to have the supernormal power, one must have mastery > over > the 4 jhanas, right? ..... Right. This is clear in both the Vism and Patisambhid. ..... > But, the Visudhimagga said we must have mastery of all the 8 jhanas. But > if > this is true, does that mean that those who have supranormal powers have > mastery of all the 8 jhanas? ..... Sorry, would you give the reference. In Vism, V,27 uner “Limited Space Kasina’ there is a reference to the kasinas as basis of ‘fourfold and of fivefold jhana’. ..... > > How do you explain the levitation perform by the yogis of TM > (Transcendental > Meditation) ..... I don’t try;-) Let me know what you think! Sarah ====== 13093 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 5, 2002 6:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Prompted/unprompted (was, ADL ch. 6 (18-23)) Dear Larry and Jon, I liked your discussion on prompted and unprompted, and I could just add a detail I learnt from A. Sujin. Jhanacittas and lokuttara cittas are always reckoned as sasankharika, prompted. The reason: there have to be first maha-kusala cittas accompanied by pa~n~naa, which actually do the prompting. In Samatha pa~n~naa has to know exactly the conditions for being calm with the meditation subject, so that defilements are subdued. In Vipassana pa~n~naa has to understand clearly and thoroughly the dhamma at that moment as it is: impermanent, dukkha or anatta. I quote from Survey, Ch 20, Associated Dhammas: After explaining that only cittas of the sense-sphere are classified as prompted and unprompted, we read: < The cittas which are of a higher grade , namely, rupavacara cittas, arupavacara cittas, and lokuttara cittas, are not classified by way of asankharika and sasankharika. All of them are prompted, sasankharika. The reason for this is that they are dependent on the appropriate development as a necessary condition for their arising. In this context being sasankharika does not mean that they are weak such as in the case of kamavacara cittas which are prompted, sasankharika. Before rupavacara citta, arupavacara citta and lokuttara citta arise, there must each time be kamavacara citta accompanied by pa~n~naa.> end quote. Nina. op 04-05-2002 05:45 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonoabb@y...: > Larry > > --- LBIDD@w... wrote: >> Hi Lucy (& Christine at the end), >> >> according to "A comprehensive Manual Of Abhidhamma", 'prompting occurs >> through inducement by another or by personal deliberation'. So when I >> watch 'The Nightly Business Report' and learn that the stock market is >> going to keep going down, dosa arises concerning my prospects. But in >> walking up and down stairs all day dosa spontaneously arises; I don't >> have to be convinced of anything. > > Thanks for this definition from CMA. See also the definition from > Nyanatiloka’s > ‘Buddhist Dictionary’ below, under the Pali terms ‘asankharika’ (umprompted) > and > ‘sasankharika’ (prompted), and the example given in Visuddhimagga. > > Just wanted to add the point that the prompted/unprompted classification > applies to all > kinds of kusala and akusala cittas (not just dosa citta). The arising of a > tendency > unprompted indicates a stronger disposition towards the tendency (wholesome or > unwholesome) in that particular circumstance. > 13094 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 5, 2002 6:09am Subject: Sivaka sutta and co. , Pali corner. Dear friends, I posted this for the Pali study group, but Sarah asked me to post it also for dsg. I am just studying, and I meet many puzzles. I will be delighted if someone will correct me. For an E mail this is too long, but O.K., I post it all together. Sarah and Num helped me already with their suggestions, and Robert K. with his extract of B. Bodhi. Nina. SN XXXVI.21 The Siivakasutta with the commentary and subcommentary. (extracted from the Burmese CSCD disk, vers. 1.1) 3. a.t.thasatapariyaayavaggo 1. siivakasutta.m sivaka sutta with the translation by Ven. Nyanaponika: 269. eka.m samaya.m bhagavaa raajagahe viharati ve.luvane kalandakanivaape. atha kho mo.liyasiivako paribbaajako yena bhagavaa tenupasa"nkami; upasa"nkamitvaa bhagavataa saddhi.m sammodi. sammodaniiya.m katha.m saara.niiya.m viitisaaretvaa ekamanta.m nisiidi. Once the Blessed One dwelled at Rajagaha in the Bamboo-Grove Monastery, at the Squirrel's Feeding Place. There a wandering ascetic, Moliya Sivaka by name, called on the Blessed One, and after an exchange of courteous and friendly words, sat down at one side. ekamanta.m nisinno kho mo.liyasiivako paribbaajako bhagavanta.m etadavoca -- ``santi, bho gotama, eke sama.nabraahma.naa eva.mvaadino eva.mdi.t.thino -- `ya.m ki~ncaaya.m purisapuggalo pa.tisa.mvedeti sukha.m vaa dukkha.m vaa adukkhamasukha.m vaa sabba.m ta.m pubbekatahetuu'ti. idha bhava.m gotamo kimaahaa''ti? Thus seated, he said: "There are, revered Gotama, some ascetics and brahmans who have this doctrine and view: 'Whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action.' Now, what does the revered Gotama say about this?" ``pittasamu.t.thaanaanipi kho, siivaka, idhekaccaani vedayitaani uppajjanti. saamampi kho eta.m, siivaka, veditabba.m yathaa pittasamu.t.thaanaanipi idhekaccaani vedayitaani uppajjanti; lokassapi kho eta.m, siivaka, saccasammata.m yathaa pittasamu.t.thaanaanipi idhekaccaani vedayitaani uppajjanti. "Produced by (disorders of the) bile, there arise, Sivaka, certain kinds of feelings. That this happens, can be known by oneself; also in the world it is accepted as true. tatra, siivaka, ye te sama.nabraahma.naa eva.mvaadino eva.mdi.t.thino -- `ya.m ki~ncaaya.m purisapuggalo pa.tisa.mvedeti sukha.m vaa dukkha.m vaa adukkhamasukha.m vaa sabba.m ta.m pubbekatahetuu'ti. ya~nca saama.m ~naata.m ta~nca atidhaavanti, ya~nca loke saccasammata.m ta~nca atidhaavanti. tasmaa tesa.m sama.nabraahma.naana.m micchaati vadaami. "Now when these ascetics and brahmans have such a doctrine and view that 'whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action,' then they go beyond what they know by themselves and what is accepted as true by the world. Therefore, I say that this is wrong on the part of these ascetics and brahmans." ``semhasamu.t.thaanaanipi kho, siivaka...pe0... vaatasamu.t.thaanaanipi kho, siivaka...pe0... sannipaatikaanipi kho, siivaka...pe0... utupari.naamajaanipi kho, siivaka...pe0... visamaparihaarajaanipi kho, siivaka...pe0... opakkamikaanipi kho, siivaka...pe0... kammavipaakajaanipi kho, siivaka, idhekaccaani vedayitaani uppajjanti. saamampi kho eta.m, siivaka, veditabba.m. yathaa kammavipaakajaanipi idhekaccaani vedayitaani uppajjanti; lokassapi kho eta.m, siivaka, saccasammata.m. Produced by (disorders of the) phlegm... of wind... of (the three) combined... by change of climate... by adverse behaviour... by injuries... by the results of Kamma -- (through all that), Sivaka, there arise certain kinds of feelings. That this happens can be known by oneself; also in the world it is accepted as true. yathaa kammavipaakajaanipi idhekaccaani vedayitaani uppajjanti; Nina: according as some feelings arise as the results of kamma, tatra, siivaka, ye te sama.nabraahma.naa eva.mvaadino eva.mdi.t.thino -- `ya.m ki~ncaaya.m purisapuggalo pa.tisa.mvedeti sukha.m vaa dukkha.m vaa adukkhamasukha.m vaa sabba.m ta.m pubbekatahetuu'ti. ya~nca saama.m ~naata.m ta~nca atidhaavanti ya~nca loke saccasammata.m ta~nca atidhaavanti. tasmaa tesa.m sama.nabraahma.naana.m micchaati vadaamiiti. Ny: "Now when these ascetics and brahmans have such a doctrine and view that 'whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action,' then they go beyond what they know by themselves and what is accepted as true by the world. Therefore, I say that this is wrong on the part of these ascetics and brahmans.² eva.m vutte, mo.liyasiivako paribbaajako bhagavanta.m etadavoca -- `abhikkanta.m, bho gotama, abhikkanta.m, bho gotama ...pe0... upaasaka.m ma.m bhava.m gotamo dhaaretu ajjatagge paa.nupeta.m sara.na.m gata'''nti. When this was spoken, Moliya Sivaka, the wandering ascetic, said: "It is excellent, revered Gotama, it is excellent indeed!... May the revered Gotama regard me as a lay follower who, from today, has taken refuge in him as long as life lasts." ``pitta.m semha~nca vaato ca, sannipaataa utuuni ca. visama.m opakkamika.m, kammavipaakena a.t.thamii''ti.. pa.thama.m. Nina: , was said. the first sutta. @a.t.thakathaa rahogatavaggo dutiyo. The second part on solitude. 3. a.t.thasatapariyaayavaggo N: The chapter on the hundred and eight. 1. siivakasuttava.n.nanaa The Commentary on the Sívaka Sutta 269. tatiyavaggassa pa.thame mo.liyasiivakoti siivakoti tassa naama.m. cuu.laa panassa atthi, tasmaa mo.liyasiivakoti vuccati. paribbaajakoti channaparibbaajako. N: With reference to the first sutta of the third chapter. : is his name; however, he has a topknot and therefore he is called . , namely, the wanderer who is clothed. pittasamu.t.thaanaaniiti pittapaccayaani. vedayitaaniiti vedanaa. tattha pittapaccayaa tisso vedanaa uppajjanti. katha.m? N: , meaning, with bile as condition. , said with reference to feelings. In this case three feelings arise conditioned by bile. How? ekacco hi``pitta.m me kupita.m dujjaana.m kho pana jiivita''nti daana.m deti, siila.m samaadiyati uposathakamma.m karoti, evamassa kusalavedanaa uppajjati. N: Someone says, and (therefore) he performs generosity, observes morality, keeps the observance day, and thus, in his case wholesome feelings arise. ekacco``pittabhesajja.m karissaamii''ti paa.na.m hanati, adinna.m aadiyati, musaa bha.nati, dasa dussiilyakammaani karoti, evamassa akusalavedanaa uppajjati. N: Someone says, < I shall produce medicine to cure the bile>, and thus, he kills living beings, he steals, lies, performs the ten evil deeds, and hence, in his case unwholesome feelings arise. ekacco ``ettakenapi me bhesajjakara.nena pitta.m na vuupasammati, ala.m ya.m hoti. ta.m hotuu''ti majjhatto kaayikavedana.m adhivaasento nipajjati, eva.m assa abyaakatavedanaa uppajjati. N: Someone says, < the bile is not allayed no matter by what medicine that is produced. I have enough of it, so be it. > While he with equanimity endures the bodily feeling he lies down, and in his case indeterminate feelings arise. **** saamampi kho etanti ta.m ta.m pittavikaara.m disvaa attanaapi eta.m veditabba.m. saccasammatanti bhuutasammata.m. N: < Also by one¹s own experience indeed this (can be known)>, meaning: when he has seen whatever disorder in his bile-condition he should also know this by his own experience. , meaning: it is accepted as what has happened. lokopi hissa sariire sabalava.n.nataadipittavikaara.m disvaa ``pittamassa kupita''nti jaanaati. N: Also in the world, when people have noticed in his body a serious disorder with bilious hue and appearance, etc. they know, tasmaati yasmaa saama~nca vidita.m lokassa ca saccasammata.m atidhaavanti, tasmaa. semhasamu.t.thaanaadiisupi eseva nayo. N: , meaning, they go beyond what is known by one¹s own experience and is agreed upon in the worldf) therefore. The same method goes for feelings arisen because of phlegm, and so on. ettha pana sannipaatikaaniiti ti.n.nampi pittaadiina.m kopena samu.t.thitaani. utupari.naamajaaniiti visabhaagaututo jaataani. N: Here again, as to the words < arisen because of the union of bodily humours>, also with reference to (the other of) the three factors of bile, etc. , they have originated from anger. As to the words, < arisen because of change of climate>, they have arisen because of climate that is not ordinary. ja"ngaladesavaasiina~nhi anupadese vasantaana.m visabhaago utu uppajjati, anupadesavaasiina~nca ja"ngaladeseti eva.m malayasamuddatiiraadivasenaapi utuvisabhaagataa uppajjatiyeva. tato jaataati utupari.naamajaataani naama. N: For those who live in a waste land a climate that is not ordinary (to them) arises when they live in the countryside, and for those who live in the countryside a climate that is not common (to them) arises when they live in a wasteland or also at the shore of a body of water with (sandy) dust and so on. Feelings arising from change of climate originates from (all ) that. visamaparihaarajaaniiti mahaabhaaravahanasudhaako.t.tanaadito vaa avelaaya carantassa sappa.da.msakuupapaataadito vaa visamaparihaarato jaataani. N: , by carrying a heavy load or by pounding lime and so on, or for a person who travels at an unfavorable time, who is then bitten by a snake or gadfly or falls into a well and so on, that means arisen because of inattentive care of the body. ***** opakkamikaaniiti ``aya.m coro vaa paaradaariko vaa''ti gahetvaa ja.n.nukakapparamuggaraadiihi nippothanaupakkama.m paccaya.m katvaa uppannaani. N: , meaning, arisen, when people have arrested someone of whom they believe that he is a bandit or an adulterer, and when they injure him by means of beating him with knees, elbows or a club, and so on. eta.m bahi upakkama.m labhitvaa koci vuttanayeneva kusala.m karoti, koci akusala.m, koci adhivaasento nipajjati. N: As to those who have received such outward injury, someone, as in the aforesaid manner, performs kusala , another person commits akusala and another person again lies down enduring it patiently. kammavipaakajaaniiti kevala.m kammavipaakato, jaataani. tesupi hi uppannesu vuttanayeneva koci kusala.m karoti, koci akusala.m, koci adhivaasento nipajjati. eva.m sabbavaaresu tividhaava vedanaa honti. N: , meaning, solely arisen because it is the result of kamma. Also with reference to these feelings that have arisen, someone, as in the aforesaid manner, performs kusala, another person commits akusala and another person again lies down enduring it patiently. tattha purimehi sattahi kaara.nehi uppannaa saariirikaa vedanaa sakkaa pa.tibaahitu.m, kammavipaakajaana.m pana sabbabhesajjaanipi sabbaparittaanipi naala.m pa.tighaataaya. imasmi.m sutte lokavohaaro naama kathitoti. N: Here, with reference to the feelings arisen from the seven causes mentioned before, the feelings connected with the body can be warded off, but as to the feelings that are the results of kamma, all medicines and all ways of protection are not suitable for warding them off. In this sutta conventional language has been used. @.tiikaa 3. a.t.thasatapariyaayavaggo 1. siivakasuttava.n.nanaa N: subcommentary to the Sivaka Sutta 269. cuu.laa pana assa mahatii atthi savisesaa, tasmaa ``mo.liyasiivako''ti vuccati. channaparibbaajakoti kambalaadinaa kopiinapa.ticchaadakaparibbaajako. N: He has as a distinction a large topknot, and therefore he is called Sivaka with the topknot. , meaning, a wanderer with a woollen cloth etc. covering his private parts. pittapaccayaaniiti pittahetukaani . ``tisso vedanaa''ti vatvaa taasa.m sambhava.m dassetu.m``katha''ntiaadi vutta.m. N: , meaning, caused by bile. After having said , it was said and so on, in order to show their origination. kusalavedanaa uppajjati pittapaccayaa. pittabhesajja.m karissaamiiti bhesajjasambhara.nattha~nceva tadattha.m aamisaki~njakkhasambhara.nattha~nca paa.na.m hanatiiti yojanaa. majjhatto bhesajjakara.ne udaasiino. N: Conditioned by bile arises wholesome feeling. As to the words , this means, having prepared the ingredients of the medicine, having prepared the ingredients of the material of pollen for that purpose, , is the exegesis. With equanimity he is indifferent with regard to the production of medicine. tasmaati yasmaa pittaadipaccayahetukanti attano ca lokassa ca paccakkha.m atidhaavanti ye sama.naa vaa braahma.naa vaa, tasmaa tesa.m micchaa. N:, meaning, in as far as (feelings) caused by bile and so on, are evident to oneself and the world, the recluses and brahmans who go beyond this are therefore wrong. pittaadiina.m ti.n.nampi samodhaanasannipaate jaataani sannipaatikaani. N: Also with regard to the three factors including bile and so on, arisen from the combination of bodily humours, (it is said,) arisen from bodily humours. purimautuno visadiso utuvipari.naamoti aaha ``visabhaagaututo jaataanii''ti . N: Not similar to the former climate, with the words (the Buddha) said:< arisen from uncommon climate>. anudako thaddhaluukhabhuumivibhaago ja"ngaladeso, vuttavipariyaayena anupadeso veditabbo. malaya.m himasiitabahulo, itaro u.nhabahulo. N: A wasteland, unfavourable land that is without water, harsh and rough earth, (whereas) the countryside should be understood as contrary to the aforesaid. With dust and very cold, or else a great deal of heat. attano pakaticariyaana.m visama.m kaayassa parihara.navasena, jaataani pana asayhasahanaadesaakaalacara.naadinaa veditabbaaniiti aaha``mahaabhaaravahanaa''tiaadi. N: Because of inattentive care of the body by unnatural behaviour, arisen because of traveling at the wrong place and time and so on, that are difficult to endure, and should thus be known; therefore, he said:< carrying a heavy load> and so on. parassa upakkamato nibbattaani opakkamikaaniiti aaha -- ``aya.m coro vaa''tiaadi. kevalanti baahirapaccaya.m anapekkhitvaa kevala.m teneva. N: Originated because of an attack by someone else, with the expression, , he used the words and so on. , meaning, not having expected a condition from outside, therefore, he used the word solely (arisen because of kamma). tenaaha``kammavipaakatova jaataanii''ti. sakkaa pa.tibaahitu.m patiikaarena. N: Therefore he said, . They (arisen because of the other conditions) can be warded off because of being master of them. lokavohaaro naama kathito pittasamu.t.thaanaadisama~n~naaya lokasiddhattaa. kaama.m sariirasannissitaa vedanaa kammanibbattaava, tassaa pana paccuppannapaccayavasena evamaya.m lokavohaaroti vutta~nceva gahetvaa paravaadapa.tisedho katoti da.t.thabba.m. N: This sutta is spoken from the standpoint of worldly convention; (the feelings) arisen from bile, and so on, are designated in the manner of worldly convention. The feelings connected with the sensuous body are actually produced by kamma, but by way of the present condition there is thus this worldly convention; accepting what is thus said, it should be understood that the opponents doctrine is refuted. siivakasuttava.n.nanaa ni.t.thitaa. N: The subcommentary to the Sivaka sutta is concluded. **** Nina. 13095 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 5, 2002 6:09am Subject: bones Dear Sarah, I am catching up Email after a week's absence, combining some reactions to posts. I was so touched by your example of taking up a bone of Alan Driver at his cremation, after Kh. Sujin requested you to do this. You realized: no more Alan, only hardness appeared. It is just like in the suttas. Those who had accumulated pa~n~naa could attain enlightenment, realizing the hardness as only a dhamma, impermanent, dukkha and anatta, one of these characteristics at a time. Such an example makes the difference between concept and reality so clear. When we read about it, it is different from experiencing it in a situation where we are confronted with the death of a dear person. Such a poignant reminder. A moment of realizing dhamma as dhamma and then sadness again, different moments. It is so natural. Now it also becomes clearer why we read in the Satipatthana Sutta about corpses, parts of the body, breathing. They are all reminders of daily life, making it clear that there are only dhammas each with their own characteristic. If there would not be colour or visible object, could we know that here is Alan's bone? If tangible object does not appear, do we know that we touch a bone? Different moments of paramattha dhammas appearing, and they do appear, and our thoughts on account of them, with lobha, dosa, moha, or with pa~n~naa. As Kom said, in theory we may understand the difference between paramattha dhamma and concept, but, how in practice, how about this moment? I also want to say that Jon's reminder is very helpful that here in dsg we can remind each other of the reality appearing at the present moment. To Christine, about dosa: the sutta does not state that we should wish nasty things to our enemy, on the contrary. The Buddha wanted to remind us here of the disadvantages of dosa: sleeping badly, becoming ugly, running the risk of an unhappy rebirth. Nina. 13096 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 5, 2002 6:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long Rob E --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > Well, I meant to answer you simply and somewhat in accord, but I wound up going on > a tremendous rant. In the interest of science, I have not attempted to edit it. > I hope there is something of value in there. > > Below is the post as it was written, a few minutes ago: I'm glad you decided to let it go as written. It contains many useful areas for discussion. I hope you don't mind if I select only a few to come back on. A. Jhanas and the true nature of realities I think the crux of our differences can be found in this passage from your post: > When we talk about the jhanas, and other 'practiced states' which clearly cause > specific changes to consciousness and the mind, and give rise to changes in the > way in which self and reality are perceived, it seems easier for me to see this as > a real mark of progress on the path. It seems to be your view that the jhanas are a practice or technique for experiencing directly the true nature of realities. I realise that this is a view shared by many, perhaps by a majority of those practising Buddhism today. It's also most people's instinctive view when they first hear about jhana as part of the dhamma. But is it something the Buddha said directly, or is it something that people readily infer from the suttas because it accords with their intuitive view (after all, it's so easy to go with our instincts and ignore the contrary evidence)? I would be interested to know whether you can you point to a passage in the Tipitaka that positively supports this proposition. B. Contemplating objects vs. direct experience of realities You gave a description of contemplating a prized piano, as an analogy of there being direct awareness of a reality (dhamma) of the present moment. However, the 2 are not the same. What you describe there is simply a form of *thinking about*, not the *direct experience of*, something. So if as you suggest that process were to be 'applied to one reality after another', it would not lead to anything that I would associate with the development of satipatthana. C. Sitting vipassana You refer to long periods (3 years) sitting in vipassana meditation leading to obvious changes in one's sense of self. Can you point to any instance in the texts of the Buddha recommending such a practice, or any mention at all of 'sitting vipassana meditation'. D. 'Right' and 'wrong' approaches You say: > To read the Suttas with great care > and to contemplate their meaning with great intent is also a form of meditation. > I just don't make the distinctions between 'right' approaches and 'wrong' ones > that you do. Of course I believe that there are wrong paths and pitfalls, but I > don't think that legitimate meditation, Sutta study, or discernment of everyday > realities as they arise, are among them. These are not pitfalls, they are > pathways. What would be your criteria for identifying right paths from wrong paths and pitfalls? E. Satipatthana Sutta references You say: > But I don't see the real rationale for this kind of > suspicion of the special efforts which seem to have been clearly described by the > Buddha in the Satipatthana Sutta, in his discussions of the jhanas, etc. I can't really comment unless I know what passages you are referring to here, Rob. Can you give a reference, please. Thanks. I can only say at this stage that I'm not aware I have cast suspicion on any aspect of the Satipatthana Sutta. I'm sorry not to say a lot more in this post, but I think that the best way to discuss differences is in the context of excerpts from the teachings, rather than simply exchanging personal views. So I hope you can give me some references to look at and discuss. Thanks. Jon > =========== > > I think it would be great to establish common ground, and I appreciate your wish > to identify where we can stand together. That would make an even more useful > ground from which to depart on issues where we may have some differences. > > Let me contemplate what you said: > > are we at least in agreement that the crux of the development of > > insight is the knowing of the true nature of the realities of the present > > moment, and that this includes any reality of any present moment, regardless of > > the nature of the reality (nama or rupa, wholesome or unwholesome, internal or > > external), on the basis that all realties are taken as being permanent, > > satisfactory and self (in one of the 3 aspects), yet in reality are not so? > > First let me agree in my own language and see if that accords with the above: I > think that knowing the true nature of the experienced moment, and thus gaining > insight into the nature of the experiencing mind, is the goal of all discernment. > > Let's say we were to see that a prized piano, which we are attached to, is really > only a succession of sensations and qualities of hardness, smoothness, concept, > memory, etc., and we began to discern these 'realities' for what they were. > > What would be the result? That piano, which we were attached to, would begin to > lose its attraction, as it was deconstructed into simple elements of experience. > > If we also get direct insight into the piano's impermanence, if we see that the > original finish has become worn, that the piano keys are old and yellowing, this > done with discernment and not nostalgia can also lessen attachment and ignorance. > We begin to trade in the cherished object for the simple realities of what exists > in this actual moment. Likewise, we begin to see that the piano has no fixed > identity as we thought it did, and that it is not an 'entity' that we can hold > onto. > > There can also be no satisfaction in holding onto an object that has changed, is > subject to further change, and will eventually perish. > > In being attached to the piano, we had made it part of our self-identity, and had > established our own entity by establishing its entity as part of us. So our own > sense of entity, of self, is somewhat let go and relaxed by letting go of the > concept of the piano to which we were attached. > > I can see this process, applied to one reality after another, as they arise, as > gradually wittling away at the sense of personal self which is the source-concept > of all suffering. > > However, I also believe that there are experiences to be discerned which dissolve > the sense of personal self more directly. And I think that somehow these sorts of > discernments do not always seem to be included in the 'realities' to be discerned. > > You have said in the past that seeing the 'anatta-ness' of the mind or personal > self is not really part of the practice because these 'concepts' are empty and > cannot be directly discerned, or something to that effect, am I correct? So one > is left to contemplate the reality of objects that arise for perception or > mentation, rupas and namas. To me, the rupas and namas are only artifacts of the > bodymind's apprehension of experience, and are secondary to the apprehension of > that which experiences. But then we get into consciousness as something beyond > the cittas, and that whole realm of awareness..... And I guess that is the > potential trap if one tries to discern the 'mind' or 'self' apart from individual > namas and rupas. > > So, as I say above, the letting go of attachment through seeing the three > unwholesome or delusory attributes of arising objects, and their breakdown into > individual moments of actual apprehension of qualities, seems to me to be > something we can agree upon as a core activity. But I am left somewhat > unsatisfied by this, as it doesn't seem to me to directly access the gradual > evolution, transformation of the overall state of the practitioner. As Buddha > says, as one moves to higher levels of wisdom and refinement, the overall > experience of being alive is quite transformed, as one's false sense of self and > all the clingings associated with it are gradually loosened and eventually > dropped. As more kusala develops and akusala becomes less and less present, the > experience of living must be quite different in quality. I find it hard to > understand the direct relationship of all these changes to the simple discernment > of namas and rupas, which seems more like a kind of perceptual purity than a > transformation of mind and personality. Does this simple though immensely > difficult act, in itself, lead to the transformative evolution of all the kandhas? > > > When we talk about the jhanas, and other 'practiced states' which clearly cause > specific changes to consciousness and the mind, and give rise to changes in the > way in which self and reality are perceived, it seems easier for me to see this as > a real mark of progress on the path. My former teacher and friend, who went off > to sit in Vipassana meditation for almost three years straight, came back with > obvious changes to his sense of self. He had through direct and uninterrupted > focus, discerned 'realities' and shed an enormous amount of the mental and > emotional junk which he had had before. He was visibly and demonstrably altered > and didn't have the kind of reactivity he had had before. He had gained > enormously in his ability to be in the moment without clinging and to discern > realities directly. His Theravadan teachers approved of him, and basically > certified his transformation. > > My question is what kind of involvement causes one to make great progress. We may > not awaken in this lifetime, but I would think we want to be clear about what > maximizes our potentiality for ending suffering and reaching our goal. It is also > clear to me that those of you who are committed, dedicated to Abhidhamma, have a > way of working, a method and a path, that is effective in discerning realities and > thus gradually freeing the mind. In other words, though it is a philosophy of > everyday discernment without external strivings or special exercises, it is still > a form of meditation as far as I am concerned, and takes its place in the > legitimate forms of mediatation that exist. To read the Suttas with great care > and to contemplate their meaning with great intent is also a form of meditation. > I just don't make the distinctions between 'right' approaches and 'wrong' ones > that you do. Of course i believe that there are wrong paths and pitfalls, but I > don't think that legitimate meditation, Sutta study, or discernment of everyday > realities as they arise, are among them. These are not pitfalls, they are > pathways. > > So to say that 'there should be no special effort necessary' to discern realities, > still seems to me to be a philsophical bias against meditation. When the rubber > meets the road, you really think that making a special effort outside of everyday > living and the study of the Suttas is a mistake and perhaps a negative influence, > since it may produce 'special states' that will seem like they are discerning when > in fact they are not. But I don't see the real rationale for this kind of > suspicion of the special efforts which seem to have been clearly described by the > Buddha in the Satipatthana Sutta, in his discussions of the jhanas, etc. > > To say that he was addressing those who were already well versed in the jhanas, > and that it was a sort of coincidence then that he instructed them about what to > do with those states, seems to me to be too dismissive of the amount of weight > that he accorded to these practices. Do you really think that the Buddha's > disciples were practicing the jhanas on their own initiative, and that the Buddha > did not accept and promote this practice? Even if we admit that we are too busy > and too unconcentrated to engage in jhana meditation, to say that samatha is not > an important component of the path seems again to fly in the face of the Buddha's > own words. > > I have offered an alternative possibility, that samatha can be developed through > concentration on the Dhamma and through concentrated discernment in everyday life, > just as insight can, and that wisdom can develop in many different ways *if the > right principles are adhered to* in whatever the practice is. > > Our only real argument is whether the 'special practices' such as studied > meditation and the states of consciousness they produce are inherently in a less > natural, lower position in Buddhism than everyday discernment, Sutta study and the > advice of a wise spiritual friend. It seems that Abhidhamma has discarded > meditation for reasons of its own philosophy, and has discounted the immense role > that is has played in the entire history of Buddhism. When Buddha sat under the > Bodhi tree and reached the full flowering of enlightenment, he was clearly in > meditation. Do you not agree? Yet you regularly go back to the position that > meditation is both unnecessary and in some ways undesireable. > > Again, I think that the intention to discern arising realities in everyday life is > just as much a meditation technique as the jhanas. There is no inherent > difference in value between them, unless one happens to think that one is more > effective than the other. I have said before, and still feel, that both are the > ideal combination. But it makes no sense to me that concentrated time spent in > meditation will yield an impure or unwholesome effect *if it is done properly*, > any more than everyday discernment will yield an unwholesome effect if it is done > in accord with the intentions of the Dhamma. If it is done with force or > attachment, everyday discernement could be just as harmful and deluding as sitting > in meditation, so I don't see the inherent difference in their potentiality. > Again, it seems like a philosophical prejudice to me, and I don't, haven't been > able to figure out, what Abhidhamma gains by having that view, or where that view > actually arises from philosophically. It doesn't seem to register with me, or > else I have never heard a proper explanation. What I usually hear in this regard > is 'why should a special effort be expended' when it is the moment as it arises in > life that is to be discerned, as if meditation is not part of life, and as if the > intention to discern anything doesn't spoil the naturalness of the moment in any > case. > > We should accept the fact that just following the Dhamma obscures the naturalness > of the moment anyway, and what we are doing is specialized whether it is > Abhidhamma study or meditation or anything else that has an underlying 'special > intention' to it. That is why i said in another post that we are stuck 'using the > false concept of self to get rid of the false concept of self.' I think that > accepting this is a good starting point, and not pretending that anything we do is > going to be 'natural'. > > Well, I've said too much, and perhaps not enough, but I hope it will be the basis > of a good honest dialogue that can get to the heart of the truth. Where that > truth lies remains to be revealed, as we are all more or less treading water in > this sea of delusion. > > May all creatures have a moment of insight soon, if not actual liberation. > > Robert Ep. 13097 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 5, 2002 6:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? Howard Thanks for the very careful and detailed analysis you give below. Let me add a few comments of my own. --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > --- TGrand458@a... wrote: > In the Samyutta Nikaya the Buddha describes > > the 5 Khandhas > > as... > > > > > > "...form should be seen as a bursting bubble, feeling should be seen as a > > > > > lump of foam, perception should be seen as a mirage, mental formations > > should > > > > > > be seen as a plantian tree (coreless), consciousness should be seen as a > > > conjurers trick..." > > > > > > Doesn't sound to me like the Buddha wants them to be thought of as > > ultimate > > > realities. Seems like he wants them to be seen as unsubstantial as > > humanly > > > possible. Calling them "ultimate realities" seems to against that grain > > to > > > me. I wonder if seeing them as ultimate realities embeds a type of > > > substantiality and self view that is counter-productive to detaching from > > > > > conditions (non-attachment). I understand the reasoning behind > > describing > > > them as ultimate realities, I'm just not sure its a very good idea? > > > > > > TG … > ========================== > I think that TG makes an excellent point (as will not surprise you, > Jon! ;-) I agree, Howard. I have appreciated TG's recent posts. > I have long bristled at the term 'paramattha dhamma'. The actual > experiences subsumed by the concept of 'paramattha dhamma' are, speaking > precisely, actual elements of experience as opposed to imagined self-existent > things "out there". Could we say that 'paramattha dhamma' is the term used to refer to the underlying phenomena of which any given moment of experience is actually comprised. > For example, the experience of 'red' per se is a function > of consciousness, and, when we can isolate it, it *seems* that way. I'm not sure if it's correct to talk about "the experience of 'red' per se" as a description of the experiencing of visible data through the eye-door, any more than it would be to talk about "the experience of 'music' per se" as a description of the experiencing of audible data through the ear-door. In either case, there is just there is just the experiencing of the visible/audible data by the consciousness concerned. In any event, I think that 'isolating' red or the experience of red would no longer be the direct experience of the visible data. > But the > experience of 'a red fire engine' always seems to be the experience of some > self-existent thing "out there", a thing which has 'red' as a characteristic. > A conceptual dhamma is always something imagined to be "out there". But, on > close examination of an alleged red fire engine, for example, all that one > actually comes upon are the direct experiences of 'red' and other colors, > 'hardness', various shapes, etc, plus the thoughts of water, fires, etc. It > is these internally experienced phenomena subsumed by 'the red fire engine', > actually experienced without additional fabricating activity of the mind, > which are the so-called "paramattha dhammas" involved. At the moment of seeing that precedes or accompanies the concept of 'red fire engine' there is only the experience of visible data followed by thinking about the visible data and previous experiences. So the paramattha dhammas of the moment are seeing, visible object and thinking. > But the name > 'paramattha dhamma' and, even worse, the English 'ultimate reality' do strike > me as substantialist and terribly misleading. What these things are are > actual elements of direct experience. They are fleeting and conditioned > things-in-relation (except for nibbana), more like phantoms and shadows than > separate, self-existent "ultimate realities". I'm not sure in what sense you would see visible or audible data as being 'phantom' or 'a shadow'. The fact that these phenomena are conditioned and last for only a brief moment doesn't mean that they lack characteristics of their own capable of being discerned by consciousness accompanied by panna (termed 'individual essence'). Do you see a necessary contradiction in these 2 attributes (conditionality vs. own essence)? > There's GOT to be a better > term! ;-) What's in a name? I think an awful lot. THIS name we are discussing > is, in my estimation, injurious to correct understanding, and injurious to > the public image of Abhidhamma and, more generally, Theravada. I'll pass on the appropriateness of the name. There are lots of names that seem at first acquaintance to be an odd choice. Perhaps that says something about our level of understanding?? Jon 13098 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 5, 2002 6:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] skilful means in the group Christine Thanks for the essay by Bhikkhu Bodhi (and for your own comments). Your ability to come up with an appropriate article never ceases to amaze me! Jon --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hi Anders and Jon, > > Interesting posts. Anders, much the same ideas occurred to me a > while back - but I think a proper 'balance' of study and practice > tailored to individual needs is important. You may be interested in > an essay by Bhikkhu Bodhi addressing this issue. > > metta, > Christine > > The Case For Study by Bhikkhu Bodhi > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/news/essay05.htm > > The recent upsurge of interest in Buddhism, both East and West, has > been marked by a vigorous practical orientation and a drive to > discover the peace and freedom to which the practice of Dhamma leads. ... 13099 From: wynn Date: Sun May 5, 2002 7:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Iddhi Hi, > ..... > Sorry, would you give the reference. In Vism, V,27 uner "Limited Space > Kasina' there is a reference to the kasinas as basis of 'fourfold and of > fivefold jhana'. > ..... Thank you so much for your reply. Well, I found it in Chapter XII Description of Direct-Knowledge- The Supernormal Powers It is mentioned in the first 15-20 passage of that chapter See especially, passage 2 and 4 Regards, Wynn 13100 From: Date: Sun May 5, 2002 3:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? Hi, TG - In a message dated 5/5/02 4:13:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > I would be interested to know how "dhamma's," that are completely dependent > on something else (Dependent Arising), are 'with its own characteristic.' > How can something have "its own characteristic" if it doesn't have any self > > at all? > > The way I see it...it is "something else's characteristic" that is > responsible for arisen states/dhammas. But that "something else" had > something else responsible for "its" characteristic, and so on and so on > indefinitely. > ========================== This is exactly it! No core or self or self-nature at all in any conditioned dhamma: When exactly the right assembly of conditions has occurred, with none missing, the conditioned dhamma arises, but should any one of these conditions be missing, the dhamma does *not* arise. So, in what sense are any characteristics or even the bare existence of a conditioned dhamma inherent in itself, in this which is totally dependent on other things that are, themselves, equally empty. There are characteristics, yes, but not *own* characteristics, nor borrowed. They are inherent in nothing, not in themselves, not in anything else. Empty phenomena, rolling on. Phantoms chasing phantoms. Foam bubbling upon foam. Nothing to hold onto, all ungraspable, without anchor and footing. Nothing to do but *let go*. It seems to me that if, in trying to see the impersonality of all dhammas, an essential enterprise (!), one is led to a belief in ultimate dhammas with own-being, then one has traded one aspect of atta-view for another. It also seems to me that a mere intellectual understanding of the truth that all dhammas other than nibbana arise in dependence on causes and conditions still misses a full understanding of anatta. I think that the truth of anatta is more fully realized when one contemplates the sheer "magic" and wonder of the arising of conditioned phenomena. One moment dhamma D is not to be seen. Then a group of ghostly conditions fleetingly traverse the stage of awareness, and suddenly, where there was no dhamma D, there it is, as if by a conjurer's power, and, then, poof, it's gone once again! What an extraordinary magic show, especially because this display of empty ephemera *looks* to us like something substantial! 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) 13101 From: Date: Sun May 5, 2002 4:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/5/02 9:22:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > Thanks for the very careful and detailed analysis you give below. Let me > add a few > comments of my own. > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > > --- TGrand458@a... wrote: > > In the Samyutta Nikaya the Buddha describes > > > the 5 Khandhas > > > as... > > > > > > > > "...form should be seen as a bursting bubble, feeling should be seen > as a > > > > > > > lump of foam, perception should be seen as a mirage, mental > formations > > > should > > > > > > > > be seen as a plantian tree (coreless), consciousness should be seen > as a > > > > conjurers trick..." > > > > > > > > Doesn't sound to me like the Buddha wants them to be thought of as > > > ultimate > > > > realities. Seems like he wants them to be seen as unsubstantial as > > > humanly > > > > possible. Calling them "ultimate realities" seems to against that > grain > > > to > > > > me. I wonder if seeing them as ultimate realities embeds a type of > > > > substantiality and self view that is counter-productive to detaching > from > > > > > > > conditions (non-attachment). I understand the reasoning behind > > > describing > > > > them as ultimate realities, I'm just not sure its a very good idea? > > > > > > > > TG > … > > ========================== > > I think that TG makes an excellent point (as will not surprise > you, > > Jon! ;-) > > I agree, Howard. I have appreciated TG's recent posts. > > > I have long bristled at the term 'paramattha dhamma'. The > actual > > experiences subsumed by the concept of 'paramattha dhamma' are, speaking > > precisely, actual elements of experience as opposed to imagined > self-existent > > things "out there". > > Could we say that 'paramattha dhamma' is the term used to refer to the > underlying > phenomena of which any given moment of experience is actually comprised. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: This is not bad. Though I don't agree to any *underlying* phenomena - there is just the experience itself. I can know nothing beynd that. ------------------------------------------------- > > > For example, the experience of 'red' per se is a function > > of consciousness, and, when we can isolate it, it *seems* that way. > > I'm not sure if it's correct to talk about "the experience of 'red' per se" > as a > description of the experiencing of visible data through the eye-door, any > more than it > would be to talk about "the experience of 'music' per se" as a description > of the > experiencing of audible data through the ear-door. In either case, there > is just there > is just the experiencing of the visible/audible data by the consciousness > concerned. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I understand you, and you make an important point. What I should have spoken of is not "the experience of 'red' per se", but, rather, "the experience, per se, that we come to think of as 'red' ". ----------------------------------------------------- > > In any event, I think that 'isolating' red or the experience of red would > no longer be > the direct experience of the visible data. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Isolating the mere visual experience would be, and that is what I meant but didn't express well at all. Isolating it *as red* would, indeed, already go beyond "the direct experience of the visible data". ------------------------------------------------------- > > > But > the > > experience of 'a red fire engine' always seems to be the experience of > some > > self-existent thing "out there", a thing which has 'red' as a > characteristic. > > A conceptual dhamma is always something imagined to be "out there". But, > on > > close examination of an alleged red fire engine, for example, all that > one > > actually comes upon are the direct experiences of 'red' and other colors, > > > 'hardness', various shapes, etc, plus the thoughts of water, fires, etc. > It > > is these internally experienced phenomena subsumed by 'the red fire > engine', > > actually experienced without additional fabricating activity of the mind, > > > which are the so-called "paramattha dhammas" involved. > > At the moment of seeing that precedes or accompanies the concept of 'red > fire engine' > there is only the experience of visible data followed by thinking about the > visible data > and previous experiences. So the paramattha dhammas of the moment are > seeing, visible > object and thinking. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: That's fine. I have no problem with that denotation of the term 'paramattha dhamma'. It is the usual connotation that troubles me, and other terms, such as 'self-nature' sometimes associated with it.. ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > But the name > > 'paramattha dhamma' and, even worse, the English 'ultimate reality' do > strike > > me as substantialist and terribly misleading. What these things are are > > actual elements of direct experience. They are fleeting and conditioned > > things-in-relation (except for nibbana), more like phantoms and shadows > than > > separate, self-existent "ultimate realities". > > I'm not sure in what sense you would see visible or audible data as being > 'phantom' or 'a > shadow'. The fact that these phenomena are conditioned and last for only a > brief moment > doesn't mean that they lack characteristics of their own capable of being > discerned by > consciousness accompanied by panna (termed 'individual essence'). Do you > see a necessary > contradiction in these 2 attributes (conditionality vs. own essence)? > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The problem I have here is with the adjectival phrase "of their own" in the sentence "The fact that these phenomena are conditioned and last for only a brief moment doesn't mean that they lack characteristics of their own capable of being discerned by consciousness accompanied by panna (termed 'individual essence')." Everything about these phenomena, including their very existence, arises in total dependence on conditions, all of which are equally empty of own-being. What arises in total dependence on other conditions does not have own-being, and inasmuch as these other conditions are equally without own-being, the emptiness is thoroughgoing. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > There's GOT to be a better > > term! ;-) What's in a name? I think an awful lot. THIS name we are > discussing > > is, in my estimation, injurious to correct understanding, and injurious > to > > the public image of Abhidhamma and, more generally, Theravada. > > I'll pass on the appropriateness of the name. There are lots of names that > seem at first > acquaintance to be an odd choice. Perhaps that says something about our > level of > understanding?? > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, there is always a "perhaps". But that shouldn't put an end to our considerations. ----------------------------------------------------- > > 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) 13102 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun May 5, 2002 0:36pm Subject: FW: Letter sent from India Dear Group, Sarah asked me if I could post (part of) this letter, so here it is! Note that I didn't come up with the points, my sister did. kom -----Original Message----- From: Kom Tukovinit [mailto:kom@a...] Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 11:31 PM To: Valaphorn Katai Cc: Valaluck Tukovinit; Jeff Tukovinit Subject: Letter sent from India Dear Sister, I have just finished the letter that you copied me from India. Let me first mention to you that I appreciated the letter tremendously. ... Let me summarize what you wrote about why rebirth and kamma seems to make sense: 1.. Different people are endowed with different situations in life. Some are richer, more famous, more honored, and happier than other people, and it doesn't seem to be exactly attributable to their being smart, working hard, being more educated, etc. 2.. Different people have different habits and reactions to different things. Why do they react to things in a certain way? Attributing to the upbringing, family ties, etc., doesn't seem to explain all the different situations. 3.. Regardless of what people do, they all seem to experience unhappiness in life in one way or another. They grow old, get sick, and die. They want things that they cannot get. They can never be satisfied. Life appears to be completely meaningless. 4.. If there is no rebirth, what's the point of doing good? Why don't just do things that would bring us the maximum happiness, the most convenient way, regardless of how it impacts other people? You propose the following consequences if there are rebirths: 1.. Nothing is permanent. Our bodies are not permanent. Our consciousness is not permanent. What "we" have is completely temporarily. We will certainly leave this life and is reborn into the next, with the situation in life appropriate to the cause of that rebirth. As long as there are causes for rebirth, we will continue being reborn. 2.. What we experience in this life (seeing bad/good, hearing bad/good, etc.) are results of past deeds. If there is cause, there is certainly effects, and the effects must be appropriate to the cause. 3.. Our abilities and innate skills depend on what we were skilled at in the previous lives. 4.. Our habits are conditioned by the habits that we have accumulated (and is accumulating). 5.. The situation where it seems that when somebody is doing bad, but they are getting good result is only because right now, they are enjoying the results of good deeds that they have done in the past, but they certainly would receive the results of what they are doing now. 6.. The consequences are scary. We are mostly doing something for ourselves, sometimes at the expense of others. These certainly would give bad results. Good results will be few since we are mostly doing things for ourselves. Hence, you propose 1.. Abstain from doing unwholesome things 2.. Do good 3.. Purify our mind / improve our mental states and most importantly, 1.. do this in *daily* life, not just occasionally 2.. do this as soon as possible, not only when we gets old (since we don't know when we are going to die) This list allows me make helpful reflections and brought me joy. I agree with many many of them. Appreciative, kom 13103 From: Date: Sun May 5, 2002 8:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 6 (18-23) Thanks Lucy. Good quote. You have a good week too. Somehow I don't think patience is necessary in the recognition of dosa. Nothing is suffered though there may be ongoing but interesting unpleasantness. Larry 13104 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Sun May 5, 2002 8:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., TGrand458@a... wrote: > In a message dated 5/3/2002 12:18:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > sarahdhhk@y... writes: > > > > Though insubstantial, each ‘with its own characteristic’, however > > fleeting, transient and deceptive. Because there is no understanding of > > the ‘paramatha’ nature of these phenomena, like a magical illusion, we’re > > deceived and take them for a ‘whole’, for a self of substance. > > > > I would be interested to know how "dhamma's," that are completely dependent > on something else (Dependent Arising), are 'with its own characteristic.' > How can something have "its own characteristic" if it doesn't have any self > at all? > > The way I see it...it is "something else's characteristic" that is > responsible for arisen states/dhammas. But that "something else" had > something else responsible for "its" characteristic, and so on and so on > indefinitely. > > I have a hard time imagining how a mind can consider something an "ultimate > reality" and not thereby see it as substantial. > > Howard used the term phantoms. This I think is good. After object-states > are broken down into fundamental elements...these elements need to be further > broken down by principles (dependent arising, impermanence, unsatisfactory, > no-self). And then these elements are not seen as "ultimate realities," but > are more likely seen as phantoms. (I am only considering conditioned > phenomena here.) > > TG > >_______ Dear TG, Two questions. Are these fundamental elements similar to or the same as paramattha dhammas? How are these fundamental elements broken down in practice? best wishes robert 13105 From: Robert Date: Sun May 5, 2002 8:42pm Subject: Monkish mathematician Dear Group, A book I'm reading "The man who loved only numbers' about Paul Erdos (pronounced air-dish) has some interesting bits. He published over a thousand top level articles and was the leading mathematician of the later part of the 20th century(died 1996). celibate his entire life, never cooked, owned almost nothing except what fitted in his suitcase (didn't have a house and stayed with friends all over the world)- he gave most of his stipends to different charities as soon as he received them. He had no interests other than mathematics and worked 19hour days every day (fortified by Benzedrine and caffeine). he could solve problems anywhere and even in the middle of a convesation might be considering one. One of his best friends , Ronald Graham, while less productive worked while playing "You can do mathematics anywhere. I once had a flash of insight into a problem in the middle of a back somersault with a triple twist on my trampoline" (you get computer insights in the same way, Howard?) this was contrated with erdos who was rather sedentary- at least physically. best wishes robert 13106 From: Date: Sun May 5, 2002 5:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? In a message dated 5/5/2002 8:08:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > Howard used the term phantoms. This I think is good. After > object-states > > are broken down into fundamental elements...these elements need to > be further > > broken down by principles (dependent arising, impermanence, > unsatisfactory, > > no-self). And then these elements are not seen as "ultimate > realities," but > > are more likely seen as phantoms. (I am only considering > conditioned > > phenomena here.) > > > > TG > > > >_______ > Dear TG, > Two questions. > Are these fundamental elements similar to or the same as paramattha > dhammas? > How are these fundamental elements broken down in practice? > best wishes > robert > Hi Robert, The "fundamental elements" I am referring to are the "conditioned paramattha dhammas." A nice listing of them is found near the beginning of the Patisambhidamagga (Path of Discrimination) where they are broken down into 201 states (dhammas). This is the "object-field" upon which insight is cultivated. Dependent arising, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and no-self insight should be applied to these states. I have found the Patisambhidamagga and the Visuddhimagga to be very valuable assistants in helping to understand how the Suttas are directing to "break down delusion." (Not that much has been broken down mind you.) This passage of Howard's is awesome... >>>It seems to me that if, in trying to see the impersonality of all dhammas, an essential enterprise (!), one is led to a belief in ultimate dhammas with own-being, then one has traded one aspect of atta-view for another. It also seems to me that a mere intellectual understanding of the truth that all dhammas other than nibbana arise in dependence on causes and conditions still misses a full understanding of anatta. <<< Analyzing states into constituent elements (conditioned paramattha dhammas, if you rather), is just the slightest minor stage to overcoming delusion IMO. If the mind gets stuck in this stage it really hasn't made much progress. Like Howard says, its just trading one aspect of self-view for another. Larry asked a couple of weeks ago about the importance of impermanence. Impermanence contemplation is critical IMO. The constituent elements need be seen as impermanent, the cause of the impermanence needs to be investigated, analyzed, and seen. The results of impermanence needs to be investigated, analyzed, and seen...over and over and over and over for years and years or whatever it takes until phenomena can be "completely seen through" as merely empty states (like phantoms) just altering based on relative conditions (more empty states). As I understand it, when this has been done long enough, the mind will "reject conditions" as being utterly unsatisfactory (due to the impending and definite death of any and all things the mind can be attached to) and will "launch toward unconditions/no-conditions." As Howard mentions, intellectual understanding alone is not sufficient. Mindfulness also needs to be applied so that impermanence is known by means of "actual arisen dynamically interacting states," and not solely by conceptualization (which is merely an imagination.) I have really enjoyed all your excellent responses to this topic. TG 13107 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 5, 2002 10:38pm Subject: Sri Lanka corner -3rd and final Dear All, Last time I quoted from the Mahavamsa (PTS translation) about the spread of the Teachings by Mahinda in Sri Lanka and the establishing of holy sites in Anaradhapura. The text continues with the arrival of Samghamitta and the Bo tree. The king of Lanka, Devanampiyatissa, sent his nephew and minister, Arittha, to King Asoka in India to request that the Bo tree and the theri Samghamitta be brought to Lanka. King Asoka was grieved but agreed. With a great company of princes and bhikkhus around the Bo tree in Bodh Gaya, there was a miracle when “from its south bough the branches vanished, leaving a stump four cubits long”. The Bo tree severed the south bough itself and roots and branches sprung from it and later new shoots. King Asoka wept and lamented at the parting of the Bo tree too, but meanwhile King Devanampiyatisa prepared for its arrival in Sri Lanka. Two weeks after its arrival, it was brought to Anuradhapura, to the place where former Bo trees (from former Buddha eras) had stood. We read that when the king let the tree leave his hands: “It rose eighty cubits into the air, and floating thus it sent forth glorious rays of six colours. Spreading over the island, reaching the Brahma world, these lovely rays lasted till sunset. Ten thousand persons, who were filled with faith by reason of this miracle, gaining the spiritual insight and attaining to arahantship, received the pabbaja. "When the great Bodhi-tree at sunset was come down from (its place in the air) it stood on the earth under the constellation Rohini. Then did the earth quake. The roots growing over the brim of the vase struck down into the earth, closing in the vase. When the great Bodhi-tree had taken its place all the people who had come together from (the country) round, worshipped it with offerings of perfume, followers and so forth.” ***** The Bo tree we visit today in Aunradhapura is the same tree as this one and apparently it is the oldest historic tree in the world. The original Bo tree in Budh Gaya was destroyed about 20years after the branch sapling was brought to Lanka. We read in the Mahavamsa how the original Bo tree was ‘killed’ by King Asoka’s 2nd wife in a fit of jealousy over the King worshipping the tree at her expense. The one in Lanka has been carefully preserved until now.The first time I visited it with Nina and K.Sujin in 1977, we walked around with monks we knew and as Nina reminded me recently ‘there was a sea of white lotuses’ around the tree, especially arranged. At that time, a new sprout had recently grown from the tree. Nina has written a detailed account of this visit to Sri Lanka and the discussions that took place in "Pilgrimage in Sri Lanka' which can be found at: http://www.zolag.co.uk/ ..... Continuing with the Mahavamsa, We read that Arittha, the king’s nephew became an arahat as did many of the women mentioned before who were ordained and lived with theri Samghamitta. Many viharas, monasteries, cetiyas and so on were established and we read that “Devanampiyatissa, king of Lanka, rich in merit and insight, caused to be carried out, even in the first year, as a friend to virtue, and his whole life through he heaped up works of merit. Our island flourished under the lordship of this king; forty years did he hold sway as king.” ..... He was succeeded by his younger brother, Uttiya, and during Uttiya’s reign, Mahinda and Samghamitta "passed into nibbana”. We read in the Mahavamsa about various invasions and kings who did not support the Sangha and how the Teachings were threatened many times. There were also natural disasters and famines. About 150 years-- and 7 kings later--In 150BC, King Dutthagamini restored the respect for the Sanga, built the stupas, including the ‘the great Thupa’ (with Sakka’s help), Ruvanveli which contains the relics and is the centre of worship in Anuradhapura today, along with Jetawanarama and Thuparamana (which enshrines the collarbone discussed last time). We read about large numbers of bhikkhus who came to visit and pay respects from ‘various (foreign) countries when the foundation stones were laid for the 'Great Thupa'. It’s not clear how they all travelled, but most must surely have made long and arduous trips overland and by sea. 80,000 bhikkhus came rom Rajagaha (where the 1st council was held). 60,000 from the Jetavana vihara (where so many suttas were taught). 280,000 bhikkhus came from Kashmir, 30,000 from Kosambi,460,000 came from Pallava (Persia?), 30,000 from Alexandria, 30,000 From Bodh Gaya and so the list goes on with at least double the number I’ve mentioned here. (I can give a full and detailed list if anyone wishes - I've just mentioned the places I know without cross-checking for now). “Among all those bhikkhus who were met in that assembly those alone who had overcome the asava, as it is told, were ninety-six kotis.” Large numbers of lay followers and bhikkhus became enlightened and “eighteen thousand bhikkhus and fourteen thousand bhikkhunis attained to arahantship” when “the true doctrine took place”. ..... Later we read about how King Dutthagamani died listening to dhamma and “casting a glance at the Great Thupa, closed his eyes as he lay”. we also read how this king will be the ‘first disciple of the sublime Metteyya’. We read “He who, holding the good life to be the greatest (good), does works of merit, passes, covering over much that perchance is evil-doing (Niyatapaapaka.m) into heaven as into his own house; therefore will the wise man continually take delight in works of merit.” ***** The Mahavamsa concludes soon after this. We know that in29BC, the Fourth council was held in Lanka in order to commit the Tipitaka in its entirely to writing. This was supported by King Vattagamani. It was recited by Thera maharakkhita and 500 bhikkhus and written down on palm leaves. This work was done in a cave called the Aloka lena or Aluvihara (near Matale) which we’ll be visiting. Because of this preservation in writing of the Tipitaka, we are able to read it today. I’m sure we’ll be visiting this special spot again and I now have so much more appreciation and respect for this remarkable work that was undertaken with such compassion. ***** Thankyou to those who've been reading patiently. Hope it's been interesting. There are a lot of details and names in the text and it's not easy reading at times, so I apologise if I've made any mistakes with the details or skipped important parts. Sarah ====== 13108 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 5, 2002 11:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Iddhi Hi Wynn, --- wynn wrote: > Thank you so much for your reply. > > Well, I found it in Chapter XII > Description of Direct-Knowledge- The Supernormal Powers > > It is mentioned in the first 15-20 passage of that chapter > > See especially, passage 2 and 4 ..... Sorry, I still can't see the refernce to 'mastery of all the 8 jhanas' after a very quick skim through. So could you give the exact ref and quote please. There is a reference to 'eight factors' in X11, 18, but these are factors such as faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration etc which support the consciousness 'being directed to the realization by direct knowledge of states realizable by direct-knowledge'. Sometimes I know references are made to variations of the 4th jhana such as arupa jhanas and in my earlier reference it discussed how the 4 jhanas can be classified as 5, but I really very ignorant about these areas. Sarah ===== 13109 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 6, 2002 0:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sirima, the Courtesan and Compassion Dear Gayan, --- asterix_wins wrote: > dear sarah, > > > Thanks for the wonderful reminder of the Sirima Story,..no matter how > many times one reads it..it comes up with a deeper meaning everytime. ..... I find the same. ..... > my confession is that there was desire imagining the 'fresh' new dead > human body on public display (Before worms found the way out from it) ..... Well, this is very interesting and honest;-) Perhaps you'd care to add further comments. I'm quite sure for many of the curious onlookers there would have been conditions for lobha at first too and perhaps this was just the point: i.e showing the object of desire rotting before the eyes. ..... > > happy to be back in DSG, lurking... and going through the billions of > messages that I have missed., ..... There's a big price to pay for ignoring DSG for too long and you're just finding out, it seems;-) Hope to hear more comments on posts you find of interest amongst 'the billions';-) I remember there have been occasional pali questions directed to you, too;-) ..... Thank you also for your apt quote below. So very true, desire can never be satisfied, so we better work together to look at how they can be 'overcome'. Thanks for popping in, Gayan...hope to see more of you on list and 'live' in Sri Lanka if you can make the appointment;-). Sarah ===== > I thought of posting ( thereby making this a contributing post ) this > particular message received from a friend, > > ------------------------ > > The happiness that you feel when you satisfy a desire > is not due to the satisfaction of the desire, > but to the momentary cessation of the desire. > > But the desire returns. > Therefore desires can never be satisfied; > they can only be overcome, abandoned. > > -Sangharakshita (Peace is a Fire) > -------------------------- 13110 From: anders_honore Date: Mon May 6, 2002 4:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob E > C. Sitting vipassana > You refer to long periods (3 years) sitting in vipassana meditation leading to obvious > changes in one's sense of self. Can you point to any instance in the texts of the Buddha > recommending such a practice, or any mention at all of 'sitting vipassana meditation'. The Satipatthana 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 and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. " And all the other foundations too. 13111 From: anders_honore Date: Mon May 6, 2002 4:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] skilful means in the group --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi Anders and Jon, > > Interesting posts. Anders, much the same ideas occurred to me a > while back - but I think a proper 'balance' of study and practice > tailored to individual needs is important. You may be interested in > an essay by Bhikkhu Bodhi addressing this issue. ¨ True, I am not advocating non-study, but merely stating that it is not essential, and there is a fine line between studying that which is relevant to one's own path, and counting the treasures of others. Of course, it does not come down to what you read or don't read, but how you respond to that. 13112 From: wynn Date: Mon May 6, 2002 4:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Iddhi Hi, Passage 2: ......................If a meditator wants to begin performing the transformation by supernormal power describe as "Having been one, he becomes many", etc., he must achieve the eight attainments in each of the eight kasinas ending with the white kasina. He must also have complete control of his mind in the following fourteen ways: (i) in the order of the kasinas, (ii) in 'the reverse order of the kasiisas, (iii) in the order and reverse order of. the kasinas, (iv) in the order of the jhanas, (v) in the reverse order of the jhanas, (vi) in the order and reverse order (if the jhanas, (vii) skipping jhanas, (viii) skipping kasinas, (ix) skipping jhtanas an(l kasinas, (x) transposition of factoi s, (xi) transposition of object, (xii) transposition of factors and object, (xiii) definition of factors, and (xiv) definition of object. Passage 4: Attaining again and again from the first jliana up to the base consisting of neither perception nor non-perception is called in the order of the jhanas. (v) Attaining again and again from the base consisting of neither perception nor non-perception back to the first .Ihana is caller] in the reverse order of the jhanas. (vi) Attaining in forward and reverse order, from the first jhana tip to the base consisting of neither perception nor non-perception and from the base consisting of neither perception nor non-perception back to the first jhana is called in the order and reverse order of the jhanas. Regards, Wynn 13113 From: Robert Date: Mon May 6, 2002 4:50am Subject: Ultimate realities Dear TG, Thanks, I get a better picture now. I thought that you objected to the term paramattha dhamma but I see you don't - which I think is a good thing as the Visuddhimagga uses it. Just to ask a little more: what are the conditions for 'conditioned paramattha dhammas'? Perhaps you could write generally and give a few examples as well. kind regards robert Hi Robert, The "fundamental elements" I am referring to are the "conditioned paramattha dhammas." A nice listing of them is found near the beginning of the Patisambhidamagga (Path of Discrimination) where they are broken down into 201 states (dhammas). This is the "object-field" upon which insight is cultivated. Dependent arising, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and no-self insight should be applied to these states. I have found the Patisambhidamagga and the Visuddhimagga to be very valuable assistants in helping to understand how the Suttas are directing to "break down delusion." (Not that much has been broken down mind you.) This passage of Howard's is awesome... >>>It seems to me that if, in trying to see the impersonality of all dhammas, an essential enterprise (!), one is led to a belief in ultimate dhammas with own-being, then one has traded one aspect of atta-view for another. It also seems to me that a mere intellectual understanding of the truth that all dhammas other than nibbana arise in dependence on causes and conditions still misses a full understanding of anatta. <<< Analyzing states into constituent elements (conditioned paramattha dhammas, if you rather), is just the slightest minor stage to overcoming delusion IMO. If the mind gets stuck in this stage it really hasn't made much progress. Like Howard says, its just trading one aspect of self-view for another. Larry asked a couple of weeks ago about the importance of impermanence. Impermanence contemplation is critical IMO. The constituent elements need be seen as impermanent, the cause of the impermanence needs to be investigated, analyzed, and seen. The results of impermanence needs to be investigated, analyzed, and seen...over and over and over and over for years and years or whatever it takes until phenomena can be "completely seen through" as merely empty states (like phantoms) just altering based on relative conditions (more empty states). As I understand it, when this has been done long enough, the mind will "reject conditions" as being utterly unsatisfactory (due to the impending and definite death of any and all things the mind can be attached to) and will "launch toward unconditions/no-conditions." As Howard mentions, intellectual understanding alone is not sufficient. Mindfulness also needs to be applied so that impermanence is known by means of "actual arisen dynamically interacting states," and not solely by conceptualization (which is merely an imagination.) I have really enjoyed all your excellent responses to this topic. TG Howard used the term phantoms. This I think is good. After > object-states > > are broken down into fundamental elements...these elements need to > be further > > broken down by principles (dependent arising, impermanence, > unsatisfactory, > > no-self). And then these elements are not seen as "ultimate > realities," but > > are more likely seen as phantoms. (I am only considering > conditioned > > phenomena here.) > > > > TG > > > >_______ > Dear TG, > Two questions. > Are these fundamental elements similar to or the same as paramattha > dhammas? > How are these fundamental elements broken down in practice? > best wishes > robert > Hi Robert, The "fundamental elements" I am referring to are the "conditioned paramattha dhammas." A nice listing of them is found near the beginning of the Patisambhidamagga (Path of Discrimination) where they are broken down into 201 states (dhammas). This is the "object-field" upon which insight is cultivated. Dependent arising, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and no-self insight should be applied to these states. I have found the Patisambhidamagga and the Visuddhimagga to be very valuable assistants in helping to understand how the Suttas are directing to "break down delusion." (Not that much has been broken down mind you.) This passage of Howard's is awesome... >>>It seems to me that if, in trying to see the impersonality of all dhammas, an essential enterprise (!), one is led to a belief in ultimate dhammas with own-being, then one has traded one aspect of atta-view for another. It also seems to me that a mere intellectual understanding of the truth that all dhammas other than nibbana arise in dependence on causes and conditions still misses a full understanding of anatta. <<< Analyzing states into constituent elements (conditioned paramattha dhammas, if you rather), is just the slightest minor stage to overcoming delusion IMO. If the mind gets stuck in this stage it really hasn't made much progress. Like Howard says, its just trading one aspect of self-view for another. Larry asked a couple of weeks ago about the importance of impermanence. Impermanence contemplation is critical IMO. The constituent elements need be seen as impermanent, the cause of the impermanence needs to be investigated, analyzed, and seen. The results of impermanence needs to be investigated, analyzed, and seen...over and over and over and over for years and years or whatever it takes until phenomena can be "completely seen through" as merely empty states (like phantoms) just altering based on relative conditions (more empty states). As I understand it, when this has been done long enough, the mind will "reject conditions" as being utterly unsatisfactory (due to the impending and definite death of any and all things the mind can be attached to) and will "launch toward unconditions/no-conditions." As Howard mentions, intellectual understanding alone is not sufficient. Mindfulness also needs to be applied so that impermanence is known by means of "actual arisen dynamically interacting states," and not solely by conceptualization (which is merely an imagination.) I have really enjoyed all your excellent responses to this topic. TG 13114 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 6, 2002 5:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] On the truth of Buddhism Dear Anders, Delighted to see you around...hope the study pressures have eased. --- anders_honore wrote: > Any view, even if it is supreme, is a fetter binding you to Samsara. ..... Thanks for your quotes from the Sutta Nipata and in particular, the Dutthatthaka and Paramatthaka suttas on views. I know we’ve discussed these areas before, but I’d like to stress that here the views are ‘not pure’. In other words, they are wrong views (micha ditthi), included amongst the many kinds discussed in the Brahmajala Sutta ‘net of views’. When you say any view is a fetter, binding you to Samsara, I would suggest it should be any view other than right understanding of the 5fold or 8fold Path. At these moments there is just a little less ‘binding’ or adding of bricks to Samsara, even though even these phenomena are conditioned and impermanent too. I’d like to requote an earlier post I wrote when Erik raised the same point with the Nyantiloka dictionary references to ditthi at the end: ***** QUOTE FROM EARLIER POST Sarah: There has been some discussion about the meaning of ditthi (di.t.thi). Erik: “... Re: the term "ditthi", I think Mike mentioned it referring to "miccha ditthi" but teachers I respect have taught me that any view at all is considered ditthi, to be discarded. Right View is the equivalent of no-view, it is beyond taking any position at all, as the sutta Herman quoted notes. What need is there for ditthi (speculation) of any kind when there is direct knowledge?” Sarah: I also understand ditthi to usually refer to miccha ditthi and when we read about speculative views (as in Aggivacchagotta Sutta, M72 or Brahmajala Sutta), it is these miccha ditthi that are being referred to (*see dictionary notes below). When there is samma ditthi (right view), there is of course no speculation involved, but instead the direct knowledge (or panna, understanding) of paramatha dhammas (highest truths): ******************** "Bhikkhus, just as the dawn is the forerunner and first indication of the rising of the sun, so is right view the forerunner and first indication of wholesome states. For one of right view, bhikkhus, right intention springs up. For one of right intention, right speech springs up. For one of right speech, right action springs up. For one of right action, right livelihood springs up. For one of right livelihood, right effort springs up. For one of right effort, right mindfulness springs up. For one of right mindfulness, right concentration springs up. For one of right concentration, right knowledge springs up. For one of right knowledge, right deliverance springs up. Anguttara Nikaya 10:121" ******************** END QUOTE A:> Some people here have in the past aired the views about the untruth > of Mahayana. This however, is merely a consequence of their own need > for affirmation of their own tradition. ..... I’m certainly not going to buy into this one....;-)) Good try! Look forward to further discussion. Sarah ======= *From Nyantiloka’s dictionary we read: ditthi (lit. 'sight'; Ö dis, to see): view, belief, speculative opinion, insight. If not qualified by sammá, 'right', it mostly refers to wrong and evil view or opinion, and only in a few instances to right view, understanding or insight (e.g. ditthi-ppatta, q.v.; ditthi-visuddhi, purification of insight; ditthi-sampanna, possessed of insight). Wrong or evil views (ditthi or micchá-ditthi) are declared as utterly rejectable for being a source of wrong and evil aspirations and conduct, and liable at times to lead man to the deepest abysses of depravity, as it is said in A. I, 22: "No other thing than evil views do I know, o monks, whereby to such an extent the unwholesome things not yet arisen arise, and the unwholesome things already arisen are brought to growth and fullness. No other thing than evil views do I know, whereby to such an extent the wholesome things not yet arisen are hindered in their arising, and the wholesome things already arisen disappear. No other thing than evil views do I know, whereby to such an extent human beings at the dissolution of the body, at death, are passing to a way of suffering, into a world of woe, into hell." Further in A. I, 23: "Whatever a man filled with evil views performs or undertakes, or whatever he possesses of will, aspiration, longing and tendencies, all these things lead him to an undesirable, unpleasant and disagreeable state, to woe and suffering." From the Abhidhamma (Dhs) it may be inferred that evil views, whenever they arise, are associated with greed (s. Tab. I. 22, 23, 26, 27). Numerous speculative opinions and theories, which at all times have influenced and still are influencing mankind, are quoted in the sutta-texts. Amongst them, however, the wrong view which everywhere, and at all times, has most misled and deluded mankind is the personality-belief, the ego-illusion. This personality-belief (sakkáya-ditthi), or ego-illusion (atta-ditthi), is of 2 kinds: eternity-belief and annihilation-belief. Eternity-belief (sassata-ditthi) is the belief in the existence of a persisting ego-entity, soul or personality, existing independently of those physical and mental processes that constitute life and continuing even after death. Annihilation-belief (uccheda-ditthi), on the other hand, is the belief in the existence of an ego-entity or personality as being more or less identical with those physical and mental processes, and which therefore, at the dissolution at death, will come to be annihilated. - For the 20 kinds of personality-belief, see sakkáya-ditthi. Now, the Buddha neither teaches a personality which will continue after death, nor does he teach a personality which will be annihilated at death, but he shows us that 'personality', 'ego', 'individual', 'man', etc., are nothing but mere conventional designations (vohára-vacana) and that in the ultimate sense (s. paramattha-sacca) there is only this self-consuming process of physical and mental phenomena which continually arise and again disappear immediately. - For further details, s. anattá, khandha, paticcasamuppáda. "The Perfect One is free from any theory (ditthigata), for the Perfect One has seen what corporeality is, and how it arises and passes away. He has seen what feeling ... perception ... mental formations ... consciousness are, and how they arise and pass away. Therefore I say that the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection and casting out of all imaginings and conjectures, of all inclination to the 'vain-glory of 'I' and 'mine." (M. 72). The rejection of speculative views and theories is a prominent feature in a chapter of the Sutta-Nipáta, the Atthaka-Vagga. The so-called 'evil views with fixed destiny' (niyata-miccháditthi) constituting the last of the 10 unwholesome courses of action (kammapatha, q.v.), are the following three: (1) the fatalistic 'view of the uncausedness' of existence (ahetukaditthi), (2) the view of the inefficacy of action' (akiriyaditthi), (3) nihilism (natthikaditthi). (1) was taught by Makkhali-Gosála, a contemporary of the Buddha who denied every cause for the corruptness and purity of beings, and asserted that everything is minutely predestined by fate. (2) was taught by Púrana-Kassapa, another contemporary of the Buddha who denied every karmical effect of good and bad actions: "To him who kills, steals, robs, etc., nothing bad will happen. For generosity, self-restraint and truthfulness, etc. no reward is to be expected." (3) was taught by Ajita-Kesakambali, a third contemporary of the Buddha who asserted that any belief in good action and its reward is a mere delusion, that after death no further life would follow, that man at death would become dissolved into the elements, etc. For further details about these 3 views, s. D. 2, M. 60; commentarial exposition in WHEEL 98/99, P. 23. Frequently mentioned are also the 10 antinomies (antagáhiká micchá-ditthi): 'Finite is the world' or 'infinite is the world' ... 'body and soul are identical' or 'body and soul are different' (e.g. M. 63). In the Brahmájala Sutta .(D.1), 62 false views are classified and described, comprising all conceivable wrong views and speculations about man and world. See The All-Embracing Net of Views (Brahmájala Sutta), tr. with Com. by Bhikkhu Bodhi (BPS). Further s. D. 15, 23, 24, 28; M. 11, 12, 25, 60, 63, 72, 76, 101, 102, 110; A. II, 16; X, 93; S. XXI, XXIV; Pts.M. Ditthikathá,. etc. Wrong views (ditthi) are one of the proclivities (s. anusaya), cankers (s. ásava), clingings (s. upádána), one of the three modes of perversions (s. vipallása). Unwholesome consciousness (akusala citta), rooted in greed, may be either with or without wrong views (ditthigata-sampayutta or vippayutta); s. Dhs.; Tab I. On right view (sammá-ditthi), s. magga and M. 9 (Trans. with Com. in 'R. Und.'). ====================================================== 13115 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 6, 2002 6:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Iddhi Dear Wynn, --- wynn wrote: > Hi, > > Passage 2: > > ......................If a meditator wants to begin performing the > transformation by supernormal power describe as "Having been one, he > becomes > many", etc., he must achieve the eight attainments in each of the eight > kasinas ending with the white kasina. > ..... Thank you for the reference. Now I’m following your point. Here, I assume the eight attainments refer to samapatti and perhaps these 2 quotes from Nyantiloka’s dictionary help here: 1. “samápatti: 'attainments', is a name for the 8 absorptions of the fine-material and immaterial spheres to which occasionally is added as 9th attainment, attainment of extinction (nirodhasamápatti) Cf. jhána.” 2. From jhana section: “...The 4 absorptions of the immaterial sphere (s. above 5-8) still belong, properly speaking, to the 4th absorption as they possess the same two constituents. The 4th fine-material absorption is also the base or starting point (pádaka-jhána, q.v.) for the attaining of the higher spiritual powers (abhiññá, q.v.). In the Abhidhamma, generally a fivefold instead of a fourfold division of the fine-material absorptions is used: the 2nd absorption has still the constituent 'discursive thinking' (but without thought-conception), while the 3rd, 4th and 5th correspond to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th, respectively, of the fourfold division (s. Tab. I, 9- 13) . This fivefold division is based on sutta texts like A . VIII, 63 . For the 8 absorptions as objects for the development of insight (vipassaná), see samatha-vipassaná. - Full details in Vis.M. IV-X.” ***** Hope that clarifies. Is there any particular reason for your questions or curiosity about iddhi? I keep thinking of iddlies and dosas, the S.Indian disheswith lots of lobha even though I’m not even hungry;-) Hope to hear from you more often, Wynn Sarah ===== > Passage 4: > > Attaining again and again from the first jliana up to the base > consisting of > neither perception nor non-perception is called in the order of the > jhanas. > (v) Attaining again and again from the base consisting of neither > perception > nor non-perception back to the first .Ihana is caller] in the reverse > order > of the jhanas. (vi) Attaining in forward and reverse order, from the > first > jhana tip to the base consisting of neither perception nor > non-perception > and from the base consisting of neither perception nor non-perception > back > to the first jhana is called in the order and reverse order of the > jhanas. .................................................................................................................. 13116 From: Date: Mon May 6, 2002 4:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Monkish mathematician Hi, Robert - In a message dated 5/5/02 11:46:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > > Dear Group, > A book I'm reading "The man who loved only numbers' about Paul Erdos > (pronounced air-dish) has some interesting bits. He published over a > thousand top level articles and was the leading mathematician of the later > part of the 20th century(died 1996). celibate his entire life, never > cooked, owned almost nothing except what fitted in his suitcase (didn't > have > a house and stayed with friends all over the world)- he gave most of his > stipends to different charities as soon as he received them. He had no > interests other than mathematics and worked 19hour days every day > (fortified > by Benzedrine and caffeine). he could solve problems anywhere and even in > the middle of a convesation might be considering one. One of his best > friends , Ronald Graham, while less productive worked while playing "You > can > do mathematics anywhere. I once had a flash of insight into a problem in > the > middle of a back somersault with a triple twist on my trampoline" (you get > computer insights in the same way, Howard?) this was contrated with erdos > who was rather sedentary- at least physically. > best wishes > robert > > =========================== Actually, I spend all my time doing somersaults to avoid all the flak flying by in the midst of the current departmental war at my college! ;-) As far as computer insights are concerned, I'm really less of a computer scientist than a mathematician, as was Erdos. A main area of his was graph theory, which was a long time interest of mine as well. The difference between him and me is that he was a mathematical arahant, and I am the lowliest of mathematical woldlings!! Oh ... yes, and one more thing - he was celibate. ;-)) 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) 13117 From: anders_honore Date: Mon May 6, 2002 10:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] On the truth of Buddhism --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Dear Anders, > > Delighted to see you around...hope the study pressures have eased. a bit yes. > --- anders_honore wrote: > > > Any view, even if it is supreme, is a fetter binding you to Samsara. > ..... > Thanks for your quotes from the Sutta Nipata and in particular, the > Dutthatthaka and Paramatthaka suttas on views. I know we've discussed > these areas before, but I'd like to stress that here the views are `not > pure'. In other words, they are wrong views (micha ditthi), included > amongst the many kinds discussed in the Brahmajala Sutta `net of views'. > When you say any view is a fetter, binding you to Samsara, I would suggest > it should be any view other than right understanding of the 5fold or 8fold > Path. At these moments there is just a little less `binding' or adding of > bricks to Samsara, even though even these phenomena are conditioned and > impermanent too. > When there is samma ditthi (right view), there is of course no > speculation involved, but instead the direct knowledge (or panna, > understanding) of paramatha dhammas (highest truths): When we talk of direct knowledge, it is not of views, imo. Okay, I'll rephase, all views falling within these negations as well as those of the Kalama and Salha Suttas are fetters preventing ultimate freedom: ************************ Then Ven. Pavittha said to Ven. Musila, "Musila, my friend, putting aside conviction, putting aside preference, putting aside tradition, putting aside reasoning through analogies, putting aside an agreement through pondering views: Do you have truly personal knowledge that, 'From birth as a requisite condition come aging & death'?" (Samyutta Nikaya XII.68) ************************ "Come, Salha, do not be satisfied with hearsay or with tradition or with legendary lore or with what has come down in scriptures or with conjecture or with logical inference or with weighing evidence or with a liking for a view after pondering it or with someone else's ability or with the thought 'The monk is our teacher.' When you know in yourself 'These things are unprofitable, liable to censure, condemned by the wise, being adopted and put into effect, they lead to harm and suffering,' then you should abandon them. (Anguttara Nikaya III.66) ************************* 13118 From: onco111 Date: Mon May 6, 2002 11:42am Subject: Re: Monkish mathematician Hi Robert, Paul Erdos was truly an astounding man. The number of papers he published is far beyond what anyone could write on his own. His secret? Sheer brilliance. Often he would get a call or visit from a mathematician (or two), who had been struggling for months on a difficult a problem. He'd hear the problem, think about it for a minute or two, and offer a novel and elegant solution. Then, the other mathematician would write the paper up and put Erdos' name on it because it could not be otherwise. There used to be a theorem in mathematics about how prolific a worker he was. It is a theorem about how the "Erdos number." Erdos' Erdos number was 0. A person who wrote a paper with Erdos has an Erdos number of 1. A person who wrote a paper with someone who wrote a paper with Erdos has an Erdos number of 2. And so on. The theorem is that no published research mathematician has an Erdos number higher than 2. Dan > Dear Group, > A book I'm reading "The man who loved only numbers' about Paul Erdos > (pronounced air-dish) has some interesting bits. He published over a > thousand top level articles and was the leading mathematician of the later > part of the 20th century(died 1996). celibate his entire life, never > cooked, owned almost nothing except what fitted in his suitcase (didn't have > a house and stayed with friends all over the world)- he gave most of his > stipends to different charities as soon as he received them. He had no > interests other than mathematics and worked 19hour days every day (fortified > by Benzedrine and caffeine). he could solve problems anywhere and even in > the middle of a convesation might be considering one. One of his best > friends , Ronald Graham, while less productive worked while playing "You can > do mathematics anywhere. I once had a flash of insight into a problem in the > middle of a back somersault with a triple twist on my trampoline" (you get > computer insights in the same way, Howard?) this was contrated with erdos > who was rather sedentary- at least physically. > best wishes > robert 13119 From: onco111 Date: Mon May 6, 2002 11:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] On the truth of Buddhism Hi Anders, Nice to hear from you... > > When there is samma ditthi (right view), there is of course no > > speculation involved, but instead the direct knowledge (or panna, > > understanding) of paramatha dhammas (highest truths): > > When we talk of direct knowledge, it is not of views, imo. Okay, I'll > rephase, all views falling within these negations as well as those of > the Kalama and Salha Suttas are fetters preventing ultimate freedom: I think you would wholly agree that Buddha did not teach that there is no such thing as Right View. He also explicitly and forcefully taught that there is indeed such a thing as Right View; and the thing he called "Right View" is markedly different from the plethora of things he called "wrong view" [miccha ditti] or simply "view" [ditthi]. When there is direct knowledge, there is no delusion, panya, Right View; how could it be otherwise? Dan 13120 From: onco111 Date: Mon May 6, 2002 0:35pm Subject: Re: skilful means in the group > True, I am not advocating non-study, but merely stating that it is > not essential, and there is a fine line between studying that which > is relevant to one's own path, and counting the treasures of others. Study is certainly essential, but, then, it depends on what you mean by "study." Reading lots of things without understanding or considering or applying to daily life is of little utility (if any); developing an addiction to pleasant and inspirational Dhamma talks is of little utility (if any). But what of listening/reading/studying with yoniso manasikara? These are the two conditions Buddha explicitly mentions for the establishment of mindfulness. Essential. > Of course, it does not come down to what you read or don't read, but > how you respond to that. Perhaps not so much how you respond to that, but whether it helps condition satipatthana. There is no substitute for hearing and considering the good Dhamma and observing and studying it in everyday life. There are so many opportunities to study Dhamma in the day, so many... Each moment is an opportunity for study. No need to wait for a cushion or a book. Realities arise and pass away each moment. Study them now. Reading and listening provide such good conditions for the arising of study and discernment throughout the day. It was surely true in the Buddha's day--just look at how many suttas end with the listeners becoming Sotapanna or Arahant on the spot! ... from proper digestion of the truth, not from close digestion and consideration of gobbeldy- gook. What is heard or read does matter. It is hard enough to discern Dhamma without muddling the picture by putting equal weight on all readings, discourses, and views. Dan 13121 From: onco111 Date: Mon May 6, 2002 0:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long Hi Anders, Interesting exchange with Jon. I hope you don't mind my butting in briefly... Jon: Can you point to any instance in the texts of the Buddha recommending such a practice, or any mention at all of 'sitting vipassana meditation'. Anders: The Satipatthana 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 and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. " And all the other foundations too. ----------------- Yes, I think we all agree that one case in which mindfulness can be established is when a monk sits cross-legged under a tree with body erect. But is this a recommendation of sitting in order to establish mindfulness or is it just part of a list of activities in which mindfulness can be established? In the Satipatthana sutta we also read about a wide array of other activities in which sati can arise -- could it be that the point is that sati can arise in all our everyday activities, that we needn't wait until we have a specific set of external, physical conditions (quiet wood, cool shade of tree, crossed legs, etc.) to allow sati to arise. It can arise during walking, sitting, eating, peeing, extending the arm, sitting under a tree with cross-legs, looking at a corpse, etc. Every moment (even when sitting with crossed legs!) is an opportunity for study, contemplation, sati. Don't be tempted to think that satipatthana must be limited to a set of recommended physical conditions! "Practice now, without delay, or you will regret it later." Dan 13122 From: rikpa21 Date: Mon May 6, 2002 6:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" wrote: > Hi Anders, > Interesting exchange with Jon. I hope you don't mind my butting in > briefly... > > Jon: Can you point to any instance in the texts of the Buddha > recommending such a practice, or any mention at all of 'sitting > vipassana meditation'. > > Anders: The Satipatthana 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 and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the > chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. " > > And all the other foundations too. > > ----------------- > Yes, I think we all agree that one case in which mindfulness can be > established is when a monk sits cross-legged under a tree with body > erect. But is this a recommendation of sitting in order to establish > mindfulness or is it just part of a list of activities in which > mindfulness can be established? Hi Dan & Anders (Anders, thank you for your recent spate of posts reminding us of the importance of discarding views). Dan, I think this topic's been covered in some detail before here, but that never means it isn't worth covering again. Just looking at my own experience, the entire message of what the Buddha was teaching would have been lost on me, because without sitting meditation none of the factors said to lead to the stated aim of the Dhamma have arisen without this most basic of practices, expounded in all versions of the Satipatthana Sutta as well as the Anapanasati Sutta. The kind Theravada Ajarns who taught me walking meditation, eating meditation, etc., always use sitting meditation on either the breath or the rising and falling of the stomach as the root practice that precedes any instructions on walking, eating, or any other "daily activity" type of meditation (though walking, standing, lying meditation all have their special conditions as well, and I was advised to inform my family members when I was practicing these meditations to let them know I was in practice mode to avert suspicions I'd gone completely bonkers). In other words, walking, standing, lying down forms are all branch practices that depend on a mind stabilized through the root practice of training first in seated meditation observing the body. Sitting meditation and observing body, especially by way of the breath, are listed as the first practices by the Buddha in the Satipatthana Sutta. Their prominence there and location isn't an accident. Just because there are other objects to observe with mindfulness-- such as feelings, mind, and dhammas--in no way indicates that one can dispense with this most elementary of practices designed to concentrate and unify the mind. To dispense with this practice would indicate that one has truly mastered mindfulness in all situations, and one is completely beyond the need for seeking out the most favorable conditions for insight, such as a secluded spot, sitting cross-legged, spine erect, etc., and that one can retain true, unbroken mindfulness in all situations as they arise, and at a deep, not superficial, level, observing their characteristics with true panna, not believing one is observing those characteristics via pannati! In other words, at a deep enough level to directly observe their characteristics (and not a conceptual simulacrum of what one believes is their true nature based on the repetition of the anatta and anicca mantras), which is the entire point of practice in samma sati. > In the Satipatthana sutta we also > read about a wide array of other activities in which sati can arise -- > could it be that the point is that sati can arise in all our everyday > activities, that we needn't wait until we have a specific set of > external, physical conditions (quiet wood, cool shade of tree, > crossed legs, etc.) to allow sati to arise. It can arise during > walking, sitting, eating, peeing, extending the arm, sitting under a > tree with cross-legs, looking at a corpse, etc. Every moment (even > when sitting with crossed legs!) is an opportunity for study, > contemplation, sati. Sati could potentially arise without first training the mind in seated meditation. Just as some are born kings, I imagine there are great beings who, due to the power of previous karma, have the capacity to realize the fruits of the Noble Path without this program of "basic training" laid out by the Buddha. But how many are born kings of Jamudvipa? And who in particular was the Buddha addressing when laying out this basic set of practices? The great beings who realized the essence of the Dhamma on a single explanation? Why would he have wasted his precious time explaining these practices to such great beings? What are the odds of being born one of the Dhamma-kings? And what are the odds of realizing the heart-essence of the Dhamma if the mind never reaches state of unbroken concentration to where it can discern the flow of constantly changing dhammas with true precision regarding their characteristics? If one cannot retain unbroken mindfulness and clear comprehension of all dhammas arising and passing away, whether those of the body, feelings, mind, in all situations, no matter how difficult, then in my opinion, one has fallen into the trap of merely believing one is experiencing samma sati when in fact there is no clear comprehension, no real mindfulness; one is merely toying with their conceptual stand-ins. I believe it is necessary to establish an unbroken stream of concentrated awareness that clearly discerns the characteristics of dhammas without break, moment to moment. In my experience this sort of skill at observing extremely rapid processes like this has no basis for development without first training in seated meditation, which in my own experience has provided the best set of conditions for this type of unbroken and clear comprehension. With practice this concentration grows stronger, not weaker; comprehension grows clearer, not more occluded. I have observed this not only in my own practice, but have heard the same repeated on many occasion by those who've practiced these instructions under the guidance of competent teacher to the point that these instructions begin to "click."-- particularly in retreat situations,. where one has he chance to really dig in and concentrate without hindering distractions. In my own limited experience, the difference between practicing these exercises and not practicing them is like night and day. Before, and for many years, I used to kid myself into believing that mere study would suffice, that I could somehow grasp the essence of the Dhamma if I read just enough books and "understood" things like anatta. At the insistence of my teachers, however, I grudgingly put into practice seated meditation on the breath, just as prescribed by the Buddha in the Satipatthana Sutta. And within a short while, voila! I discovered that all the assumptions I had about concentration and mindfulness were wrong, that the truths the Buddha spoke of are accessible not to the mind filled with all its desires and aversions and its ignorance, but are only fully comprehended when the hindrances are pacified and these ideas about the Dhamma are stripped of their covering and the mind taken down to the "bare metal", where nama meets rupa, where one directly sees the characteristics of phenomena (in my case the breath or the pleasurable states arising in jhana) up close and impersonal: as fleeting, transient, and fabricated, lacking any innate "essence" or "core"--particularly the collection of transient and impersonal processes the Buddha labeled the five khandas. > Don't be tempted to think that satipatthana must > be limited to a set of recommended physical conditions! It need not be for those who have advanced past the stage where training in clear comprehension, mindfulness, and concentration are so thoroughly established--to the point that one can truly (truly) retain unbroken mindfulness and clear comprehension in the most demanding situations. Since I am not at such a lofty point in my own development of mindfulness, I prefer to heed the Buddha's instructions on this matter and avoid attempting to reinterpret the Buddha's explicit advice in a way that favors my own prejudices, and instead practice what he taught so simply and directly (the exact same teachings passed on to me by my incomparable teachers, fancy that!). That method I have tested thoruoghly and I know it works. Other methods I am not so certain of. Cheers, Erik 13123 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon May 6, 2002 7:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long Dear Anders, Jon, Dan, Eric and All, As you say Eric, this topic has been discussed (or at least alluded to) many times on this and other lists. One thing I don't recall being discussed is whether the Formal Meditation and the Dhamma Study could be a consecutive, but distinctly separate, occurrences in someone's lifetime. That those who think FM is unnecessary, don't realise that their previous involvment actually WAS necessary, and they are getting by on a previously learned skill? There are many people whom I admire and learn from. Some do Formal Meditation (sitting, standing, walking, eating ), and go to Retreats etc., some combine FM and Dhamma Study, some Study and practice mindfullness. Those who do FM feel that it is essential according to the Teachings, and that Dhamma Study is not sufficient even with mindfullness. Those who practice the latter seem to feel FM is harmless, perhaps soothing, but not necessary, according to the Teachings. It is very confusing when coming upon this difference of opinion, especially when many of us gained our first introduction to Buddhism during Dhamma talks after group meditation. I only have a vague knowledge of some list members involvment with FM or Study, but wonder if there is anyone who has NEVER done FM in the past, however long ago, and who obtains satisfying results from Dhamma study and mindfulness only? (For instance, Sarah has told us of her FM practice years ago, and that she doesn't find it a necessary practice now.) Just an idle thought, - could it be that one can get to a 'sufficient' level that is accessible for progress on the Path.... just like riding a bike, you never lose the skill? Have any of those who teach us to study the realities NEVER done any formal meditation? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rikpa21" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > Interesting exchange with Jon. I hope you don't mind my butting in > > briefly... > > > > Jon: Can you point to any instance in the texts of the Buddha > > recommending such a practice, or any mention at all of 'sitting > > vipassana meditation'. > > > > Anders: The Satipatthana 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 and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the > > chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. " > > > > And all the other foundations too. > > > > ----------------- > > Yes, I think we all agree that one case in which mindfulness can > be > > established is when a monk sits cross-legged under a tree with > body > > erect. But is this a recommendation of sitting in order to > establish > > mindfulness or is it just part of a list of activities in which > > mindfulness can be established? > > Hi Dan & Anders (Anders, thank you for your recent spate of posts > reminding us of the importance of discarding views). > > Dan, I think this topic's been covered in some detail before here, > but that never means it isn't worth covering again. > > Just looking at my own experience, the entire message of what the > Buddha was teaching would have been lost on me, because without > sitting meditation none of the factors said to lead to the stated > aim of the Dhamma have arisen without this most basic of practices, > expounded in all versions of the Satipatthana Sutta as well as the > Anapanasati Sutta. <<<>>> 13124 From: Date: Mon May 6, 2002 7:55pm Subject: ADL ch. 7 (1) http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 7 (1) IGNORANCE We may know when we have akusala cittas rooted in lobha (attachment) or akusala cittas rooted in dosa (aversion), but do we know when we have akusala cittas rooted in moha (ignorance)? What is the characteristic of moha? We may think someone is ignorant who does not have much education, who does not speak foreign languages, who does not know anything about history or politics. We call someone ignorant who does not know what is happening in the world. Is that the kind of ignorance which should be eradicated? If that were true it would mean that there is more wholesomeness in one's life if one speaks foreign languages or if one knows about history and politics. We can find out that this is not true. In order to understand the characteristic of moha we should know what we are ignorant of when there is moha. There is the world of concepts which in our daily, ordinary language are denoted by conventional terms and there is the world of paramattha dhammas or ultimate realities. When we think of the concept which in conventional language is denoted by 'world', we may think of people, animals and things and we call them by their appropriate names. But do we know the phenomena in ourselves and around themselves as they really are: only nama and rupa which do not stay? The world of paramattha dhammas is real. Nama and rupa are paramattha dhammas. The namas and rupas which appear in our daily life can be directly experienced through the five sense-doors and through the mind-door, no matter how we name them. This is the world which is real. When we see, there is the world of visible object. When we hear, there is the world of sound. When we experience an object through touch there is the world of tangible object. Visible object and seeing are real. Their characteristics can be directly experienced; it does not matter whether we call them 'visible object' and 'seeing', or whether we do not name them at all. But when we cling to concepts which are denoted by conventional terms such as 'tree' or 'chair', we do not experience any characteristic of reality. What is real when we look at a tree? What can be directly experienced? Visible object is a paramattha dhamma, a reality; it is a kind of rupa which can be directly experienced through the eyes. Through touch hardness can be experienced; this is a kind of rupa which can be directly experienced through the body-sense, it is real. 'Tree' is a concept or idea of which we can think, but it is not a paramattha dhamma, not a reality which can be directly experienced. Visible object and hardness are paramattha dhammas and they can be directly experienced, no matter how one names them. The world experienced through the six doors is real but it does not last; it is impermanent. When we see, there is the world of the visible, but it falls away immediately. When we hear, there is the world of sound, but it does not last either. It is the same with the world of smell, the world of flavour, the world of impressions through the body-sense and the world of objects experienced through the mind-door. However, we only seem to know the world of conventional terms, because ignorance and wrong view have been accumulated for so long. Ignorance of paramattha dhammas is the kind of ignorance which should be eradicated; it brings sorrow. The world in the sense of paramattha dhammas is in the teachings called 'the world in the ariyan sense'. The ariyan has developed the wisdom which sees things as they are ; he truly knows 'the world'. We read in the 'Kindred Sayings' (IV, Salayatana-vagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Second Fifty, Ch. IV, par. 84, Transitory) that Ananda said to the Buddha: ' "The world! The world" is the saying, lord. Pray, how far, lord, does this saying go?' ' What is transitory by nature, Ananda, is called "the world" in the ariyan sense. And what, Ananda, is transitory by nature? The eye, Ananda, is transitory by nature... objects... tongue... mind is transitory by nature, mind-states, mind-consciousness, mind-contact, whatsoever pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling or indifferent feeling which arises owing to mind-contact, that also is transitory by nature. What is thus transitory, Ananda, is called "the world" in the ariyan sense.' Someone may think that he can truly know himself without knowing the world as it appears through the six doors. He may think that he knows his anger and attachment, but, in fact, he has not experienced them as they are: only different types of nama and not self. As long as he takes realities for self he does not really know himself and he cannot eradicate defilements. He clings to an idea, to the concept of self; he has not directly experienced any characteristic of reality. It is difficult to know when there are lobha, dosa and moha and it is difficult to be aware also of the more subtle degrees of akusala. When one starts to develop 'insight' one realizes how little one knows oneself. 13125 From: Date: Mon May 6, 2002 7:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimate realities In a message dated 5/6/2002 4:55:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > Just to ask a little more: what are the conditions for 'conditioned > paramattha dhammas'? Perhaps you could write generally and give a few > examples as well. > kind regards > robert > Hi Robert Conditioning states are the conditions for conditioned states. Once a state is conditioned, it becomes the conditioning state for ensuing conditioned states. This dynamic cycle continues to propagate due to the interacting qualities of the Four Great Elements (as I understand it.) In other words, the conditions for paramattha dhammas are conditioning paramattha dhammas. But I think what your question is trying to ask is what is the original condition?, i.e., what is the origin of the universe? I'm not even working on that problem at this time. LOL >I thought that you objected to the term >paramattha dhamma but I see you don't - which I think is a good thing as the >Visuddhimagga uses it. I am more gratefull than I can express for the Abhidhamma, Visuddhimagga and whatever other extremely rigorous analysis of the Buddha's teaching that has emerged. But I only consider them semi authoritative. These works contain valuable suppliments of the knowledge presented in the Four Great Nikayas. Even Buddhaghosa ends the Visuddhimagga by saying: "...the exposition [Visuddhimagga] as set forth is almost free from errors and flaws..." Regarding paramattha dhamma, it was the translation that I didn't like. I haven't really thought much about whether I care for the term paramattha dhamma or not. In either case, I prefer to use as few Pali terms as possible. Take care. TG 13126 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 6, 2002 11:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: Letter sent from India Dear Kom & Family, I was very moved by the sharing of dhamma in the Tukovinit family and by the careful considerations and points that your sister raised. Sometimes it can be very difficult to encourage an interest in family members, but your letter inspires me in this regard. I particularly enjoyed reading the practical comments about rebirth and kamma and the following conclusions: --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Hence, you propose > 1.. Abstain from doing unwholesome things > > 2.. Do good > > 3.. Purify our mind / improve our mental states > > and most importantly, > 1.. do this in *daily* life, not just occasionally > > 2.. do this as soon as possible, not only when we gets old (since we > don't know when we are going to die) ..... ***** This is a neat summary and reminder for us all, rather like a summary of the Dhammapada. May I suggest we add: 1. Know that it is not *me* or *you* who ‘do good’ or ‘purify the mind’. 2. Know that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are mental states which depend on many factors outside the control of a*self*. 3. Know that understanding what is ‘good’, what is‘bad’, the value of the former and the danger of the latter, is the key to more ‘good’. 4. The only opportunity for ‘good’ is ever at the present moment. ***** > This list allows me make helpful reflections and brought me joy. I > agree > with many many of them. ..... I hope your family members will add more comments or that you will share more of your translated summaries of their letters and your responses with us, Kom. The simple, direct language is refreshing and perhaps the summaries can be used for others who are not inclined to hear the Pali or detailed explanations for now. Anumodana, Sarah ======== 13127 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 7, 2002 0:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Hi Howard, I have a couple of your posts which I delayed replying to;-) --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sarah - > I have heard of no things that are neither conditioned nor > unconditioned. If concepts are neither, then they are nothing at all - ..... As I understand, when the texts discuss the conditioned and unconditioned, they are discussing the phenomena with sabhava that are formed up (sankhata) and not formed up (asankhata). In other words, the phenomena that can be directly known by wisdom (panna). It’s true that accordingly, in an ultimate (paramattha) sense, concepts are nothing at all, illusions conceived by the mind that are so often taken for being *real*. ..... > there > are no concepts, and we waste our time talking about them. ..... Concepts (pannatti) are concepts only. It is not a waste of time using them and talking about them as long as they are not taken for *realities*. If there were an idea, however, that any wisdom will be gained merely by talking about and ‘working out’ the concepts, it would be rather like the analogy of moving the Titanic deck chairs thinking that this in itself might prevent the ‘sinking’ in samsara. ...... >But concepts > are > mind objects, they are constructed, conditioned by multiple senses > including > mind, and not irreducible, but they are mind objects. If there is a > third > category of things that are neither conditioned nor unconditioned, it is > a > category that I have not heard of nor seen mentioned in any sutta. ..... The Buddha makes it clear that often he is using ‘wordly’ language. The end of Nina’s translation of the commentary to the Savaka Sutta just posted, refers to this. Concepts are not included in the 5 khandhas, the ‘All’ to be directly known. ..... >Sabbe sankhara anicca. Ideas, patterns, mind-constructed objects, as well as > all > paramatthadhammas other than nibbana *do not remain*. ..... What are ‘sabbe sankhara’? As I understand, the 5 khandhas or namas and rupas or any of the other classifications of paramattha dhammas. ..... I’ll be glad to look at any other references or comments. At this moment I think we agree that there can be awareness of thinking (thinking which thinks about concepts). Are you sure there can be awareness of the concept itself? Let me finish with one quote from the Vism on sankhara (formations): Vism XX11, 22 “...He brings to bear the faculties, the powers, and the enlightenment factors, and he works over and turns up the same field of formations (sankhara), classed as materiality, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, with the knowledge that they are impermanent, painful, not-self, and he embarks upon the progressive series of insights.” Thanks as usual for your points for consideration, Howard. Sarah ===== 13128 From: Sukinder Date: Tue May 7, 2002 3:28pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long Dear Christine, Judging from my experience with FM this lifetime I am inclined to conclude that I have never done it in a previous lifetime. Never enjoyed even one session, eventhough in a span of 5 months I went ahead and attended two 10 day retreats with the idea that FM would lead me out of confusion. On the other hand I am not much of a scholar either, as you know I have a very short attention span and become quite impatient with written words that I don't immediately comprehend. However I have noted that there are times when I read a good post or some sutta reference and while I'm doing that there is much calm and clarity of mind. Also sati arises when in normal everyday activity, I am reminded of some aspect of the teaching relevant to the particular situation. In my opinion ( I await and expect to be corrected, since its not well thought out ) the relevance of theoretical study is when it is understood not as applying to anybody else, but to oneself, better still when the theory is applied to the present situation. Otherwise if it is done with the idea of accumulating, then like Anders has pointed out, it would be a fetter and must be seen for what it is. Once seen for what it is, it is automatically discarded, no one to do the discarding. But "RightView" I believe has a positive and beneficial influence of its own, even when it is still just theory. Why? because it at least replaces "Wrong theoretical View" and there is always a chance that with the right guidance it can be applied to the present moment. Also for a long time I have been with the opinion that people who meditate and who show some degree of wisdom, probably do a lot of study as well. And their particular insights may not be connected to their practice as they think it does, but perhaps to the study they have done. There are as you know, like hens sitting on their eggs, people who have meditated for years and years with the very same competent teachers the former claim to have, who may have acquired the habit and ability to supress their coarse kilesas, but who once you start to talk to them, you can see that they lack real panna. Waiting to be corrected and criticized, or ignored :-) Best wishes, Sukin. -----Original Message----- From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 7:51 PM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long Dear Anders, Jon, Dan, Eric and All, As you say Eric, this topic has been discussed (or at least alluded to) many times on this and other lists. One thing I don't recall being discussed is whether the Formal Meditation and the Dhamma Study could be a consecutive, but distinctly separate, occurrences in someone's lifetime. That those who think FM is unnecessary, don't realise that their previous involvment actually WAS necessary, and they are getting by on a previously learned skill? There are many people whom I admire and learn from. Some do Formal Meditation (sitting, standing, walking, eating ), and go to Retreats etc., some combine FM and Dhamma Study, some Study and practice mindfullness. Those who do FM feel that it is essential according to the Teachings, and that Dhamma Study is not sufficient even with mindfullness. Those who practice the latter seem to feel FM is harmless, perhaps soothing, but not necessary, according to the Teachings. It is very confusing when coming upon this difference of opinion, especially when many of us gained our first introduction to Buddhism during Dhamma talks after group meditation. I only have a vague knowledge of some list members involvment with FM or Study, but wonder if there is anyone who has NEVER done FM in the past, however long ago, and who obtains satisfying results from Dhamma study and mindfulness only? (For instance, Sarah has told us of her FM practice years ago, and that she doesn't find it a necessary practice now.) Just an idle thought, - could it be that one can get to a 'sufficient' level that is accessible for progress on the Path.... just like riding a bike, you never lose the skill? Have any of those who teach us to study the realities NEVER done any formal meditation? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rikpa21" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > Interesting exchange with Jon. I hope you don't mind my butting in > > briefly... > > > > Jon: Can you point to any instance in the texts of the Buddha > > recommending such a practice, or any mention at all of 'sitting > > vipassana meditation'. > > > > Anders: The Satipatthana 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 and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the > > chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. " > > > > And all the other foundations too. > > > > ----------------- > > Yes, I think we all agree that one case in which mindfulness can > be > > established is when a monk sits cross-legged under a tree with > body > > erect. But is this a recommendation of sitting in order to > establish > > mindfulness or is it just part of a list of activities in which > > mindfulness can be established? > > Hi Dan & Anders (Anders, thank you for your recent spate of posts > reminding us of the importance of discarding views). > > Dan, I think this topic's been covered in some detail before here, > but that never means it isn't worth covering again. > > Just looking at my own experience, the entire message of what the > Buddha was teaching would have been lost on me, because without > sitting meditation none of the factors said to lead to the stated > aim of the Dhamma have arisen without this most basic of practices, > expounded in all versions of the Satipatthana Sutta as well as the > Anapanasati Sutta. <<<>>> 13129 From: rikpa21 Date: Tue May 7, 2002 0:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Anders, Jon, Dan, Eric and All, > > As you say Eric, this topic has been discussed (or at least alluded > to) many times on this and other lists. One thing I don't recall > being discussed is whether the Formal Meditation and the Dhamma Study > could be a consecutive, but distinctly separate, occurrences in > someone's lifetime. That those who think FM is unnecessary, don't > realise that their previous involvment actually WAS necessary, and > they are getting by on a previously learned skill? > There are many people whom I admire and learn from. Some do Formal > Meditation (sitting, standing, walking, eating ), and go to Retreats > etc., some combine FM and Dhamma Study, some Study and practice > mindfullness. > Those who do FM feel that it is essential according to the > Teachings, and that Dhamma Study is not sufficient even with > mindfullness. Those who practice the latter seem to feel FM is > harmless, perhaps soothing, but not necessary, according to the > Teachings. It is very confusing when coming upon this difference of > opinion, especially when many of us gained our first introduction to > Buddhism during Dhamma talks after group meditation. Hi Christine, You raise a very good point. I can see how it could be confusing to hear that formal meditation, as explicitly taught by the Buddha in more places than I can count in the Suttas, should be a cause for controversy, IF one accepts the Triptika represents the Buddha's teachings and one accepts that the Buddha's wisdom is non-mistaken. Just by way of personal (without misapprehending the term "person" as a "self" :) anectdote, I have come to see from my own experiences- -under the guidance of my highly trained and eminently qualified teachers of both intensive study (25 years of study and memorization for the Geshe, or Doctorate in Buddhist Philosophy degree, which includes several years of Abhidharma study) and applied meditation-- that the Buddha wasn't suggesting these things willy-nilly, that he had very good reasons for recommending formal meditation practices, techniques, and methods. From everything I've seen so far, I've come to conclude that he had a very good reason for laying out a clear and extensive program that not only initially gets us away from the distractions and into a place conducive to the deeper states of awareness necessary to penetrate the characteristics of dhammas directly, but that he also recommends specific objects of investigation as most conducive to this aim, and that these two components are best applied in tandem, as laid out in places like the Maha-Satipatthana Sutta. In other words, I have come to accept, in the ehipassiko sense, that his recommendations on how to proceed in training in and establishing mindfulness and concentration to the degree necessary to terminate the fetters wasn't arbitrary, but a program designed by one who has already passed that way himself, and validated that in his own experience, and then used that direct experience to instruct those who wish to do the same. The Buddha always enjoined his discilpes to test the Dhamma out in their own experience. In the the most general sense, the Buddha outlined a three-step program involving dana (giving), sila (morality), and bhavana (cultivation). An alternative formulation is the cultivation of sila, samadhi, and panna, which fall under the last category (and overlap with sila) as factors in the development of the path (bhavana). If it is possible to honestly say that one's informal practice has led to the reduction of akusala mental states, such as attachment, aversion, and ignorance, then one is at least headed in the right direction. That is nothing to sneeze at; it is an unmitigated good. But if the aim is the release from all forms of grasping, permanently, then I feel it necessary we stack the deck in our favor as much as possible and engage in the formal practices outlined by the Buddha--under the guidance of highly quaified teachers who have passed that way themselves. Lacking this, it is possible we may get lucky, but the odds are poor if we just look around at the actions of others in this world. And it can't hurt to recall the Buddha's advice to Ananda: that "admirable friends and companions" are not a small part of the Holy Life, nor the half of the Holy Life, but the "whole of the Holy Life", and that the primary and initial factor in developing the path to fruition is association with admirable friends and companions--those who've gone that way before, whose knowledge is that informed by direct exprience of the Buddha's teachings, and not on the fingers pointing at the moon. > I only have a vague knowledge of some list members involvment with FM > or Study, but wonder if there is anyone who has NEVER done FM in the > past, however long ago, and who obtains satisfying results from > Dhamma study and mindfulness only? I would likewise be interesetd in making the acquaintance of those who have realized the fruits of the Dhamma without the intense persistence and great effort embodied in formal practice, who have developed mindfulness, clear comprehension, and concentration to the degree necessary to penetrate the characteristics of dhammas to arrive at knowledge and vision of things as they are. Perhaps if Hui Neng or some of the historical figures from the Sutas were around we might be able to ask them. > (For instance, Sarah has told > us of her FM practice years ago, and that she doesn't find it a > necessary practice now.) Just an idle thought, - could it be that > one can get to a 'sufficient' level that is accessible for progress > on the Path.... just like riding a bike, you never lose the skill? In my experience, no way. You can very quickly lose the ability to maintain mindfulness and clear comprehension without regular supporting practice. > Have any of those who teach us to study the realities NEVER done any > formal meditation? It's possible. Personally, I'd be extremely wary of anyone setting themselves up as teacher who has not done at least several intensive meditation retreats and tasted the fruits of the Dhamma for themselves. I would never find myself able to trust any interpretation of the Dhamma not based on the teacher's direct experience thereof, simply because the dhamma is, as the Buddha said, "ehipassiko" (meaning to be investigated and known directly), unless they follow the texts themselves strictly and are very open about this being a mere repetition of the wording of the texts themselves, with as little personal gloss as possible. Again, the formal practice of Dhamma (let me add formal practice performed correctly) is entirely experiential and its fruits are completely beyond words, concepts, and categories. So to me, treatises like the Abhidhamma represent maps of that inner experience. For example, the Abhidhamma would have been of very little use to me had I not practiced formal meditation beforehand, simply because I'd have had no idea what most of it was referring to. In my case I've used the Abhidhamma as a wonderful tool to unpack meditation experiences after the fact. Had I begun with the Abhidhamma as my guide to meditation, though, I seriously doubt I'd have made much, if any, progress. Just one person's opinion. I hope you find it useful. Cheers, Erik 13130 From: onco111 Date: Tue May 7, 2002 1:59am Subject: Re: Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long Erik! Delighted to see you, I am! You write: ...secluded spot, sitting cross-legged, spine erect, etc., and that one can retain true, unbroken mindfulness in all situations as they arise... Dan: This "unbroken mindfulness" sounds very peculiar to me. Yes, I've heard it said many times before and have even been deluded into thinking I've experienced it at times. But even when the mind is numb to it, always there is sense consciousness, investigating consciousness, five-door adverting consciousness, mind-door adverting consciousness intervening -- and sati in none of these. This is there to be observed in practice, in FM, in daily life, in study but it does require seeing to see. Sati cannot be unbroken; it rises and falls with consciousness, moment to moment. It cannot be avoided. Some moments it's there, but usually not. This remains true even though concentration may be very prominent and sharp. Seeing this is impossible, though, while there is no discernment of the distinction between concentration and mindfulness. Knowing the distinction is much, much more than hearing the word "mindfulness" and its definition. It must be known in practice, but how can it be known when there is the view that it can be unbroken, in all situations? Erik: Before, and for many years, I used to kid myself into believing that mere study would suffice, that I could somehow grasp the essence of the Dhamma if I read just enough books and "understood" things like anatta. Dan: I think we can agree that reading and putting together arguments is of limited utility. > fleeting, transient, and fabricated, lacking any innate "essence" > or "core"--particularly the collection of transient and impersonal > processes the Buddha labeled the five khandas. Does sati rise and fall too? Or can it be unbroken? To which khanda does sati belong? > It need not be for those who have advanced past the stage where > training in clear comprehension, mindfulness, and concentration are > so thoroughly established--to the point that one can truly (truly) > retain unbroken mindfulness and clear comprehension in the most > demanding situations. Since I am not at such a lofty point in my own development of mindfulness, I prefer to heed the Buddha's > instructions on this matter and avoid attempting to reinterpret the > Buddha's explicit advice in a way that favors my own prejudices, Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu! The conditions for satipatthana? Hearing the true Dhamma and yoniso manasikara. It cannot be forced: "I'm going to make sati arise now by using yoniso manasikara." Not at all! Even if one is inclined to put faith in one's personal control over sankhara, yoniso manasikara arises PRE-javana and colors the subsequent javana process, so it is still something that cannot be forced. Dan 13131 From: onco111 Date: Tue May 7, 2002 2:16am Subject: Re: Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long Dear Christine, Study realities, study Dhamma. Do it now. No need for books right now. No need for a cushion right now. Plenty of dhammas are arising and passing away. No need to wait for special physical conditions before studying them. If you can continue your studies even while tuned into FM, wonderful! Not such an easy thing to do, though. Trying to force the attention to a particular object that you happen to think is a particularly good object for concentration may make it difficult to really study dhammas, to study Dhamma. If you can continue your studies even while reading a book, wonderful! Not such an easy thing to do, though. Trying to force understanding by simply reading and thinking about and memorizing someone else's words without studying them each moment as they arise and pass away may make it difficult to really study dhammas, to study Dhamma. Dan 13132 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Tue May 7, 2002 2:27am Subject: Re: Monkish mathematician Dear Dan and Howard, You guys are in a bit of a heroic seeming field - I am just starting a book about John Nash (now a movie - the Beautiful Mind). Best sellers about Mathematicians. And why not! best wishes robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" wrote: > Hi Robert, > Paul Erdos was truly an astounding man. The number of papers he > published is far beyond what anyone could write on his own. His > secret? Sheer brilliance. Often he would get a call or visit from a > mathematician (or two), who had been struggling for months on a > difficult a problem. He'd hear the problem, think about it for a > minute or two, and offer a novel and elegant solution. Then, the > other mathematician would write the paper up and put Erdos' name on > it because it could not be otherwise. > > There used to be a theorem in mathematics about how prolific a worker > he was. It is a theorem about how the "Erdos number." Erdos' Erdos > number was 0. A person who wrote a paper with Erdos has an Erdos > number of 1. A person who wrote a paper with someone who wrote a > paper with Erdos has an Erdos number of 2. And so on. The theorem is > that no published research mathematician has an Erdos number higher > than 2. > > Dan > > > Dear Group, > > A book I'm reading "The man who loved only numbers' about Paul Erdos > > (pronounced air-dish) has some interesting bits. He published over a > > thousand top level articles and was the leading mathematician of > the later > > part of the 20th century(died 1996). celibate his entire life, > never > > cooked, owned almost nothing except what fitted in his suitcase > (didn't have > > a house and stayed with friends all over the world)- he gave most > of his > > stipends to different charities as soon as he received them. He had > no > > interests other than mathematics and worked 19hour days every day > (fortified > > by Benzedrine and caffeine). he could solve problems anywhere and > even in > > the middle of a convesation might be considering one. One of his > best > > friends , Ronald Graham, while less productive worked while > playing "You can > > do mathematics anywhere. I once had a flash of insight into a > problem in the > > middle of a back somersault with a triple twist on my trampoline" > (you get > > computer insights in the same way, Howard?) this was contrated with > erdos > > who was rather sedentary- at least physically. > > best wishes > > robert 13133 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Tue May 7, 2002 2:51am Subject: Wholesome and Unwholesome http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/igleden1.htm ACTION AND THEIR RESULTS "SOWING AND REAPING" Mrs C. W. Iggleden Tisarana Newsletter, April 1999 There are ten bad actions killing, stealing, unchastely, lying, slandering, harsh language, frivolous talk, covetousness, ill will, false view. 1. The result of killing is: Short life, being subject to disease, constant grief caused by separation from loved ones, and constant fear 2. The result of stealing is Poverty, wretchedness, unfulfilled desires, dependent livelihood 3. The result of unchastely is: Having many enemies, getting undesirable wives or husbands, birth as a female or an eunuch 4. The result of lying is: Being tormented by abusive speech, having the quality of being incredible, and a stinking mouth. 5. The result of slandering is: Dissolution of friendship without sufficient cause, and being ignored by friends. 6. The result of harsh language is: Being detested by others although blameless, and having a harsh voice. 7. The result of frivolous talk is: Disorderliness of the bodily organs, awkward or crooked limbs, and unacceptable speech. 8. The result of covetousness is: Unfulfillment of one's wishes, 9. The result of ill will is: Ugliness, various diseases, and having a detestable nature. 10. The result of false view is: Base attachment, lack of wisdom, dull wit, chronic diseases, and blameworthy ideas. There are ten good actions: generosity, morality, meditation, reverence, service, transference of merit, rejoicing in others' meritorious deeds, hearing the Doctrine, expounding the Doctrine, forming correct views. 1. The result of generosity is: Rebirth in wealthy conditions, or whatever one does one will be successful in the way of wealth. 2. The result of morality is: Rebirth in noble families in states of happiness, and can be the cause of good health and/or having a handsome or beautiful appearance. 3, The result of meditation is: Rebirth in the plane of Form or the Formless Plane, also help in the gaining of higher knowledge and emancipation 4. The result of reverence is: Being born of noble parentage. Those who do not practise reverence, due to conceit, can be reborn in lower states as tiny creatures. 5. The result of service is: Being attended by a large retinue, and having plenty of friends ready to help. 6. The result of transference of merit is: Being able to give in abundance in future births. 7. The result of rejoicing in others' meritorious deeds is: Productive of joy wherever one is reborn. 8/9. The result of hearing and expounding the Doctrine is: Conducive to wisdom. 10. The result of forming correct views is: Making one's views straight or firm (ditthijjukamma) and even when very young being bright and intelligent. Although we use the expression " by chance", there is no such thing as chance because of cause; although sometimes the cause is so remote that it cannot be traced. Rather in the same way as people invest money in order to get "interest", so by our good or bad actions we invest on kamma, and will indeed receive "interest" in just proportion! 13134 From: Date: Mon May 6, 2002 11:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Hi, Sarah - Concepts are thoughts. Thoughts are mind objects. What concepts *refer* to, what they subsume, are frequently illusory, imagined, and not existent at all. The concept of a red fire engine is a *thought*. It exists - just as hardness, anger, and smells exist. With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/7/02 3:16:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I have a couple of your posts which I delayed replying to;-) > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sarah - > > > I have heard of no things that are neither conditioned nor > > unconditioned. If concepts are neither, then they are nothing at all - > ..... > As I understand, when the texts discuss the conditioned and unconditioned, > they are discussing the phenomena with sabhava that are formed up > (sankhata) and not formed up (asankhata). In other words, the phenomena > that can be directly known by wisdom (panna). It’s true that accordingly, > in an ultimate (paramattha) sense, concepts are nothing at all, illusions > conceived by the mind that are so often taken for being *real*. > ..... > > there > > are no concepts, and we waste our time talking about them. > ..... > Concepts (pannatti) are concepts only. It is not a waste of time using > them and talking about them as long as they are not taken for *realities*. > If there were an idea, however, that any wisdom will be gained merely by > talking about and ‘working out’ the concepts, it would be rather like the > analogy of moving the Titanic deck chairs thinking that this in itself > might prevent the ‘sinking’ in samsara. > ...... > >But concepts > > are > > mind objects, they are constructed, conditioned by multiple senses > > including > > mind, and not irreducible, but they are mind objects. If there is a > > third > > category of things that are neither conditioned nor unconditioned, it is > > a > > category that I have not heard of nor seen mentioned in any sutta. > ..... > The Buddha makes it clear that often he is using ‘wordly’ language. The > end of Nina’s translation of the commentary to the Savaka Sutta just > posted, refers to this. Concepts are not included in the 5 khandhas, the > ‘All’ to be directly known. > ..... > > >Sabbe sankhara anicca. Ideas, patterns, mind-constructed objects, as > well as > > all > > paramatthadhammas other than nibbana *do not remain*. > ..... > What are ‘sabbe sankhara’? As I understand, the 5 khandhas or namas and > rupas or any of the other classifications of paramattha dhammas. > ..... > I’ll be glad to look at any other references or comments. At this moment I > think we agree that there can be awareness of thinking (thinking which > thinks about concepts). Are you sure there can be awareness of the concept > itself? > > Let me finish with one quote from the Vism on sankhara (formations): > Vism XX11, 22 > > “...He brings to bear the faculties, the powers, and the enlightenment > factors, and he works over and turns up the same field of formations > (sankhara), classed as materiality, feeling, perception, formations, and > consciousness, with the knowledge that they are impermanent, painful, > not-self, and he embarks upon the progressive series of insights.â€? > > Thanks as usual for your points for consideration, Howard. > > 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) 13135 From: wynn Date: Tue May 7, 2002 3:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Iddhi Hi, > Is there any particular reason for your questions or > curiosity about iddhi? Just curious. I wanted to ask this for sometime already but did not. Recently, a friend ask how to develop supernatural powers. So, I thought of telling him how. But I am not sure whether one needs to have only the four jhanas or all the 8 jhanas. (He asked me jokingly, so I thought of giving him a reply - jokingly also, of coz) > Hope to hear from you more often, Wynn Thanks. Regards, Wynn 13136 From: wynn Date: Tue May 7, 2002 3:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Iddhi Hi, > From jhana section: "...The 4 absorptions of the immaterial sphere (s. above 5-8) still belong, properly speaking, to the 4th absorption as they possess the same two constituents. < Actually, it is still not clear for me. Here, if we take all the arupa jhanas (5-8) as belonging to the 4th jhana, then do we need the arupas jhana to perform supernormal powers? >The 4th fine-material absorption is also the base or starting point (pádaka-jhána, q.v.) for the attaining of the higher spiritual powers (abhiññá, q.v.).< But this statement is not supported by the Tipitaka nor the commentaries. I am curious whether the 4th Jhana (fine material absorption) is enough for one to be able to perform supernatural powers. I know that when performing supernatural powers, the arupa jhanas are not used at all. But Visudhimagga said one needs all 8 absorption to be able to do it. (though it is not used when performing psychic powers) Thanks, Wynn 13137 From: Date: Tue May 7, 2002 5:25pm Subject: ADL ch. 7 (2) http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 7 (2) When there is moha we live in darkness. It was the Buddha's great compassion which moved him to teach people Dhamma. Dhamma is the light which can dispel darkness. If we do not know Dhamma we are ignorant about the world, about ourselves; we are ignorant about good and ill deeds and their results; we are ignorant about the eradication of defilements. The study of the Abhidhamma will help us to know more about the characteristic of moha. The 'Atthasalini' (Book II, Part IX, Ch.1, 249) states about Moha: 'Delusion' (moha) has the characteristic of blindness or opposition to knowledge; the essence of non- penetration or the function of covering the intrinsic nature of the object; the manifestation of being opposed to right conduct or causing blindness; the proximate cause of unwise attention; and it should be regarded as the root of all akusala.... There are many degrees of moha. When we study Dhamma we become less ignorant about realities; we understand more about paramattha Dhammas, about kamma and vipaka. However, this does not mean that we can already eradicate moha. Moha cannot be eradicated merely by thinking about the truth; it can only be eradicated by developing the wisdom which knows 'the world in the ariyan sense' : eye-sense, visible object, seeing-consciousness, ear-sense, sound, hearing-consciousness, and all realities appearing through the six doors. When we study the Abhidhamma we learn that moha arises with all akusala cittas. Lobha-mula-cittas have moha and lobha as roots; dosa-mula-cittas have moha and dosa as roots. There are two types of akusala citta which have moha as their only root, these are moha-mula-cittas. One type of moha-mula-citta is moha-mula-citta accompanied by doubt (in Pali: vicikiccha), and one type is moha-mula-citta accompanied by restlessness (in Pali: uddhacca). The feeling which accompanies moha-mula-cittas is always indifferent feeling (upekkha). When the citta is moha-mula-citta there is no like or dislike; one does not have pleasant or unpleasant feeling. Both types of moha-mula-citta are asankharika (unprompted). The characteristic of moha should not be confused with the characteristic of ditthi (wrong view), which only arises with lobha-mula-citta. When ditthi arises one takes, for example, what is impermanent for permanent, or one clings to the concept of self. Moha is not wrong view, but it is ignorance of realities. Moha conditions ditthi, but the characteristic of moha is different from the characteristic of ditthi. The two types of moha-mula-citta are: 1. Arising with indifferent feeling, accompanied by doubt (Upekkha-sahagatam., vicikiccha- sampayuttam) 2. Arising with indifferent feeling, accompanied by restlessness (Upekkha-sahagatam, uddhacca- sampayuttam) When one has the type of moha-mula-citta which is accompanied by doubt, one doubts about the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. One doubts whether the Buddha really discovered the truth, whether he taught the Path leading to the end of defilements, whether there are other people who can become enlightened as well. One doubts about past and future lives, about kamma and vipaka. There are many degrees of doubt. When we start to develop insight we may have doubt about the reality of the present moment; we doubt whether it is nama or rupa. For example, when there is hearing, there is sound as well but there can be awareness of only one reality at a time, since only one object at a time can be experienced by a citta. We may doubt whether the reality which appears at the present moment is the nama which hears or the rupa which is sound. Nama and rupa arise and fall away so rapidly and when a precise understanding of their different characteristics has not been developed one does not know which reality appears at the present moment. There will be doubt about the world of paramattha dhammas until panna (wisdom) clearly knows the characteristics of nama and rupa as they appear through the six doors. The 'Atthasalini' (Book II, Part IX, Ch. III, 259) states about doubt: Here doubt means exclusion from the cure (of knowledge). Or, one investigating the intrinsic nature by means of it suffers pain and fatigue (kicchati)- - thus it is doubt. It has shifting about as characteristic, mental wavering as function, indecision or uncertainty in grasp as manifestation, unsystematic thought as proximate cause, and it should be regarded as a danger to attainment. Doubt is different from wrong view (ditthi). When there is ditthi one clings, for example, to the concept that phenomena are permanent or one takes them for self. When vicikiccha (doubt) arises, one wonders whether the mind is different from the body or not, whether phenomena are permanent or impermanent. There is no other way to eradicate doubt but by developing the panna (wisdom) which sees realities as they are. People who have doubts about the person and the teachings of the Buddha may think that doubt can be cured by studying historical events. They want to find out more details about the time the Buddha lived and about the places where he moved about; they want to know the exact time the texts were written down. They cannot be cured of their doubt by studying historical events; this does not lead to the goal of the Buddha's teachings which is the eradication of defilements. 13138 From: Date: Tue May 7, 2002 8:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 7 (2) ADL: "There is no other way to eradicate doubt but by developing the panna (wisdom) which sees realities as they are." Greetings dsg, At first I was a little put off by this, thinking I would have to 'see' every single reality before doubt was eradicated; but I reconsidered and decided that isn't necessarily the case. I thought perhaps moha is a little different from lobha and dosa. Seeing lobha and dosa for what they are, arising and subsiding in the moment, one can easily see they are not self, not me and not mine. But how do you see delusion arise? How can light observe darkness? If we color this nonawareness with doubt then it can easily be seen to arise and blossom as bewilderment and perplexity. This also is not self. It does seem a little more difficult to observe, maybe because of its dullness. Anyone else having trouble being clear about obscurity? Larry 13139 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue May 7, 2002 9:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long Hi Eric, Good to read you again. I always find your opinions useful, Eric, troubling... but useful :-) Just when I get settled, you seem to come along to unsettle me again, and cause me to re-consider the comfortable spot I've sorted out for myself. :) I guess I'm like Sukin in a way, even though I had a longer experience with formal meditation. I prefer study and mindfulness...(could this be 'accumulations'?), though the dangers of addiction to book knowledge have been pointed out to me recently by members of this list. And who can say what the future holds? Next time you come a- stirring, we could all be doing Jhana :) :) :) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rikpa21" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > You raise a very good point. I can see how it could be confusing to > hear that formal meditation, as explicitly taught by the Buddha in > more places than I can count in the Suttas, should be a cause for > controversy, IF one accepts the Triptika represents the Buddha's > teachings and one accepts that the Buddha's wisdom is non-mistaken. > > Just by way of personal (without misapprehending the term "person" > as a "self" :) anectdote, I have come to see from my own experiences- > -under the guidance of my highly trained and eminently qualified > teachers of both intensive study (25 years of study and memorization > for the Geshe, or Doctorate in Buddhist Philosophy degree, which > includes several years of Abhidharma study) and applied meditation-- > that the Buddha wasn't suggesting these things willy-nilly, that he > had very good reasons for recommending formal meditation practices, > techniques, and methods. > > From everything I've seen so far, I've come to conclude that he had > a very good reason for laying out a clear and extensive program that > not only initially gets us away from the distractions and into a > place conducive to the deeper states of awareness necessary to > penetrate the characteristics of dhammas directly, but that he also > recommends specific objects of investigation as most conducive to > this aim, and that these two components are best applied in tandem, > as laid out in places like the Maha-Satipatthana Sutta. > > In other words, I have come to accept, in the ehipassiko sense, that > his recommendations on how to proceed in training in and > establishing mindfulness and concentration to the degree necessary > to terminate the fetters wasn't arbitrary, but a program designed by > one who has already passed that way himself, and validated that in > his own experience, and then used that direct experience to instruct > those who wish to do the same. > > The Buddha always enjoined his discilpes to test the Dhamma out in > their own experience. In the the most general sense, the Buddha > outlined a three-step program involving dana (giving), sila > (morality), and bhavana (cultivation). An alternative formulation is > the cultivation of sila, samadhi, and panna, which fall under the > last category (and overlap with sila) as factors in the development > of the path (bhavana). > > If it is possible to honestly say that one's informal practice has > led to the reduction of akusala mental states, such as attachment, > aversion, and ignorance, then one is at least headed in the right > direction. That is nothing to sneeze at; it is an unmitigated good. > But if the aim is the release from all forms of grasping, > permanently, then I feel it necessary we stack the deck in our favor > as much as possible and engage in the formal practices outlined by > the Buddha--under the guidance of highly quaified teachers who have > passed that way themselves. > > Lacking this, it is possible we may get lucky, but the odds are poor > if we just look around at the actions of others in this world. And > it can't hurt to recall the Buddha's advice to Ananda: > that "admirable friends and companions" are not a small part of the > Holy Life, nor the half of the Holy Life, but the "whole of the Holy > Life", and that the primary and initial factor in developing the > path to fruition is association with admirable friends and > companions--those who've gone that way before, whose knowledge is > that informed by direct exprience of the Buddha's teachings, and not > on the fingers pointing at the moon. > > > I only have a vague knowledge of some list members involvment with > FM > > or Study, but wonder if there is anyone who has NEVER done FM in > the > > past, however long ago, and who obtains satisfying results from > > Dhamma study and mindfulness only? > > I would likewise be interesetd in making the acquaintance of those > who have realized the fruits of the Dhamma without the intense > persistence and great effort embodied in formal practice, who have > developed mindfulness, clear comprehension, and concentration to the > degree necessary to penetrate the characteristics of dhammas to > arrive at knowledge and vision of things as they are. Perhaps if Hui > Neng or some of the historical figures from the Sutas were around we > might be able to ask them. > > > (For instance, Sarah has told > > us of her FM practice years ago, and that she doesn't find it a > > necessary practice now.) Just an idle thought, - could it be that > > one can get to a 'sufficient' level that is accessible for > progress > > on the Path.... just like riding a bike, you never lose the > skill? > > In my experience, no way. You can very quickly lose the ability to > maintain mindfulness and clear comprehension without regular > supporting practice. > > > Have any of those who teach us to study the realities NEVER done > any > > formal meditation? > > It's possible. Personally, I'd be extremely wary of anyone setting > themselves up as teacher who has not done at least several intensive > meditation retreats and tasted the fruits of the Dhamma for > themselves. I would never find myself able to trust any > interpretation of the Dhamma not based on the teacher's direct > experience thereof, simply because the dhamma is, as the Buddha > said, "ehipassiko" (meaning to be investigated and known directly), > unless they follow the texts themselves strictly and are very open > about this being a mere repetition of the wording of the texts > themselves, with as little personal gloss as possible. > > Again, the formal practice of Dhamma (let me add formal practice > performed correctly) is entirely experiential and its fruits are > completely beyond words, concepts, and categories. So to me, > treatises like the Abhidhamma represent maps of that inner > experience. For example, the Abhidhamma would have been of very > little use to me had I not practiced formal meditation beforehand, > simply because I'd have had no idea what most of it was referring > to. In my case I've used the Abhidhamma as a wonderful tool to > unpack meditation experiences after the fact. Had I begun with the > Abhidhamma as my guide to meditation, though, I seriously doubt I'd > have made much, if any, progress. > > Just one person's opinion. I hope you find it useful. > > Cheers, > Erik 13140 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue May 7, 2002 9:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long Dear Sukin, Thank you for this post. I know very well how frustrating it can be trying to find 'what works' for us individually regarding Dhamma study and practice. Whatever you are doing is working for you and helping me :). The *way* you say things always makes sense to me. I mostly gain some insight from each of your posts - I just wish you would post more often:). My particularly difficulty has been that I study, ask questions, understand the clear explanations - and, then, a few weeks or a month later find myself asking the same questions - not remembering the previous exchange. Eventually it is understood and imprinted on memory - how wonderful it would be to 'know' something the first time - and much more time efficient. :) (I think Dan in his post, is giving me good points regarding studying books and studying realities. And Sarah, you also tried to, a couple of weeks back, and I'm 'almost' hearing you now. :)) Perhaps a test of whether meditation (or dhamma study as well) has *worked* for the individual is, as you say, whether the person has been changed for the better by it. metta, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Sukinder" wrote: > Dear Christine, > Judging from my experience with FM this lifetime I am inclined to > conclude that I have never done it in a previous lifetime. Never enjoyed > even one session, eventhough in a span of 5 months I went ahead > and attended two 10 day retreats with the idea that FM would lead > me out of confusion. On the other hand I am not much of a scholar > either, as you know I have a very short attention span and become > quite impatient with written words that I don't immediately comprehend. > However I have noted that there are times when I read a good post > or some sutta reference and while I'm doing that there is much calm > and clarity of mind. Also sati arises when in normal everyday activity, > I am reminded of some aspect of the teaching relevant to the particular > situation. > > In my opinion ( I await and expect to be corrected, since its not well > thought out ) the relevance of theoretical study is when it is understood > not as applying to anybody else, but to oneself, better still when the > theory is applied to the present situation. Otherwise if it is done with > the idea of accumulating, then like Anders has pointed out, it would > be a fetter and must be seen for what it is. Once seen for what it is, > it is automatically discarded, no one to do the discarding. But "RightView" > I believe has a positive and beneficial influence of its own, even when it > is still just theory. Why? because it at least replaces "Wrong theoretical > View" and there is always a chance that with the right guidance it can > be applied to the present moment. Also for a long time I have been with > the opinion that people who meditate and who show some degree of wisdom, > probably do a lot of study as well. And their particular insights may not > be connected to their practice as they think it does, but perhaps to the > study they have done. There are as you know, like hens sitting on their > eggs, people who have meditated for years and years with the very same > competent teachers the former claim to have, who may have acquired the > habit and ability to supress their coarse kilesas, but who once you start > to talk to them, you can see that they lack real panna. > Waiting to be corrected and criticized, or ignored :-) > Best wishes, > Sukin. > 13141 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue May 7, 2002 9:50pm Subject: Re: Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long Dear Dan, Yours is such a *simple* post - but so hard to do. I could be facetious here and ask for the "how" method, but I've unsuccessfully been down that road before, never seem to get a "do this" then "do that" answer..... so my current way of studying realities is mindfulness, bare awareness ..... I wish I had never learned 'labelling', so hard to stop .....but one step up from my usual way of operating on 'automatic pilot'. Glad you're back with us Dan, hope you stay quite a while metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" wrote: > Dear Christine, > Study realities, study Dhamma. Do it now. No need for books right > now. No need for a cushion right now. Plenty of dhammas are arising > and passing away. No need to wait for special physical conditions > before studying them. > > If you can continue your studies even while tuned into FM, wonderful! > Not such an easy thing to do, though. Trying to force the attention > to a particular object that you happen to think is a particularly > good object for concentration may make it difficult to really study > dhammas, to study Dhamma. > > If you can continue your studies even while reading a book, > wonderful! Not such an easy thing to do, though. Trying to force > understanding by simply reading and thinking about and memorizing > someone else's words without studying them each moment as they arise > and pass away may make it difficult to really study dhammas, to study > Dhamma. > > Dan 13142 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Tue May 7, 2002 10:36pm Subject: Re: Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long --- Dear Christine, I liked Dan's reply too (saved it in my file). When there is noting there are also dhammas occuring (thinking about dhammas in this case) and so there can be awareness of that. I think nothing to supress or change as the object is the present. Gradually old habits may fall away (or not) as they are seen. If only Dhamma could be reduced to a 'do this ,then that," practice, it would be great; it would be straighforward and we would have left samsara an infinity ago. best wishes robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > > Dear Dan, > > Yours is such a *simple* post - but so hard to do. I could be > facetious here and ask for the "how" method, but I've unsuccessfully > been down that road before, never seem to get a "do this" then "do > that" answer..... so my current way of studying realities is > mindfulness, bare awareness ..... I wish I had never > learned 'labelling', so hard to stop .....but one step up from my > usual way of operating on 'automatic pilot'. > Glad you're back with us Dan, hope you stay quite a while > metta, > Christine > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" wrote: > > Dear Christine, > > Study realities, study Dhamma. Do it now. No need for books right > > now. No need for a cushion right now. Plenty of dhammas are arising > > and passing away. No need to wait for special physical conditions > > before studying them. > > > > If you can continue your studies even while tuned into FM, > wonderful! > > Not such an easy thing to do, though. Trying to force the attention > > to a particular object that you happen to think is a particularly > > good object for concentration may make it difficult to really study > > dhammas, to study Dhamma. > > > > If you can continue your studies even while reading a book, > > wonderful! Not such an easy thing to do, though. Trying to force > > understanding by simply reading and thinking about and memorizing > > someone else's words without studying them each moment as they > arise > > and pass away may make it difficult to really study dhammas, to > study > > Dhamma. > > > > Dan 13143 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue May 7, 2002 11:16pm Subject: Re: Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long Dear Robert, When I ask for 'method' or 'steps' it is exactly what you have told me in your post that I was after.... Perhaps, I should have asked for 'hints' or 'pointers'? :-) This may seem too simple to many list members, but it is extremely helpful to me. Many thanks. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: > --- > Dear Christine, > I liked Dan's reply too (saved it in my file). When there is noting > there are also dhammas occuring (thinking about dhammas in this case) > and so there can be awareness of that. I think nothing to supress or > change as the object is the present. Gradually old habits may fall > away (or not) as they are seen. > If only Dhamma could be reduced to a 'do this ,then that," practice, > it would be great; it would be straighforward and we would have left > samsara an infinity ago. > best wishes > robert > > > In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > > > > Dear Dan, > > > > Yours is such a *simple* post - but so hard to do. I could be > > facetious here and ask for the "how" method, but I've > unsuccessfully > > been down that road before, never seem to get a "do this" then "do > > that" answer..... so my current way of studying realities is > > mindfulness, bare awareness ..... I wish I had never > > learned 'labelling', so hard to stop .....but one step up from my > > usual way of operating on 'automatic pilot'. > > Glad you're back with us Dan, hope you stay quite a while > > metta, > > Christine > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" wrote: 13144 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 8, 2002 0:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] A question on enlightenment Dear Howard (& Christine), Your points below are difficult to answer (hence the delay). S:> > Yes. It's called wrong view which always thinks wrong is right. The > > Tipitaka is full of references. > > ..... > > C:> > >and, if so, how would > > > they ever know? > > ..... S:> > Only panna (wisdom) can know, which is why it is so essential. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > This is certainly true. However, how does one KNOW that what one > sees > to be the case is a matter of wisdom or of error? As I see it, there is > no > completely certain independent guarantee on this. ..... I’d like to suggest that the only ‘certain independent guarantee’ is the development of panna. At moments of panna, there is no doubt about what is real, what is true and what isn’t. As it develops, right from the start, it is in conformity with what we read in the texts. There is no self ‘doing’ anything or restricting time and place or having any idea of control. Panna begins to understand what are the phenomena to be known (i.e the 5khandhas) and how these are conditioned at this moment. Of course, there is bound to be lots of ignorance and wrong view interspersed for a long while yet, but gradually as panna develops, there are fewer conditions for doubt about what the Buddha taught. This may not be a very satisfactory answer, I know (hence the delay and hesitation in replying). ..... H:>I would suppose that > one > could use certain yardsticks (metre rods?) such as seeing that one has > become > calmer, more loving, less compulsive, less grasping, less aversive etc, > etc. > For stream entry and the more advanced stages, the Buddha laid out > certain > behavioral and personality criteria. All of these, I think, provided, of > > course, that one has confidence in the Buddha, could be used as > indicators > that one is moving in the right direction, but I doubt that one can know > > incontestably. ..... S:As Larry, helpfully pointed out recently (discussion on dosa), the aim as I see it, is not ‘a course in self-improvement’ but a development of wisdom which understands the anatta nature of all conditioned phenomena when they appear without preference or selection. As you say, various defilements are eradicated at various stages of enlightenment, but until then, the deep-rooted anusaya (latent tendencies) can lay dormant for a long time if there are no opportunities or conditions for them to manifest. Who knows what defilements will show if there are really difficult tests to face? In other words, it may seem that one has ‘become calmer, more loving....’ and so on, but this may be the same for those of other religions who perhaps are maturing or living more comfortably, for example. There may also be a lot of attachment to being ‘calmer, more loving....’ and appearing so as well. Again, I would suggest that the only real yardstick --yes I’m still using feet and yards-- of wisdom vs error is the panna (right view or understanding) which knows directly the lakkana (characteristics) of reality at this moment. Sarah p.s I'm trying to recall a couple of relevant suttas and would be glad for any assistance. One is about an arahant that people objected to because of the way he walked and some other habits. Another was about two family members (sisters?) who were very alike and when they died, no one saw any difference, but in fact one was enlightened. Sorry, I can't do better and even these details may be wrong;-)..maybe in AN ---------------------------------------------------- 13145 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed May 8, 2002 0:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rikpa21" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > > > As you say Eric, this topic has been discussed (or at least > alluded > > to) many times on this and other lists. Hi Christine, > > You raise a very good point. I can see how it could be confusing to > hear that formal meditation, as explicitly taught by the Buddha in > more places than I can count in the Suttas, should be a cause for > controversy, IF one accepts the Triptika represents the Buddha's > teachings and one accepts that the Buddha's wisdom is non-mistaken. > Hello Erik, We have seen it explained several times on this list that, according to the Tipitaka, the Dhamma can be followed in any of four ways. One of these, the way of bare vipassana, involves no jhana meditation at all. Another, as I understand it, also has vipassana developed by itself, after which there is the cultivation of jhana. Do you recognise these two of the four ways? Apart from jhana meditation, are any formal practices described in the Theravadin texts? (There are some lines in the Satipatthana suttas which, when read in isolation, seem to require mindfulness of activities and postures; are there any others?) Kind regards Ken H 13146 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 8, 2002 1:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] bones Dear Nina, --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: >I was so touched by your example of taking up a bone > of > Alan Driver at his cremation, after Kh. Sujin requested you to do this. > You > realized: no more Alan, only hardness appeared. It is just like in the > suttas. Those who had accumulated pa~n~naa could attain enlightenment, > realizing the hardness as only a dhamma, impermanent, dukkha and anatta, > one > of these characteristics at a time. Such an example makes the difference > between concept and reality so clear. When we read about it, it is > different > from experiencing it in a situation where we are confronted with the > death > of a dear person. Such a poignant reminder. ..... Thank you for your additional comments too.The next day I was given the ashes in an urn to look after on the boat ride. A stream of flower petals were thrown into the river and after quite a long while, I was told to throw the urn in as well. I remember continuing to clutch it ‘for dear life’ and had great resistance to ‘letting go’. There was still some clinging to ‘a part’ of ‘Alan’. I’m reminded of the Mulapariyaya Sutta and the elaboration of wrong views and attachments based on earth (pathavi). In the commentary (B.Bodhi p.46) we read about the reason why “he delights in earth”(pathavim abhinandati): “Having thus shown the (worldling’s) conceiving and delight based upon earth, with these words the Master reveals the reason why he conceives and delights in earth. This is the meaning: If it is asked, “For what reason does the worldling conceive earth? Why does he conceive and delight in earth?” the answer is: “Because it has not been fully understood by him”, i.e. because he has not fully understood the base, therefore (he does so). He who fully understands the earth understands it by the three types of full understanding: the full understanding of the known (~naata.pari~n~naa), the full understanding of scrutinization (tiira.napari~n~naa), and the full understanding of abandoning (pahaanapari~n~naa).” ***** >A moment of realizing dhamma > as > dhamma and then sadness again, different moments. It is so natural. Now > it > also becomes clearer why we read in the Satipatthana Sutta about > corpses, > parts of the body, breathing. They are all reminders of daily life, > making > it clear that there are only dhammas each with their own characteristic. > If > there would not be colour or visible object, could we know that here is > Alan's bone? If tangible object does not appear, do we know that we > touch a > bone? Different moments of paramattha dhammas appearing, and they do > appear, > and our thoughts on account of them, with lobha, dosa, moha, or with > pa~n~naa. As Kom said, in theory we may understand the difference > between > paramattha dhamma and concept, but, how in practice, how about this > moment? ..... Yes, these are good reminders and we never know where our daily life may take us or what dhammas will appear to be known. I remember arriving at the funeral in tears and leaving with a big smile after so many helpful reminders. Indeed it was a very special occasion for me because of this. I have just a little glimmer of appreciation of what a momentous occasion it must have been for the monk who listened to the Buddha with Sirima’s corpse laid out. ..... The commentary to the Mulapariya Sutta continues: “Therein, what is the full understanding of the known? He fully understands the earth element thus: “This is the internal earth element, this the external. This is its characteristic, this its function, manifestation, and proximate cause.” this is full understanding of the known. What is the full understanding by scrutinization? Having known it in this way, he scrutinizes the earth element in forty-two modes as impermanent, suffering, a sickness, etc. this is full undestanding by scrutinization. What is the full understanding by abandoning/ Having scrutinized it in this way, he abandons desire and lust for the earth element through the supreme path (aggamagga). This is full understanding by abandoning. Or , alternatively, the defining of mentality-materiality (naamaruupavavatthaana) is the full understanding of the known; from insight-comprehension of the groups (kalaapasammasana) as far as conformity knowledge (anuloma) is the full understanding by scrutinization; and the knowledge of the ariyan path is the full understanding by abandoning.” ***** Best wishes, Sarah ==================================================== 13147 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 8, 2002 1:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Iddhi Dear Wynn & All, --- wynn wrote: > Hi, > > > Is there any particular reason for your questions or > > curiosity about iddhi? > > Just curious. I wanted to ask this for sometime already but did not. > Recently, a friend ask how to develop supernatural powers. So, I thought > of > telling him how. But I am not sure whether one needs to have only the > four > jhanas or all the 8 jhanas. > (He asked me jokingly, so I thought of giving him a reply - jokingly > also, > of coz) ..... Thanks for adding this explanation. Many people may wonder what the point of discussing these details are, Surely they are the other ‘treasures’ Anders referred to and an example of irrelevant book study? Although they have no relevance to the realities of ‘my’ daily life, I learn that everyone has different interests and accumulations. Furthermore, for some people, like your friend perhaps, without hearing and considering a lot of detail, they may think it is a straightforward matter to develop the jhanas and supernatural powers and that it’s just a matter of being steered in the right direction. For these people, they may need to hear a lot of detail before there is any comprehension of the extraordinary development of wholesome states that is required at even the stages of samatha prior to the 1st jhana. Furthermore, there may not be any knowledge of what is tuly wholesome at this moment or how a particular object such as a kasina can lead to calm. They may have an idea that it’s simply a matter of concentration on a given object. It may, therefore, be a kindness to point to the details in the texts that indicate this is not so. I realize from your comments that your friend and you are joking and earlier you stressed that you weren’t concerned with these points as being necessary to enlightenment. I’m not sure that I’m able to add more details for your second post as you’ve obviously researched this area more carefully than I have. In other words, it may be beyond 'my limits'. Kom or someone else would probably do better with the more ‘technical’ points ;-) Let us know in the meantime, if your friend has any success in walking through doors and keyholes or flying across mountains;-)) I’ll be glad to hear any of your further comments too. Sarah ===== 13148 From: wynn Date: Wed May 8, 2002 2:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Iddhi Hi Sarah and all, > For these people, they may need to hear a lot of detail before there is > any comprehension of the extraordinary development of wholesome states > that is required at even the stages of samatha prior to the 1st jhana. I would just want to add that some people want to satisfy their curiosity before they are willing to move on. I would not label them as stubborn because there is nothing wrong being curious. But then....there are things which we aill never know until we are enlightened. Thanks, Wynn 13149 From: onco111 Date: Wed May 8, 2002 2:53am Subject: Re: Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long Dear Christine, So, you want an instruction manual. It would make things easier, I suppose. Then again, I can't imagine what one would look like because Dhamma is not a path of "do this, do that -- the act of doing these prescribed things will lead to understanding." (Would it be clearer to state that it is not a path of "do this [ritual], do that [ritual] -- the act of doing these prescribed [rituals] will lead to understanding"?) Reading the suttas with this understanding, it becomes clear that the Buddha did not prescribe practices for attaining wisdom. Even the vaunted "instruction manual" Satipatthana sutta reads like a series of descriptions of what sorts of things monks are doing [all sorts of things!] when satipatthana arises: "There is the case where a monk..." sits crosslegged under a tree, spine erect, etc. In 1989 I went to Thailand for my second intensive meditation retreat. After four weeks of rising at 4:00 a.m. and doing everything at a snail's pace (when not sitting on my butt!) until 10:00 at night, I was very happy about the progress and "insights" I had developed. To preserve the gains afterward, I maintained a daily practice of sitting and walking ritual (er, "meditation") religiously for 1-1.5 hours per day. "Oh, this is not enough!" I thought. I had so much faith in the efficacy of the ritual that I wanted to maintain "unbroken awareness" all day long. At that time I was working on an agricultural development project in Guatemala, and I needed to do some work in the fields. I found it difficult to maintain constant awareness, so I carried a little travel alarm clock in my pocket and set the alarm to go off when I started work... "Beep, beep, beep." "Oh, time to establish sati." Push the snooze button. Five minutes later: "Beep, beep, beep." "Oh, yeah, time to establish sati again." "Beep, beep, beep"... And on through the day. Sheer madness! I so craved the peaceful feelings and special experiences of the intensive meditation that I did everything I could to cling to them continously under the guise of "practicing Vipassana in everyday life." Understanding does not arise from ritual or from a recipe book. You cannot force it to arise. Even now there arises craving for a way to say, "Here's what to do..." But the attempts to say such a thing never get off the ground, and the thoughts turn to description of the arising and passing away of dhammas -- there's no other way. I think if you read the suttas with this in mind, you will see that this is also the Buddha's approach to teaching, viz. description rather than prescription. Ritual can be so comforting... It takes great confidence in the Buddha and his Dhamma to abandon clinging to ritual. We must understand his descriptions of reality and the arising and experience of panya and witness them in everyday life. How? There is no "how." Once we define a "how," there is a "who" that does the "how." And born is a superstition about how the who induces a "what" to arise via a how, when really there are just empty phenomena rolling on. Dan > Dear Robert, > > When I ask for 'method' or 'steps' it is exactly what you have told > me in your post that I was after.... Perhaps, I should have asked > for 'hints' or 'pointers'? :-) > This may seem too simple to many list members, but it is extremely > helpful to me. > Many thanks. > > metta, > Christine 13150 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 8, 2002 3:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Iddhi Dear Wynn, --- wynn wrote: > I would just want to add that some people want to satisfy their > curiosity > before they are willing to move on. I would not label them as stubborn > because there is nothing wrong being curious. ..... I agree with this. We are all curious about many different subjects and like you, I'm curious about many aspects and parts of the Tipitaka that I don't expect to ever be more than a topic of curiosity. Thanks to you, I've now become even more curious about supernatural states;-)) At the same time, while it's natural to be curious, it can cause difficulties if, like the sutta about the arrow, we're determined 'to work out' all the intricacies first or can't 'move on' without them. ..... >But then....there are > things > which we aill never know until we are enlightened. > ..... Now I think we all agree;-) I hope your other questions get answered too. Sarah ==== 13151 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed May 8, 2002 4:07am Subject: Re: Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long Dear Dan, Your post, Dan - it was a little like unsweetened yoghurt at first, I knew it was good for me but the taste was a little sharp :-) . It has never occurred to me before that 'wanting a method' is a form of being attached to a 'ritual'. Strong words - craving, clinging, ritual, superstition..... they certainly concentrated my attention":). And I can see the point you are making. The feeling I have when asking for a method is really a searching for security and routine, a repeatable process. And when I look at what I used to do when meditating - the special times, the particular groups of people, the structure of the sessions, the clothes, the cushions, the postures, the statues, the candles, the times of silence, the bells....I guess that could be called a ritual. I appreciate your telling the stories of your experiences in Thailand and Guatemala - they illustrate quite clearly what you are saying about craving and clinging to peaceful feelings and the need for progress, and the lengths we go to satisfy these needs. I find your last two paragraphs most valuable of all. Thank you for sharing them. In particular, for me, I know when I read the last paragraph that the old hurdles of anatta and no-control are back staring me in the face again...... "How? There is no "how." Once we define a "how," there is a "who" that does the "how." And born is a superstition about how the who induces a "what" to arise via a how, when really there are just empty phenomena rolling on." metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" wrote: > Dear Christine, > So, you want an instruction manual. It would make things easier, I > suppose. Then again, I can't imagine what one would look like because > Dhamma is not a path of "do this, do that -- the act of doing these > prescribed things will lead to understanding." (Would it be clearer > to state that it is not a path of "do this [ritual], do that > [ritual] -- the act of doing these prescribed [rituals] will lead to > understanding"?) Reading the suttas with this understanding, it > becomes clear that the Buddha did not prescribe practices for > attaining wisdom. Even the vaunted "instruction manual" Satipatthana > sutta reads like a series of descriptions of what sorts of things > monks are doing [all sorts of things!] when satipatthana > arises: "There is the case where a monk..." sits crosslegged under a > tree, spine erect, etc. > > In 1989 I went to Thailand for my second intensive meditation > retreat. After four weeks of rising at 4:00 a.m. and doing everything > at a snail's pace (when not sitting on my butt!) until 10:00 at > night, I was very happy about the progress and "insights" I had > developed. To preserve the gains afterward, I maintained a daily > practice of sitting and walking ritual (er, "meditation") religiously > for 1-1.5 hours per day. "Oh, this is not enough!" I thought. I had > so much faith in the efficacy of the ritual that I wanted to > maintain "unbroken awareness" all day long. At that time I was > working on an agricultural development project in Guatemala, and I > needed to do some work in the fields. I found it difficult to > maintain constant awareness, so I carried a little travel alarm clock > in my pocket and set the alarm to go off when I started work... > > "Beep, beep, beep." > "Oh, time to establish sati." Push the snooze button. Five minutes > later: > > "Beep, beep, beep." > "Oh, yeah, time to establish sati again." > > "Beep, beep, beep"... > > And on through the day. Sheer madness! I so craved the peaceful > feelings and special experiences of the intensive meditation that I > did everything I could to cling to them continously under the guise > of "practicing Vipassana in everyday life." > > Understanding does not arise from ritual or from a recipe book. You > cannot force it to arise. > > Even now there arises craving for a way to say, "Here's what to > do..." But the attempts to say such a thing never get off the ground, > and the thoughts turn to description of the arising and passing away > of dhammas -- there's no other way. I think if you read the suttas > with this in mind, you will see that this is also the Buddha's > approach to teaching, viz. description rather than prescription. > Ritual can be so comforting... It takes great confidence in the > Buddha and his Dhamma to abandon clinging to ritual. We must > understand his descriptions of reality and the arising and experience > of panya and witness them in everyday life. > > How? There is no "how." Once we define a "how," there is a "who" that > does the "how." And born is a superstition about how the who induces > a "what" to arise via a how, when really there are just empty > phenomena rolling on. > > Dan > > > > Dear Robert, > > > > When I ask for 'method' or 'steps' it is exactly what you have told > > me in your post that I was after.... Perhaps, I should have asked > > for 'hints' or 'pointers'? :-) > > This may seem too simple to many list members, but it is extremely > > helpful to me. > > Many thanks. > > > > metta, > > Christine 13152 From: Sukinder Date: Wed May 8, 2002 7:55pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long Dear Christine, Next time you think of praising my posts know that there is an infinity of mana accumulated, very hard for panna to arise in between, very little of this has been conditioned... Just kidding;-). Thanks for your post. I liked Dan's post too, I've always enjoyed his posts, not only appreciate his deep understanding but also like his style of expression. Yes every moment is an expression of a dhamma that can be known or ignored, but even that can be known. If one overlooks this moment with the aim of developing understanding in a different place or time, whether one thinks that one has to read more or suppress the hinderances first then I think what is going on is that one is accumulating ignorance, ie., the habit of ignoring the present moment. Taking advantage of your invitation to post more allow me to ramble a bit: K. Sujin has often reminded us not to "overreach", meaning to understand what one is able to, capable of. If in a particular situation one is able only to understand that there is a seeing or a hearing or a thinking or that this is just a kind of "nama", it is good enough. Lobha may condition a moving toward trying to analyze the nama into its different components and then one might try to label the experience in many words, but this is being stuck with words, surely a fetter. It would be very beneficial if one could for instance distinguish between lobha with ditthi and lobha without ditthi, it would in my opinion help to lessen wrong view and increase an appreciation of anatta, but if one does not recognize it instantaneously, I think it just means that sati is not sharp enough, so just let it go. Can we improve the conditions for sati to arise by embarking on a programme of FM? I think that for sati to arise at the level of being able to identify dhammas, there must be panna too. If at the outset one start with the wrong foot, ie. wrong view about what is going on, one will never reach the goal of 'right view'. There are many levels of panna, intellectual right understanding is a level of panna, and if this is all we have, its good enough. And it must be that way. We can't blindly believe and follow can we? Believing ones own line of reasoning is the same as believing another persons line of reasoning and both these have been advised against in the Kalama Sutta. But after developing faith in the Buddha's teachings from realizing the practical application of some of it, I think we can say that it is better to consult Him before deciding to do anything or thinking that we have correct judgement, no?! Hence one reason for studying. But a more important reason I think is that we are so heavily conditioned by all the akusala that we have performed, that we need to be reminded again and again, the power of sati and panna still being very weak. But all this is very conventional talk, it can condition more thinking 'about'. Better be reminded about Dan's post to study dhammas now, this is the best way to study Dhamma. So I think what you are doing is very good, better than me at least, I don't have the capability and energy- meaning accumulated parami, to do as you do, reading, questioning and being so open-minded. Which means that you don't need this letter, but I need feedback from you. Best wishes, Sukin. -----Original Message----- From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 9:48 PM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long Dear Sukin, Thank you for this post. I know very well how frustrating it can be trying to find 'what works' for us individually regarding Dhamma study and practice. Whatever you are doing is working for you and helping me :). The *way* you say things always makes sense to me. I mostly gain some insight from each of your posts - I just wish you would post more often:). My particularly difficulty has been that I study, ask questions, understand the clear explanations - and, then, a few weeks or a month later find myself asking the same questions - not remembering the previous exchange. Eventually it is understood and imprinted on memory - how wonderful it would be to 'know' something the first time - and much more time efficient. :) (I think Dan in his post, is giving me good points regarding studying books and studying realities. And Sarah, you also tried to, a couple of weeks back, and I'm 'almost' hearing you now. :)) Perhaps a test of whether meditation (or dhamma study as well) has *worked* for the individual is, as you say, whether the person has been changed for the better by it. metta, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Sukinder" wrote: > Dear Christine, > Judging from my experience with FM this lifetime I am inclined to > conclude that I have never done it in a previous lifetime. Never enjoyed > even one session, eventhough in a span of 5 months I went ahead > and attended two 10 day retreats with the idea that FM would lead > me out of confusion. On the other hand I am not much of a scholar > either, as you know I have a very short attention span and become > quite impatient with written words that I don't immediately comprehend. > However I have noted that there are times when I read a good post > or some sutta reference and while I'm doing that there is much calm > and clarity of mind. Also sati arises when in normal everyday activity, > I am reminded of some aspect of the teaching relevant to the particular > situation. > > In my opinion ( I await and expect to be corrected, since its not well > thought out ) the relevance of theoretical study is when it is understood > not as applying to anybody else, but to oneself, better still when the > theory is applied to the present situation. Otherwise if it is done with > the idea of accumulating, then like Anders has pointed out, it would > be a fetter and must be seen for what it is. Once seen for what it is, > it is automatically discarded, no one to do the discarding. But "RightView" > I believe has a positive and beneficial influence of its own, even when it > is still just theory. Why? because it at least replaces "Wrong theoretical > View" and there is always a chance that with the right guidance it can > be applied to the present moment. Also for a long time I have been with > the opinion that people who meditate and who show some degree of wisdom, > probably do a lot of study as well. And their particular insights may not > be connected to their practice as they think it does, but perhaps to the > study they have done. There are as you know, like hens sitting on their > eggs, people who have meditated for years and years with the very same > competent teachers the former claim to have, who may have acquired the > habit and ability to supress their coarse kilesas, but who once you start > to talk to them, you can see that they lack real panna. > Waiting to be corrected and criticized, or ignored :-) > Best wishes, > Sukin. > 13153 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Wed May 8, 2002 6:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimate realities --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., TGrand458@a... wrote: > Hi Robert > > Conditioning states are the conditions for conditioned states. Once a state > is conditioned, it becomes the conditioning state for ensuing conditioned > states. This dynamic cycle continues to propagate due to the interacting > qualities of the Four Great Elements (as I understand it.) In other words, > the conditions for paramattha dhammas are conditioning paramattha dhammas. > But I think what your question is trying to ask is what is the original > condition?, i.e., what is the origin of the universe? I'm not even working > on that problem at this time. LOL > ===================== Dear TG, What I was hinting at is that the fundamental elements (paramattha dhammas) are indeed not only conditioned but also conditioning states - (as you say). Impermanence, at least at one level, is an obvious feature of anything. We know seasons change and mountains erode, everyone dies. Everyone senses how feelings change. It is valuable and confirming of the truth to reflect on these matters. On the other hand, deep insights into anicca, conditionality and anatta only happen during advanced stages of vipassana. During those moments the actual characteristics of different dhammas are seen clearly. But before that there must be much study of the characteristics of dhammas - and it is not so clear in the beginning. The theorectical understanding and consideration of anatta and paticcasamuppada helps to remove wrong view and wrong practice at a certain level but if there is no insighting of actual paramattha dhammas(fundamental elements) then whatever we are doing, right or wrong, is still at the level of thinking. That is why the texts are at great pains to explain what is paramattha and what is pannati (concept). It is not especially exciting to repeatedly study (directly) the different dhammas that are appearing, but I believe this is the right way. I think that studying the different dhammas - along with wise reflection about anatta etc - does confirm the truth of them. But doubts aren't fully eradicated until enlightenment. BTW the 4 great elements are conditioning factors but there are many more including those dhammas that are claasified as nama (mentality). THe Dhammapada pradipaya (see p457 of carter) says "to consider the coming into being of rupa on account of ignorance, craving, kamma and nutrition, and also to see the mere characteristics of its instantaneous coming into being, without looking for causative aspect; thus one should consider the rise of rupa in five ways. Likewise to consider the rise of the other 4 khandas in the same way...Thus the rise of the pancakkhanda (five aggregates )is seen in 25 ways. To see that the rise of the khandas is stopped by abolishing the causes:ignorance, craving, kamma and nutrition..in this way the cessation of the agregates should be seen" end quote best wishes robert 13154 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed May 8, 2002 7:44am Subject: RE: [dsg] Iddhi Dear Wynn & Sarah: I am snipping a passage from: http://www.dhammastudy.com/paramat7.html I echo Sarah's request that as soon as you can walk through doors, or from one becomes many, do let us know immediately! kom The citta able to develop samatha-bhavana until it is so peaceful from all akusala-dhamma as to attain arupa-jhana is a powerful citta, with the potential to be trained to achieve specific purposes such as to recall former lives, to will clairvoyance to be able to see things in the distance or hidden, to will extrasensory hearing of sounds near and far, to perform miracles such as to walk on water, to travel underground, to fly through the air, to make things materialize etc. But those who are able to develop each specific supernatural qualities must be superbly proficient in all the kasina and the 8 samapatti (the 4 rupa-jhana according to the catuttha-naya and the 4 arupa-jhana) and must train the citta in the following 14 manners (Visuddhimagga Samadhiniddesa Itthividdhaniddesa): 1. kasinanulomato achieving jhana in the right order of kasina; 2. kasinapatilomato achieving jhana in the reverse order of kasina; 3. kasinanulomapatilomato achieving jhana in the right then the reverse order of kasina; 4. jhananulomato achieving jhana in respective order, from the pathama-jhana to the nevasannanasannayatana-jhana; 5. jhanapatilomato achieving jhana in the reverse order of jhana from the nevasannanasannayatana-jhana to the pathama-jhana; 6. jhananulomapatilomato achieving jhana in the right then the reverse order of jhana; 7. jhananukkantakato achieving jhana by skipping levels of jhana but not those of kasina; 8. kasinukkantakato achieving jhana by skipping levels of kasina but not those of jhana; 9. jhanakasinukkantakato achieving jhana by skipping levels of jhana and those of kasina; 10. ankhasankantito achieving jhana transcending the principal elements of jhana; 11. arammanasankantito achieving jhana transcending arammana; 12. ankharammanasankantito achieving jhana transcending both principal elements of jhana and arammana; 13. ankhavavatthapanato achieving jhana by designating the principal elements of jhana; 14. arammanavavatthapanato achieving jhana by designating the arammana of the specific jhana. Any action or conduct that resembles supernatural qualities is not real when the causes do not qualify for the result. A passage in the Visuddhimagga says that it is not possible for the beginner of samatha-bhavana practice, who has not yet trained the citta in these 14 manners, to accomplish these supernatural powers. Of those who practice parikamma-kasina or begin to practice samatha-bhavana, only one in a hundred or a thousand would be able to succeed. Of those who achieved samatha-bhavana or parikamma-kasina, only one in a hundred or a thousand would be able to achieve uggaha-nimitta. And of those who had achieved uggaha-nimitta, only one in a hundred or a thousand would be able to maintain the nimitta and support the citta to be increasingly steadfast until the patibhaga-nimitta arises and the attainment of appana-samadhi. Of those who attained the 8 samapatti, only one in a hundred or a thousand would be able to train the citta in these 14 manners. Of those who train the citta in these 14 manners only one in a hundred or a thousand would be able to perform miracles and of those who can perform miracles only one in a hundred or a thousand would be able to do so instantaneously. > -----Original Message----- > From: Sarah [mailto:sarahdhhk@y...] > > Recently, a friend ask how to develop > supernatural powers. So, I thought > > of > > telling him how. But I am not sure whether one > needs to have only the > > four > > jhanas or all the 8 jhanas. > > (He asked me jokingly, so I thought of giving > him a reply - jokingly > > also, > > of coz) 13155 From: wynn Date: Wed May 8, 2002 8:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Iddhi Hi Kom, That is what I understand by reading the Visuddhimagga. So, your conclusion is that we need all the jhanas (rupa and arupa) right? Thanks, Wynn 13156 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed May 8, 2002 8:39am Subject: RE: [dsg] Iddhi Yes, both rupa and arupa are my readings as well. The confusing part is the 4th rupa jhana (5th, if counting in the 5 ways), is the foundation of iddhi, i.e., it must be accessed before "making a wish", but all the 8 jhanas must be achieved (and incredibly skilled) before the access for the specific purpose is possible. kom > -----Original Message----- > From: wynn [mailto:wewynal@t...] > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 8:32 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] Iddhi > > > Hi Kom, > > That is what I understand by reading the Visuddhimagga. > So, your conclusion is that we need all the > jhanas (rupa and arupa) right? > > Thanks, > Wynn 13157 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 8, 2002 2:44pm Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Rob E --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > The Satipatthana Sutta itself gives a detailed explanation of the things that > > comprise > > dhammanupassana. It says (quoting from the translation in 'The Way of > > Mindfulness', > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html): > > > > "And how, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental objects in mental > > objects? > > > > "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the mental objects in the > > mental objects > > of the five hindrances, … of the five aggregates of clinging, … of the six > > internal and > > the six external sense-bases, … of the seven factors of enlightenment, … of the > > Four > > Noble Truths." > > > > According to my reading of the texts, these sets are all references to > > paramattha > > dhammas, not concepts. > > > > The commentary to the sutta (same translation) relates each of the 4 foundations > > of > > mindfulness to corresponding dhammas comprising the 5 aggregates (khandhas): > > > > "Further, … in the contemplation on the body, the laying hold of the aggregate > > of > > corporeality or materiality [J: rupa-khandha] was spoken of by the Master; > > "in the contemplation on feeling, the laying hold of the aggregate of feeling > > [J: > > vedana-khandha]; > > "in the contemplation on mind, the laying hold of the aggregate of consciousness > > [J: > > vinnana-khandha]; > > "and now [i.e. in the contemplation on mental objects] … the laying hold of the > > aggregates of perception and formations [J: sanna-khandha, sankhara-khandha], > > Can someone explain to me, please, how 'corporeality', 'materiality', 'feeling', > etc., are not concepts? I can understand that a particular experience of > corporeality, such as hardness or smoothness, would be a primary reality, and that > a particular feeling as well, but it seems to me that these general terms that we > are given to contemplate are general categories that are being referrred to, in > other words: concepts. I don't think it's correct to say that the Satipatthana Sutta gives us general term to contemplate. What it does is to set out the potential scope of the object of satipatthana, namely, all dhammas, and to make it clear that satipatthana is to be developed in relation to any presently-arising dhamma, regardless of time, place or circumstances. When it talks about corporeality/materiality (rupa) or feeling (vedana), it refers to the rupa or vedana of the present moment, a presently arising reality. If there is no such presently arising reality, then it is not to be contemplated i.e., it is not at that moment a potential object of awareness. Whenever one talks about realties one has to make conceptual references, but conceptual references may point to dhammas or they may point to concepts, depending on the intended meaning of the speaker. > If they are concepts, then concepts are included in the objects of contemplation; > if they are not concepts, I would like to have an explanation as to how these can > be directly perceived in the way that primary realities must be: directly in an > actual moment. Paramatha Dhammas must have their own characteristic. But > 'corporeality' *is* a characteristic, not an object. It is a category or a > quality that attends rupas, but it is not a rupa itself. Neither it is an actual > mental event that takes place, so I don't think it can be a nama. In other words, > corporeality as a category of the khandas can only be a concept until filled in > with a specific example which has it as its characteristic. It will never be the > rupa itself, it is the example that has the characteristic that is the rupa. So > it will always be a concept as far as I can see. Yet it is an object of > satipatthana along with the other kandhas? I see the distinction you are making between corporeality (a quality pertaining to something) and rupa (a something), but I don't see that distinction as being intended by the passage on question. The terms 'rupa' and 'corporeality' tend to be used interchangeably in the translations. 'Nama-rupa' is often translated as 'mentality-materiality'. I hope this helps. Jon 13158 From: portsofspeech Date: Wed May 8, 2002 4:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mind > You ask if there's a difference between the Thai (forest) schools and the > Burmese/Sri Lankan schools in the interpretation of the teachings on the mind. > > This is an interesting question, but I think more interesting still is the > question of which is the (more) correct interpretation. I say this because, > presumably, we are really only interested in the interpretation that accords > with the original teachings, as best we can ascertain them. > Right. > For this, we need not actually think in terms of Thai, Burmese or whatever, > since there may be correct interpretations to be found somewhere in more than > one tradition. But it is essential to have some familiarity with the original > texts oneself, otherwise there is really no way to answer the question. > Right. But I plan to, in the future, ordain and I know there are some Theravada groups like the Dhammakaya in Thailand who are, by and large, considered to be false teaching. I want to be sure that I don't get into any of those groups, and I've noticed significant differences in the way the various Theravada schools describe the mind. Thanks 13159 From: Date: Wed May 8, 2002 5:25pm Subject: ADL ch. 7 (3) http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 7 (3) People in the Buddha's time too were speculating about things which do not lead to the goal of the teachings. They were wondering whether the world is finite or infinite, whether the world is eternal or not eternal, whether the Tathagata (the Buddha) exists after his parinibbana or not. We read in the 'Lesser Discourse to Malunkya (Middle Length Sayings II, no. 63) that Malunkyaputta was displeased that the Buddha did not give explanations with regard to speculative views. He wanted to question the Buddha on these views and if the Buddha should not give him an explanation with regard to these views he would leave the order. He spoke to the Buddha about this matter and the Buddha asked him whether he had ever said to Malunkyaputta: Come you, Malunkyaputta, fare the Brahma-faring under me and I will explain to you either that the world is eternal or that the world is not eternal... or that the Tathagata is... is not after dying... both is and is not after dying... neither is nor is not after dying? We read that Malunkyaputta answered: 'No, revered Sir.'; The Buddha also asked him whether he (Maunkyaputta) had said that he would 'fare the Brahma-faring' under the Lord if the Lord should give him an explanation with regard to these views and again Maunkyaputta answered: 'No, revered sir.' The Buddha then compared his situation with the case of a man who is pierced by a poisoned arrow and who will not draw out the arrow until he knows whether the man who pierced him is a noble, a brahman, a merchant or a worker; until he knows the name of the man and his clan; until he knows his outward appearance; until he knows about the bow, the bowstring, the material of the shaft, the kind of arrow. However, he will pass away before he knows all this. It is the same with the person who only wants to 'fare the Braham-faring' under the Lord if explanations with regard to speculative views are given to him. We read that the Buddha said: 'The living of the Brahma-faring, Malunkyaputta, could not be said to depend on the view that the world is eternal. Nor could the living of the Brahma-faring, Malunkyaputta, be said to depend on the view that the world is not eternal. Whether there is the view that the world is eternal or whether there is the view that the world is not eternal, there is birth, there is aging, there is dying, there are grief, sorrow, suffering, lamentation and despair, the destruction of which I lay down here and now.... Wherefore, Malunkyaputta, understand as not explained what has not been explained by me, and understand as explained what has been explained by me. And what, Malunkyaputta, has not been explained by me? That the world is eternal.. that the world is not eternal has not been explained by me.. And why, Malunkyaputta, has this not been explained by me? It is because it is not connected with the goal, it is not fundamental to the Brahma-faring, and does not conduce to turning away from, nor to dispassion, stopping, calming, super-knowledge, awakening, nor to nibbana. Therefore it has not been explained by me, Malunkyaputta. And what has been explained by me, Malunkyaputta? 'This is dukkha' has been explained by me, Malunkyaputta. 'This is the arising of dukkha' has been explained by me. 'This is the stopping of dukkha' has been explained by me. 'This is the course leading to the stopping of dukkha' has been explained by me. And why, Malunkyaputta, has this been explained by me? It is because it is connected with the goal, it is fundamental to the Brahma-faring, and conduces to turning away from, to dispassion, stopping, calming, super-knowledge, awakening and nibbana... ' Doubt cannot be cured by speculating about matters which do not lead to the goal; it can only be cured by being aware of the nama and rupa which present themselves now. Even when there is doubt it can be realized as only a type of nama arising because of conditions and not self. Thus the reality of the present moment will be known more clearly. 13160 From: rikpa21 Date: Wed May 8, 2002 7:59pm Subject: Re: Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" wrote: Hi Dan, > So, you want an instruction manual. It would make things easier, I > suppose. Then again, I can't imagine what one would look like because > Dhamma is not a path of "do this, do that -- the act of doing these > prescribed things will lead to understanding." I find this statement interesting in light of the fact that the entire basis of the Dhamma rests on the fact the all things arise in dependence on other factors. So to suggest otherwise is to directly contradict perhaps the most fundamental of all tenets of Buddhism: that all composed things come from other composed things (and those in turn from other composed things). That prescribed activities such as abandoning unskillful actions and taking up skillful actions (sammapadana--the Four Right Exertions), for example, do not help on the path to understanding! Not only does what you say carry the implication of denying Dependent Origination ("when this arises, that arises; when this ceases, that ceases"), but of kamma as well, since no "prescribed action" can possibly lead to understanding, and prescriptions to avoid evil, do good, and purify the mind have no effect whatsoever on understanding, that Right Understanding just happens--something akin to "spontaneous combustion" (am I getting warm here? :). > (Would it be clearer > to state that it is not a path of "do this [ritual], do that > [ritual] -- the act of doing these prescribed [rituals] will lead to > understanding"?) Reading the suttas with this understanding, it > becomes clear that the Buddha did not prescribe practices for > attaining wisdom. Right, "reading the suttas with that understanding" will lead to you find validation for that preconceived view, since it's possible to take any text and reinterpret it in light of one's own preconceptions. People have been doing this for a very long time indeed--even going so far as to use the Buddha's teachings to justify killing! All this demonstrates is that you can read pretty much anything into a text--any text--and find validation for what you already believe to be true. And that is precisely why formal practice is so vital, because without the experiential verification of the Dhamma (it is, after all, ehipassiko, sandittiko, akalika) that comes about as a result of deep meditation (where the mind is completely undistracted and one can clearly discern the arising and passing away of conditioned dhammas, and all the seven enlightenment factors are brought to their culmination), none of the words the Buddha spoke carry any meaning at all. At best, they are instructions on HOW one should most effectively act to get from suffering sentient being to freedom from suffering. The "Great Physician" did give prescriptions, Dan, and the medicine does work when taken properly. As an aside, all the "pure vipassana" teachers I've encountered here in Thailand in the Theravada tradition emphasize formal meditation, including sitting--especially sitting. The only place I've ever seen formal meditation questioned (or spoken of as not only unnecessary but detrimental!) is right here in DSG, and nowhere else in my limited studies of the Dhamma (even among the intellectual and scholarly giants that populate my own tradition's lineage--including masters of Abhidharma). Not that I'm against questioning orthodoxies. Far from it. Sacred cows really do make the best hamburger. However, the interpretation of the Dhamma you hammer on begs the question, since it's stated with such certainty. Is everyone who meditates formally with the aim of realizing the fruits of the Dhamma wrong? Are all the so-called masters of the various traditions, Theravada, Zen, Tibetan--all emphasizing the same things (formal meditation--samatha & vipassana)--all wet? Evam me suttam (Nava Sutta): "Even though this wish may occur to a monk who dwells without devoting himself to development -- 'O that my mind might be released from effluents through lack of clinging!' - - still his mind is not released from the effluents through lack of clinging. Why is that? From lack of developing, it should be said. Lack of developing what? The four frames of reference, the four right exertions, the four bases of power, the five faculties, the five strengths, the seven factors for Awakening, the noble eightfold path." What I see here 37 factors to be developed. Development is prescriptive, not descriptive. The above passage clearly refutes the idea that one can merely wish for the ending of the effluents, and that the ending of the effluents comes about through development (bhavana). In what way, Dan, does the above lend itself to a "descriptive" interptation? It would appear that saying the Buddha's teachings are purely "descriptive" is just another view, a bond, a fetter. > Even the vaunted "instruction manual" Satipatthana > sutta reads like a series of descriptions of what sorts of things > monks are doing [all sorts of things!] when satipatthana > arises: "There is the case where a monk..." sits crosslegged under a > tree, spine erect, etc. > In 1989 I went to Thailand for my second intensive meditation > retreat. After four weeks of rising at 4:00 a.m. and doing everything > at a snail's pace (when not sitting on my butt!) until 10:00 at > night, I was very happy about the progress and "insights" I had > developed. To preserve the gains afterward, I maintained a daily > practice of sitting and walking ritual (er, "meditation") religiously > for 1-1.5 hours per day. "Oh, this is not enough!" I thought. I found that an hour of mantra recitation (a great support for samatha), followed by tummo yoga (ratcheting up the piti and passadhi factors) preceding anapanasati meditation every day, without fail, was more than sufficient as a formal practice. In fact, many teachers recommend not sitting formally for more than an hour per day. That damned lute-string! But that daily practice did more for my progress and understanding of the Dharma than anything else. Until I began the formal practice of meditation under the right teachers for me, the Dharma was just a bunch of pleasant sounding theory. It was only after engaging in formal practice under the guidance of my teachers that the Dharma came alive for me. > I had > so much faith in the efficacy of the ritual that I wanted to > maintain "unbroken awareness" all day long. I believe I asked for your definition of "ritual" before, Dan, but you never provided me with one. It appears from what you're saying that there is some confusion on the definition of "ritual". The ritual to be avoided is the rityual of mere outer "rites and observances". Buddhism as a whole is filled with wholesome ritual. Chanting, prostrations, etc., all rituals, are practiced regularly in all the wats I've been to, by all the teachers I've studied under, for example. > At that time I was > working on an agricultural development project in Guatemala, and I > needed to do some work in the fields. I found it difficult to > maintain constant awareness, so I carried a little travel alarm clock > in my pocket and set the alarm to go off when I started work... > > "Beep, beep, beep." > "Oh, time to establish sati." Push the snooze button. Five minutes > later: > > "Beep, beep, beep." > "Oh, yeah, time to establish sati again." > > "Beep, beep, beep"... > > And on through the day. Sheer madness! I so craved the peaceful > feelings and special experiences of the intensive meditation that I > did everything I could to cling to them continously under the guise > of "practicing Vipassana in everyday life." It appears as though you've identified the source of your troubles as the clinging to experiences, which is good. But it also appears you've tossed the baby out with the bathwater. Regardless, I find the idea of a "sati" beeper an excellent one! I'll have to find a watch that beeps me every twenty minutes or so as a reminder to maintain appropriate attention. > Understanding does not arise from ritual or from a recipe book. Just like a meal doesn't arise from a recipe book. It takes the appropriate ingredients, cooked according to the recipe, to wind up with a satisfying meal. > You cannot force it to arise. No, but you can dramatically increase the odds by practicing appropriately--and this typically requires the guidance of those signinficantly more experienced than oneself. If it's the peak experience of Nibbana we're looking for, the Buddha, in the "Himavanta Sutta", provides some useful prescriptions: "Monks, it is in dependence on the Himalayas, the king of mountains, that serpents (nagas) grow in body and gain in strength. Having grown in body and gained strength there, they descend to the small lakes. Having descended to the small lakes, they descend to the large lakes... the small rivers... the large rivers... to the great ocean. There they attain greatness & prosperity in terms of the body. "In the same way, it is in dependence on virtue, established on virtue, having developed & pursued the seven factors of Awakening, that a monk attains to greatness & prosperity in terms of mental qualities. And how is it that a monk -- in dependence on virtue, established on virtue, having developed & pursued the seven factors for Awakening -- attains to greatness & prosperity in terms of mental qualities? "There is the case where a monk develops mindfulness as a factor for Awakening dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent on cessation, resulting in relinquishment. He develops analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening...persistence as a factor for Awakening...rapture as a factor for Awakening...serenity as a factor for Awakening...concentration as a factor for Awakening...equanimity as a factor for Awakening dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent on cessation, resulting in relinquishment. This is how a monk -- in dependence on virtue, established on virtue, having developed & pursued the seven factors for Awakening -- attains to greatness & prosperity in terms of mental qualities." Here's one dictionary definition for "descriptive": "Involving or characterized by description; serving to describe." Here's one of the definitions for "prescriptive": "Making or giving injunctions, directions, laws, or rules." Based on the definitions of the terms, is "there is the case where a monk develops..." descriptive or prescriptive? Does it describe what already is (descriptive)? or does it prescribe (sorry, can't avoid using the word here) a course of action to be taken? > Even now there arises craving for a way to say, "Here's what to > do..." But the attempts to say such a thing never get off the ground, > and the thoughts turn to description of the arising and passing away > of dhammas -- there's no other way. "There's no other way" Dan? "A person who associates himself with certain views, considering them as best and making them supreme in the world, he says, because of that, that all other views are inferior; therefore he is not free from contention (with others)": http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp4- 05a.html > I think if you read the suttas > with this in mind, you will see that this is also the Buddha's > approach to teaching, viz. description rather than prescription. If you read the Suttas with any bias you can manufacture support for that bias pretty easily. That goes for just about any text. > Ritual can be so comforting... It takes great confidence in the > Buddha and his Dhamma to abandon clinging to ritual. And views even moreso than ritual. > We must > understand his descriptions of reality and the arising and experience > of panya and witness them in everyday life. > > How? There is no "how." Since you claim there's no how, why are you bothering to tell us? It seems a rather monumental waste of time to talk about Nibbana and freedom from suffering if there isn't any way, no "how", to realize it. Of course you're free to leave the medicine on the shelf and admire the bottle if that's what you truly believe. There are others, though, who prefer to follow the Great Physician's prescriptions and use the medicine he perscribed to overcome their dis-ease. > Once we define a "how," there is a "who" that > does the "how." Until you're an arahant (if you aren't already one just here to pull our legs for the sake of turning the wheel of Dhamma, Dan :), there's always a "who" to work with. There may be moments where that "who" is abandoned on the way, and the fiction is seen for what it is. At least temporarily. But on returning to conventional reality afterward, that nasty latent (anusaya) sense of "I me mine" remains until arahatta-magga- nana. So why not work with that suffering sentient being (that has never, doesn't, and never will exist in the ultimate sense) skillfully? I have heard it's possible to use a thorn to remove a thorn, and it's necessary to use the imputed "self" to remove the view of self. > And born is a superstition about how the who induces > a "what" to arise via a how, when really there are just empty > phenomena rolling on. Indeed, that is all there are--empty phenomena rolling on. It doesn't mean that getting whacked in the kneecaps with a ball-peen hammer hurts any less, though--at least for those who aren't arahants! :) Cheers, Erik 13161 From: Date: Wed May 8, 2002 8:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Iddhi Hi Wynn, practicing the four brahma vihara is kind of majic in that it can affect others. Larry -------------- Wynn wrote: Hi Kom, That is what I understand by reading the Visuddhimagga. So, your conclusion is that we need all the jhanas (rupa and arupa) right? Thanks, Wynn 13162 From: Date: Wed May 8, 2002 9:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 7 (3) ADL: "And why, Malunkyaputta, has this not been explained by me? It is because it is not connected with the goal, it is not fundamental to the Brahma-faring, and does not conduce to turning away from, nor to dispassion, stopping, calming, super-knowledge, awakening, nor to nibbana." Dear Nina and dsg, Could you comment on the above quote, explaining the terms, their relationship and sequence? Below are some of my own ideas: 1. connected to the goal (pali?), [right view?] 2. Brahma-faring (brahmacariya), the holy life, entered for the purpose of attaining deliverance of mind, MN29, [right intention?] 3. turning away from, disenchantment, (nibbida), culminating stages of insight, Wisdom MN n.265, [right speech?] 4. dispassion (viraga), attainment of supramundane path, Wisdom MN n.265, [right action?] 5. stopping, cessation (niroda), ???, [right livelihood?] 6. calming, peace (upasama, santi), pacification of lobha, dosa, moha, MN 140.28, [right effort?] 7. super-knowledge, direct knowledge (abhinna), directly knowing anicca, dukkha, anatta, Wisdom MN n. 22, [right mindfulness?] 8. awakening (sambodhi), full understanding of 4 noble truths???, [right concentration?] 9. nibbana thanks, Larry 13163 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 8, 2002 10:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long Hi Dan & Erik, Priceless;-))) Look forward to plenty more.....it’s just not as ‘colourful’ when you guys aren’t around. Please don’t run off too quickly this time. Sarah ..... Dan:> At that time I was > working on an agricultural development project in Guatemala, and I > needed to do some work in the fields. I found it difficult to > maintain constant awareness, so I carried a little travel alarm clock > in my pocket and set the alarm to go off when I started work... > > "Beep, beep, beep." > "Oh, time to establish sati." Push the snooze button. Five minutes > later: > > "Beep, beep, beep." > "Oh, yeah, time to establish sati again." > > "Beep, beep, beep"... > > And on through the day. Sheer madness! I so craved the peaceful > feelings and special experiences of the intensive meditation that I > did everything I could to cling to them continously under the guise > of "practicing Vipassana in everyday life." Erik:It appears as though you've identified the source of your troubles as the clinging to experiences, which is good. But it also appears you've tossed the baby out with the bathwater. Regardless, I find the idea of a "sati" beeper an excellent one! I'll have to find a watch that beeps me every twenty minutes or so as a reminder to maintain appropriate attention. ===================================================== 13164 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 8, 2002 11:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ultimate realities Dear TG, All your comments and questions are really helpful and practical (as I see them): --- TGrand458@a... wrote: > I would be interested to know how "dhamma's," that are completely > dependent > on something else (Dependent Arising), are 'with its own > characteristic.' > How can something have "its own characteristic" if it doesn't have any > self > at all? ..... If we talk about seeing or hearing as examples,. we know they are dependent on many conditions such as eye base, visible object, contact and so on. Still, seeing has a characteristic -- of experiencing a visible object-- which is different from hearing and different from visible object itself. It also has the characterstic of ‘not self’ as well, common to all realities, and the characteristic of ‘nama’ which is different from ‘rupa’. By ‘own’ there is no suggestion of self, it merely reflects that seeing is different from any other reality. Furthermore, this moment of seeing is different from the next moment of seeing and therefore has its ‘own’ or ‘unique’ characteristic too. ..... > > The way I see it...it is "something else's characteristic" that is > responsible for arisen states/dhammas. But that "something else" had > something else responsible for "its" characteristic, and so on and so on > > indefinitely. ..... Well, this is true. All conditioned phenomena are conditioned by other states/dhammas as you say. Just because ‘seeing’ depends on other factors, does not mean it doesn’t *exist* at the moment of arising, with its particular sabhava or set of characteristics. ..... > I have a hard time imagining how a mind can consider something an > "ultimate > reality" and not thereby see it as substantial. ..... If it’s just by thinking or considering then it’s not direct understanding. At a moment of awareness (with wisdom) however, there is no idea of substance or self. If sati is aware of seeing or hearing, the *reality* is apparent regardless of any term. ..... > Howard used the term phantoms. This I think is good. After > object-states > are broken down into fundamental elements...these elements need to be > further > broken down by principles (dependent arising, impermanence, > unsatisfactory, > no-self). And then these elements are not seen as "ultimate realities," > but > are more likely seen as phantoms. (I am only considering conditioned > phenomena here.) ..... When there is awareness of the *realities*, I don’t think there is any concern about breaking them down or seeing them as phantoms or even as *ultimate* as these all rather suggest thinking only. When seeing is the object of awareness, just the characteristic or *nature* of the particular kind of experiencing is known and so on. ..... In another post you wrote: > >A dhamma cannot be changed into something other than what it is > > right now, but it lasts for an infinitely brief instant only, no > > matter we want it to stay or go. > > This statement, if I'm understanding it at all, seems to indicate that > "dhamma" is a thing...that can't be changed? It sounds like it > says...that > something is a self for a infinitely brief time and then it is gone. > This > kind of of approach to dhamma is exactly what I fear the term "Ultimate > Reality" inculcates. Yes, I believe the term is important. ..... Again, let’s call the dhamma seeing or hearing for now. Seeing that sees at this moment can never be changed into hearing. The seeing has to fall away completely before there can be hearing or any other kind of experiencing.Hence we read so often about the great speed of cittas (consciousness).which experience different objects. Just because seeing is so brief and cannot be any other dhamma by the conditions that brought it ‘to be’, doesn’t mean it is anything other (or more) than a particular kind of element when it arises. By using the term ‘paramattha’ or ‘ultimate’ or ‘absolute’ to refer to a reality, the point being stressed is that it is a reality which is actually experienced and ‘to be known’ as opposed to an idea or concept. It is not the term itself that is of any importance, merely the understanding of these phenomena to which it is pointing. Just a few ideas, but I’m not sure if they help at all. In any case, I’m appreciating all of yours. Sarah ===== 13165 From: Date: Wed May 8, 2002 10:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 4 Ultimate Realities? (Sarah) Hi Sarah. I put the question mark back in the title. ;-) I understand your points and I thank you for them. I just wanted to comment on one point you made suggesting that seeing things as phantoms would in essence be counter-productive. (I deleted the e-mail accidentally.) I think you were pointing out that it is another concept to get in the way of seeing things directly. I began this topic by quoting the Samyutta Nikaya and this is how the Buddha recommended seeing "realities"... Form -- should be seen as -- A Lump of Foam Feeling -- should be seen as -- A Bursting Bubble Perception -- should be seen as -- A Mirage Mental Formations -- should be seen as -- A Plaintain Tree (coreless) Consciousness -- should be seen as -- A Conjurors Trick The way I see it, 'phantoms' fits in pretty well. Perhaps the Buddha saw that certain concepts and even imaginations (based on principles of dependent arising, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and no-self) could be used to help free the mind from attachment. Take care. TG 13166 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed May 8, 2002 10:47pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long Dear Dan, > -----Original Message----- > From: onco111 [mailto:dalthorp@o...] > > Dan: This "unbroken mindfulness" sounds very > peculiar to me. Yes, > I've heard it said many times before and have > even been deluded into > thinking I've experienced it at times. But even > when the mind is numb > to it, always there is sense consciousness, investigating > consciousness, five-door adverting consciousness, > mind-door adverting > consciousness intervening -- and sati in none of > these. This is there > to be observed in practice, in FM, in daily life, > in study but it > does require seeing to see. Sati cannot be Thank you for this important reminder. Only an arahant has virtually perfect awareness (awareness in most javanas). And even that, in some javanas, there is no sati (hasitupada citta). We don't have perfect awareness in javanas because there is no condition to have them. kom 13167 From: Deanna Shakti Johnson Date: Thu May 9, 2002 4:10am Subject: nibbana - conditioned? Dear All, I want to thank everyone for their very interesting and thought provoking posts. I have been learning alot. Happily I just received numerous books including Abhidhamma in Daily Life and I am trying to work my way thru them. I hope to be able to share more in the discussions. I do have a question - why is nibbana not a conditioned dhamma? If right understanding of dhamma is necessary along with right effort and mindfulness how is it possible that enlightenment is not dependant on anything? I'm confused. Anyone care to shed some light on this for me? Shakti Hi Robert, The "fundamental elements" I am referring to are the "conditioned paramattha dhammas." A nice listing of them is found near the beginning of the Patisambhidamagga (Path of Discrimination) where they are broken down into 201 states (dhammas). This is the "object-field" upon which insight is cultivated. Dependent arising, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and no-self insight should be applied to these states. I have found the Patisambhidamagga and the Visuddhimagga to be very valuable assistants in helping to understand how the Suttas are directing to "break down delusion." (Not that much has been broken down mind you.) This passage of Howard's is awesome... >>>It seems to me that if, in trying to see the impersonality of all dhammas, an essential enterprise (!), one is led to a belief in ultimate dhammas with own-being, then one has traded one aspect of atta-view for another. It also seems to me that a mere intellectual understanding of the truth that all dhammas other than nibbana arise in dependence on causes and conditions still misses a full understanding of anatta. <<< 13168 From: Date: Thu May 9, 2002 1:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 4 Ultimate Realities? (Sarah) Hi, TG (and Sarah) - In a message dated 5/9/02 5:40:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > > Hi Sarah. > > I put the question mark back in the title. ;-) I understand your points > and > I thank you for them. > > I just wanted to comment on one point you made suggesting that seeing > things > as phantoms would in essence be counter-productive. (I deleted the e-mail > accidentally.) I think you were pointing out that it is another concept to > > get in the way of seeing things directly. > > I began this topic by quoting the Samyutta Nikaya and this is how the > Buddha > recommended seeing "realities"... > > Form -- should be seen as -- A Lump of Foam > Feeling -- should be seen as -- A Bursting Bubble > Perception -- should be seen as -- A Mirage > Mental Formations -- should be seen as -- A Plaintain Tree (coreless) > Consciousness -- should be seen as -- A Conjurors Trick > > The way I see it, 'phantoms' fits in pretty well. Perhaps the Buddha saw > that certain concepts and even imaginations (based on principles of > dependent > arising, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and no-self) could be used to > help > free the mind from attachment. > > Take care. TG > ========================== As will be no surprise, I completely concur. As I see it, there are (at least) two aspects to coming out from ignorance. One of these is seeing that our ordinary world of experience is, overwhelmingly, concept-only, mind-constructed, and having only concensual reality. The other of these is that what is directly experienced, independent of the mind's conceptual-construction processes, is a gapless stream of impersonal, fleeting, conditioned, interdependent elements of experience no one of which exists at all in-and-of-itself. It seems to me that the noble eightfold path of the Buddha, centered on mindfulness practice as outlined in such teachings as the Satipatthana Sutta and the Anapanasati Sutta, serves to foster both of these, with the awareness of the emptiness of conceptual dhammas and the awareness of the emptiness of paramattha dhammas both flowering forth from the very same practice. 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) 13169 From: zipdrive14850 Date: Thu May 9, 2002 5:54am Subject: Re: Right Concentration [Erik -- "beep, beep, beep"] > you've tossed the baby out with the bathwater. Regardless, I find > the idea of a "sati" beeper an excellent one! I'll have to find a > watch that beeps me every twenty minutes or so as a reminder to > maintain appropriate attention. Wonderful, Erik! Let us know how it works out. Regarding your other excellent points, I will get back to them as time allows (it may be two or three days). 13170 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu May 9, 2002 9:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] moha op 08-05-2002 05:27 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > ADL: "There is no other way to eradicate doubt but by developing the > panna (wisdom) which sees realities as they are." > L: I thought perhaps moha is a little different from lobha and dosa. Seeing > lobha and dosa for what they are, arising and subsiding in the moment, > one can easily see they are not self, not me and not mine. But how do > you see delusion arise? How can light observe darkness? > > If we color this nonawareness with doubt then it can easily be seen to > arise and blossom as bewilderment and perplexity. This also is not self. > It does seem a little more difficult to observe, maybe because of its > dullness. Anyone else having trouble being clear about obscurity? Hallo Larry, It is difficult to know moha-mula-citta, especially the type without doubt. You find it is easy to see that lobha and dosa are not self, but is it that easy? In theory we know that lobha and dosa come and go and we may understand in theory that they are not self, but are they not all the time my lobha and my dosa? We may not even realize this and here we see the danger of ignorance and wrong view all of us have accumulated. As Robert recently explained, first the difference between nama and rupa have to be realized, and this is a long way. We read in the Suttas about the six worlds, what appears through the six doors, and it may be boring to be aware and study seeing now, visible object now, hearing now, sound now. but this is the only way to see them as only dhammas, not I or mine. As has been explained before, there are several stages of vipassana and we cannot forego any stage. Only when it has become clearer that whatever appears is just dhamma, and that nama dhamma is really different from rupa dhamma, which is realized at the first stage of insight knowledge, following stages can arise. At the fourth stage there is more detachment from the idea of self and this is necessary so that the arising and falling away of dhammas can be directly realized. Thus, we cannot expect to have clear understanding immediately of the nature of moha. We study the present moment, but do we know what the present reality is? It needs a lot of reading and considering before sati and panna can arise because of their own conditions. I very much appreciated Dan's recent posts. I would like to quote one part from it (hope he does not mind it is only part): end quote. Another eason why sati and panna seldom arise became recently clearer to me, since I started now to translate A. Sujin's book on the perfections, paramis, the book I referred to before. I quote: I shall come back later with my translation, little by little, in a very slow pace. As Dan said: so many, many opportunities to study the dhammas that appear, there is gain and loss, praise and blame. Speaking of loss: we go to funerals, but, as Sarah explained with a striking example: we may go in with tears and coming out with a smile because of all the Dhamma reminders. Nina. 13171 From: Date: Thu May 9, 2002 5:11pm Subject: ADL ch. 7 (4) http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 7(4) The second type of moha-mula-citta is accompanied by indifferent feeling, arising with restlessness (upekkha-sahagatam, uddhacca-sampayuttam) . Uddhacca is translated 'restlessness' or 'excitement'. Uddhacca arises with all akusala cittas. When there is uddhacca there is no sati (mindfulness) with the citta. Sati arises with each wholesome citta; it 'remembers' what is wholesome. There is sati not only in vipassana, but also when one performs dana (generosity) observes sila (morality), applies oneself to studying or teaching the Buddha's teachings or cultivates samatha. Sati in vipassana is aware of a characteristic of nama or rupa. When there is uddhacca, the citta cannot be wholesome; one cannot at that moment apply oneself to dana, sila or bhavana. Uddhacca distracts the citta from kusala. Uddhacca is restlessness with regard to kusala. Thus, uddhacca is different from what we in conventional language mean by restlessness. Uddhacca arises also with the moha-mula-citta which is accompanied by doubt, since it arises with each akusala citta. The second type of moha-mula-citta, however, is called uddhacca-sampayutta; it is different from the first type of moha-mula-citta which is called vicikiccha-sampayutta. The second type of moha-mula-citta, the moha-mula-citta which is uddhacca-sampayutta, arises countless times a day, but it is difficult to know its characteristic. If one has not cultivated vipassana one does not know this type of citta. When one is forgetful of realities and 'day-dreaming', there is not necessarily this type of citta. When we are 'day-dreaming' there is not only the second type of moha-mula-citta (uddhacca- sampayutta), but also lobha-mula-cittas (cittas rooted in attachment) or dosa-mula-cittas (cittas rooted in aversion). When one is forgetful of realities and the akusala citta is not rooted in lobha or dosa, and the citta is not accompanied by doubt, then there is the second type of moha-mula-citta accompanied by uddhacca. Moha-mula-citta can arise on account of what we experience through the five sense-doors and through the mind-door. When, for example, we have heard sound, moha-mula-citta may arise. When the second type of moha-mula-citta which is uddhacca-sampayutta arises, there is ignorance and forgetfulness with regard to the object which is experienced at that moment. We may not see the danger of this type of citta, since it is accompanied by indifferent feeling. However, all kinds of akusala are dangerous. Moha is dangerous, it is the root of all akusala. When we are ignorant of realities we accumulate a great deal of akusala. Moha conditions lobha; when we do not know realities as they are we become absorbed in the things we experience through the senses. Moha also conditions dosa; when we do not know realities we have aversion when we experience unpleasant things. Moha accompanies each akusala citta and it conditions all ten kinds of akusala kamma-patha which are accomplished through body, speech and mind. Only when there is mindfulness of the realities which appear through the six doors, the panna is developed which can eradicate moha. The sotapanna ('streamwinner', who has attained the first stage of enlightenment) has eradicated the type of moha-mula-citta which is accompanied by vicikiccha (doubt); he has no more doubts about paramattha dhammas, he knows the 'world in the ariyan sense'. He has no doubts about the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. He has no doubts about the Path leading to the end of defilements. The sotapanna, the sakadagami ('once-returner', who has attained the second stage of enlightenment) and the anagami ('non-returner', who has attained the third stage of enlightenment) still have the type of moha-mula-citta accompanied by uddhacca (restlessness). Only the arahat has eradicated all akusala. Ignorance is not seeing the true characteristic of realities, not knowing the 'four Noble Truths'. Out of ignorance one does not see the first Noble Truth, the Truth of dukkha : one does not realize nama and rupa as impermanent and dukkha. One does not know the second Noble Truth: the origin of dukkha which is craving. Because of clinging to nama and rupa there is no end to the cycle of birth and death and thus there is no end to dukkha. One does not know the Noble Truth of the 'ceasing of dukkha', which is nibbana. One does not know the Noble Truth of 'the way leading to the ceasing of dukkha' which is the Elghtfold Path. The 'Eightfold Path' is developed through vipassana. We read in the 'Kindred Sayings' (lV, Salayatana-vagga, Kindred Sayings about Jambukhadaka, par. 9) that the wanderer asked Sariputta: ' "Ignorance, ignorance!" is the saying, friend Sariputta. Pray, what is ignorance?' 'Not understanding about dukkha, friend, not understanding about the arising of dukkha, the ceasing of dukkha, the way leading to the ceasing of dukkha- - this, friend, is called "ignorance"' "But is there any way, friend, any approach to the abandoning of this ignorance? ' There is indeed a way, friend, to such abandoning.' ' And what, friend, is that way, that approach to the abandoning of this ignorance?' ' It is this ariyan Eightfold Path, friend... ' The ariyan Eightfold Path leads to the eradication of moha. Questions 1. What is ignorance? Why should it be eradicated? 2. How can it be eradicated? 3. When there is doubt (vicikiccha) about realities, is there moha as well? 4. On account of experiences through which doors can moha arise? 13172 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu May 9, 2002 9:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 4 Ultimate Realities? (Sarah) --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, TG (and Sarah) - > > In a message dated 5/9/02 5:40:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@a... > writes: > > > > > > Hi Sarah. > > > > I put the question mark back in the title. ;-) I understand your points > > and > > I thank you for them. > > > > I just wanted to comment on one point you made suggesting that seeing > > things > > as phantoms would in essence be counter-productive. (I deleted the e-mail > > accidentally.) I think you were pointing out that it is another concept to > > > > get in the way of seeing things directly. > > > > I began this topic by quoting the Samyutta Nikaya and this is how the > > Buddha > > recommended seeing "realities"... > > > > Form -- should be seen as -- A Lump of Foam > > Feeling -- should be seen as -- A Bursting Bubble > > Perception -- should be seen as -- A Mirage > > Mental Formations -- should be seen as -- A Plaintain Tree (coreless) > > Consciousness -- should be seen as -- A Conjurors Trick > > > > The way I see it, 'phantoms' fits in pretty well. Perhaps the Buddha saw > > that certain concepts and even imaginations (based on principles of > > dependent > > arising, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and no-self) could be used to > > help > > free the mind from attachment. > > > > Take care. TG > > > ========================== > As will be no surprise, I completely concur. As I see it, there are > (at least) two aspects to coming out from ignorance. One of these is seeing > that our ordinary world of experience is, overwhelmingly, concept-only, > mind-constructed, and having only concensual reality. The other of these is > that what is directly experienced, independent of the mind's > conceptual-construction processes, is a gapless stream of impersonal, > fleeting, conditioned, interdependent elements of experience no one of which > exists at all in-and-of-itself. It seems to me that the noble eightfold path > of the Buddha, centered on mindfulness practice as outlined in such teachings > as the Satipatthana Sutta and the Anapanasati Sutta, serves to foster both of > these, with the awareness of the emptiness of conceptual dhammas and the > awareness of the emptiness of paramattha dhammas both flowering forth from > the very same practice. > > With metta, > Howard nicely put, Howard, and very helpful. robert ep 13173 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu May 9, 2002 9:51pm Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana/Kom Dear Jon, I guess what this particular issue comes down to is whether the Buddha is saying to contemplate these characteristics of realities, or whether to contemplate specific namas and rupas in a given category, and just, as you say, indicating the areas within which the specific instances can be found. I also agree, and think it is an important point, that concepts as such can be pointing towards other concepts or be pointing towards realities, and that concepts that point to realities have a very special usefulness, even though they themselves do not have a real object. They are the only guide we have to direct us towards real objects, other than direct discernment itself. If the Sutta says "...takes hold of the aggregate of...", it is reasonable to say that the Buddha is saying to take an arising example of the aggregate as an object of discernment and see it for what it is. I'm just not sure from the language of the Sutta whether he is saying that or not. Best, Robert Ep. ================ --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob E > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > > > The Satipatthana Sutta itself gives a detailed explanation of the things > that > > > comprise > > > dhammanupassana. It says (quoting from the translation in 'The Way of > > > Mindfulness', > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html): > > > > > > "And how, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental objects in > mental > > > objects? > > > > > > "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the mental objects in the > > > mental objects > > > of the five hindrances, … of the five aggregates of clinging, … of the six > > > internal and > > > the six external sense-bases, … of the seven factors of enlightenment, … of > the > > > Four > > > Noble Truths." > > > > > > According to my reading of the texts, these sets are all references to > > > paramattha > > > dhammas, not concepts. > > > > > > The commentary to the sutta (same translation) relates each of the 4 > foundations > > > of > > > mindfulness to corresponding dhammas comprising the 5 aggregates (khandhas): > > > > > > "Further, … in the contemplation on the body, the laying hold of the > aggregate > > > of > > > corporeality or materiality [J: rupa-khandha] was spoken of by the Master; > > > "in the contemplation on feeling, the laying hold of the aggregate of > feeling > > > [J: > > > vedana-khandha]; > > > "in the contemplation on mind, the laying hold of the aggregate of > consciousness > > > [J: > > > vinnana-khandha]; > > > "and now [i.e. in the contemplation on mental objects] … the laying hold of > the > > > aggregates of perception and formations [J: sanna-khandha, > sankhara-khandha], > > > > Can someone explain to me, please, how 'corporeality', 'materiality', > 'feeling', > > etc., are not concepts? I can understand that a particular experience of > > corporeality, such as hardness or smoothness, would be a primary reality, and > that > > a particular feeling as well, but it seems to me that these general terms that > we > > are given to contemplate are general categories that are being referrred to, > in > > other words: concepts. > > I don't think it's correct to say that the Satipatthana Sutta gives us general > term to > contemplate. What it does is to set out the potential scope of the object of > satipatthana, namely, all dhammas, and to make it clear that satipatthana is to > be > developed in relation to any presently-arising dhamma, regardless of time, place > or > circumstances. > > When it talks about corporeality/materiality (rupa) or feeling (vedana), it > refers to the > rupa or vedana of the present moment, a presently arising reality. If there is > no such > presently arising reality, then it is not to be contemplated i.e., it is not at > that > moment a potential object of awareness. > > Whenever one talks about realties one has to make conceptual references, but > conceptual > references may point to dhammas or they may point to concepts, depending on the > intended > meaning of the speaker. > > > If they are concepts, then concepts are included in the objects of > contemplation; > > if they are not concepts, I would like to have an explanation as to how these > can > > be directly perceived in the way that primary realities must be: directly in > an > > actual moment. Paramatha Dhammas must have their own characteristic. But > > 'corporeality' *is* a characteristic, not an object. It is a category or a > > quality that attends rupas, but it is not a rupa itself. Neither it is an > actual > > mental event that takes place, so I don't think it can be a nama. In other > words, > > corporeality as a category of the khandas can only be a concept until filled > in > > with a specific example which has it as its characteristic. It will never be > the > > rupa itself, it is the example that has the characteristic that is the rupa. > So > > it will always be a concept as far as I can see. Yet it is an object of > > satipatthana along with the other kandhas? > > I see the distinction you are making between corporeality (a quality pertaining > to > something) and rupa (a something), but I don't see that distinction as being > intended by > the passage on question. The terms 'rupa' and 'corporeality' tend to be used > interchangeably in the translations. 'Nama-rupa' is often translated as > 'mentality-materiality'. > > I hope this helps. > > Jon 13174 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 9, 2002 10:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6) Dear Larry & All, I received a few off-list messages yesterday which reminded me of the following paragraph you recently posted from ADL: >THE CHARACTERISTIC OF DOSA 5. We would like to live in a world of harmony and unity among nations and we are disturbed when people commit acts of violence. We should consider what is the real cause of war and discord between people: it is the defilements which people have accumulated. When we have aversion we think that other people or unpleasant situations are the cause of our aversion. However, our accumulation of dosa is the real cause that aversion arises time and again. If we want to have less dosa we should know the characteristic of dosa and we should be aware of it when it arises. ***** I’d like to add one or two comments, a little late I know. Sometimes when we feel we’ve been ‘wronged’ or those dear to us have been ‘badly treated’, it’s particularly hard to really face up to the truth and be brave enough to see “our accumulation of dosa is the real cause...”. We find it so much more appealing to justify the aversion and say the other ‘didn’t understand me’, ‘misinterpreted my intentions’, ‘made the wrong choices’, ‘wasn’t fair’ and any other myriad of reasons. When it is a dear friend or family member, we then so easily say, ‘I don’t mind for myself, but when it’s x, y, or z, then it’s not tolerable’ and so on. Whatever the justifications for dosa, it never creates harmony and there is never any awareness when we’re looking for someone or something else to blame. This doesn’t mean people always treat us (or loved ones) well or fairly or that we should consider that they do. However, when we are objecting and finding ourselves and those we find ‘dear’ so important, we forget about metta, compassion and other noble qualities. We forget about conditions both for the others’ words and actions and also we forget about kamma and other factors which lead us (and our dear ones) to hear ,experience and interpret as we do. Recently there was some discussion about universal metta and extending the Brahma vihara “in all directions to all beings”. You (Larry) referred to how “the only real trick is in the ‘extending’ or ‘pervading’ aspect”. I’d like to suggest-- as some of us discussed at length before-- that anytime we’re with people, or talking to people like now on the internet, there is a good opportunity for metta (kindly wishing others well), for sympathetic joy (rejoicing in others’ good fortune), for compassion (sympathising without any sadness in others’ difficulties) and finally for equanimity (impartiality in its positive sense). If the Brahma viharas are not developed at these moments when there is the opportunity, just a very little at a time, then the highly developed Brahma viharas as jhana objects which are ‘universal’ or ‘all-pervading’ will certainly never be realized. For those who like steps and methods, I’d suggest that first there has to be the clear comprehension and honesty to recognise the attachment , aversion and ignorance when they arise for what they are, so they are not confused with these wholesome states. As Sukin expressed so clearly, “If one overlooks this moment with the aim of developing understanding in a different place or time, whether one thinks that one has to read more or suppress the hindrances first, then I think what is going on is that one is accumulating ignorance, ie,. the habit of ignoring the present moment.” ..... Lucy mentioned that when she reads the Vism it’s difficult to know where (or who) to start having metta for (and the other Brahama viharas). Can we not start --or rather can these noble qualities not start--whenever there are opportunities in daily life, such as now at the computer, in the shop, at the gym or in the office? Isn’t it just the clinging to oneself that hinders the consideration of others? Even if we’re disagreeing with others --such as here on the list-- or using discipline in our work or home, there can be metta and consideration. ***** The Buddha spoke these lines in Udana, 5-1, ‘Dear’ (Masefield trans) after King Pasenadi and Queen Mallika concluded that indeed there was no one dearer than themselves: ‘Having explored all quarters with the mind, one would simply not attain that dearer than the self in any place; thus is the self dear separately to others - therefore one desiring self should not harm another.’ ***** Even when it seems it is the friend or family member we find even dearer, in truth isn't it the self again that is dearest of all? With best wishes for metta and all other noble qualities. Sarah ======== 13175 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri May 10, 2002 2:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6) Dear Sarah, (Larry) and All, Interesting post, Sarah. The real question for me, accepting that 'our accumulation of dosa is the real cause that aversion arises time and again,' is not blame or pointing the finger at a particular individual. In actual everday hands-on living of our lives, and while understanding that complex conditions bring about suffering - are we to ignore people being wronged, whether it is ourselves, dear ones, or even perfect strangers? Are we not to attempt to assist or protect (in a non-violent way) those we feel are being treated unfairly and suffering? Is there total moral neutrality? Should we speak out about perceived injustices, or should we just say 'It's their fruits of kamma' or 'Uh-huh hurt feelings.. shows lack of advancement in the practice yet, too much dosa,mana, clinging, or not enough ' ? Often, it is easier to preserve silence, than speak out and attract retribution, or risk losing valued friendships.... Non-action, like action, is an intentional choice. And if I don't act, when I could have acted, or if I choose one action instead of another, the results of that action or non-action are my kama-vipaka eventually? Does Buddhism encourage protection of those in need of protection, speaking out about injustices, social action? Does Buddhism have any equivalent of Reverend Marin Niemoellers "First They Came For".... "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then the came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me." Seemingly a dramatic quote of course, compared to an ordinary person being treated unfairly in daily interactions, but it is talking about the importance of making a stand against wrong. Small daily happenings are miniature reflections of what happens on a larger scale nationally and internationally. When the harm being done (as in the categories above) is to a person who is a little different to the majority, or to whom the majority seem to be either opposed or indifferent, how easy it is to magnify their faults and minimise (or be unable to hear or see clearly) the role of those others doing wrong. How easy to look for the approval of the majority(more like us), and feel validated. So what is a Buddhist to do, to live in the world correctly and unselfishly, with loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity regarding others? Watch our own mind states, and be aware when dosa arises. Is that all? Does this mean ignoring the suffering of others when it could be ameliorated or prevented? Extending or pervading metta, but taking no action? What do the Teachings say? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Dear Larry & All, > > I received a few off-list messages yesterday which reminded me of the > following paragraph you recently posted from ADL: > > >THE CHARACTERISTIC OF DOSA > > 5. We would like to live in a world of harmony and unity among nations > and we are disturbed when people commit acts of violence. We should > consider what is the real cause of war and discord between people: it is > the defilements which people have accumulated. When we have aversion we > think that other people or unpleasant situations are the cause of our > aversion. However, our accumulation of dosa is the real cause that > aversion arises time and again. If we want to have less dosa we should > know the characteristic of dosa and we should be aware of it when it > arises. > ***** > > I'd like to add one or two comments, a little late I know. > > Sometimes when we feel we've been `wronged' or those dear to us have been > `badly treated', it's particularly hard to really face up to the truth and > be brave enough to see "our accumulation of dosa is the real cause...". We > find it so much more appealing to justify the aversion and say the other > `didn't understand me', `misinterpreted my intentions', `made the wrong > choices', `wasn't fair' and any other myriad of reasons. When it is a dear > friend or family member, we then so easily say, `I don't mind for myself, > but when it's x, y, or z, then it's not tolerable' and so on. Whatever the > justifications for dosa, it never creates harmony and there is never any > awareness when we're looking for someone or something else to blame. > > This doesn't mean people always treat us (or loved ones) well or fairly or > that we should consider that they do. However, when we are objecting and > finding ourselves and those we find `dear' so important, we forget about > metta, compassion and other noble qualities. We forget about conditions > both for the others' words and actions and also we forget about kamma and > other factors which lead us (and our dear ones) to hear ,experience and > interpret as we do. > > Recently there was some discussion about universal metta and extending the > Brahma vihara "in all directions to all beings". You (Larry) referred to > how "the only real trick is in the `extending' or `pervading' aspect". > > I'd like to suggest-- as some of us discussed at length before-- that > anytime we're with people, or talking to people like now on the internet, > there is a good opportunity for metta (kindly wishing others well), for > sympathetic joy (rejoicing in others' good fortune), for compassion > (sympathising without any sadness in others' difficulties) and finally for > equanimity (impartiality in its positive sense). > > If the Brahma viharas are not developed at these moments when there is > the opportunity, just a very little at a time, then the highly developed > Brahma viharas as jhana objects which are `universal' or `all- pervading' > will certainly never be realized. For those who like steps and methods, > I'd suggest that first there has to be the clear comprehension and honesty > to recognise the attachment , aversion and ignorance when they arise for > what they are, so they are not confused with these wholesome states. > > As Sukin expressed so clearly, "If one overlooks this moment with the aim > of developing understanding in a different place or time, whether one > thinks that one has to read more or suppress the hindrances first, then I > think what is going on is that one is accumulating ignorance, ie,. the > habit of ignoring the present moment." > ..... > > Lucy mentioned that when she reads the Vism it's difficult to know where > (or who) to start having metta for (and the other Brahama viharas). Can we > not start --or rather can these noble qualities not start--whenever there > are opportunities in daily life, such as now at the computer, in the shop, > at the gym or in the office? Isn't it just the clinging to oneself that > hinders the consideration of others? Even if we're disagreeing with others > --such as here on the list-- or using discipline in our work or home, > there can be metta and consideration. > ***** > The Buddha spoke these lines in Udana, 5-1, `Dear' > (Masefield trans) after King Pasenadi and Queen Mallika concluded that > indeed there was no one dearer than themselves: > > `Having explored all quarters with the mind, one would simply not attain > that > dearer than the self in any place; thus is the self dear separately to > others > - therefore one desiring self should not harm another.' > ***** > Even when it seems it is the friend or family member we find even dearer, > in truth isn't it the self again that is dearest of all? > > With best wishes for metta and all other noble qualities. > > Sarah > ======== 13176 From: onco111 Date: Fri May 10, 2002 3:41am Subject: "ritual" [reply to Erik] Dear Erik et al., I looked up ritual in the dictionary, and I'm pretty much going by the dictionary definition. That definition uses "rite" quite a bit, so let's start there: rite -- 1. a formal ceremony or procedure prescribed or customary in religious or other solemn use. 2. a particular form of system of religious or ceremonial practice. [3 and 4 are specific to Christianity.] 5. any customary observance or practice. I suppose we also need to address the bugaboo word "religion" here. Clearly, it doesn't necessarily refer to something about "churches" or a blind belief in a traffic-directing creator God, although some people may well define their religion by these things. religion -- 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,... 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. [3, 4, 5 are not used in the above context and sense] 6. something a person believes in and follows devotedly. ritual -- 1a. an established procedure for a religious or other rite. b. a system of such rites. 2. observance of set forms in public worship. 3. a book of rites or ceremonies. 4. prescribed, established or ceremonial acts or features collectively. 5. any practice or pattern of behavior regularly performed in a set manner. These are generic, all-purpose definitions, and I need to be clear about how I understand the term "ritual." Let's go with: ritual -- a prescribed practice or procedure that a person believes in and follows devotedly, esp. one that pertains to a fundamental set of beliefs concerning the cause and nature of the universe. A few questions: 1. Did Buddha teach ritual as the means or vehicle to liberation? I don't think so. In fact, he taught that adherence to ritual was a fetter to broken. Thus, it would seem strange to read Satipatthana sutta as a list of prescribed practices [rituals]. "...a monk having gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty hut, sits down cross-legged, his body erect and his mindfulness alert. Just mindful he breates in..." -- this is a description, Erik. A prescription would read more like this: "...to establish mindfulness, you should go to the forest, sit down cross-legged, and practice noting the breath." There is a world of difference, and it is not at all subtle. An aside... My meditation teachers have been firm believers in practice, practice, practice and suspicious of book reading. Despite the admonitions about books, I snuck a peek at the Satipatthana sutta after one of my first intensive meditation retreats (must have been 1988 or 1989). I creeped into the library and found Nyanaponika's "Heart of Buddhist Meditation" and opened up to chapter 3 -- The Four Objects of Mindfulness. Nyanaponika discusses the Satipatthana sutta as 'instructions for practice.' I thought, "Cool! A little more detail about what my teachers have been talking about! A little more elaborate than the austere explanations my teachers gave, but basically the same..." Then I read the sutta itself: "...a monk having gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty hut, sits down cross-legged, his body erect and his mindfulness alert. Just mindful he breates in..." At first I was incredulous that anyone could read this as instructions because the clear sense was descriptive without any imperative sense of "do this." "Besides," I thought, "It looks like his mindfulness was already alert when he sat down." For a moment there was the thought that Nyanaponika and my teachers had to be misinterpreting the sutta because it didn't look at all like an instruction manual to me. But my faith in my teachers was stronger than my intuition that there was a mismatch between the text and their interpretation, so I accepted their interpretation ("They must have special insight into Pali and ancient Indian culture to be able to see that this sutta is an instruction manual") and ignored the sutta for many years because it was so difficult to square its plain meaning with the instruction manual interpretation. Besides, I had no idea where to go next or what to do if it wasn't an instruction manual. After being back at practice, practice, practice for a few more years, a teacher recommended studying the Satipatthana sutta as an instruction manual. I gave it a shot, but it was quite daunting. I found it hard enough to master the one or two techniques I'd been working so hard on for so many years. "Now I'm confronted with dozens more practices to do! Ai-yo! It can't be done!" 2. Are some rituals helpful in the development of panya, while others are not? I think rituals can be very beneficial in a number of ways, and that that is why they are so popular at the wats, churches, synagogues, mosques, meditation centers, etc. There is nothing wrong with mantra chanting, yoga, homage to "Buddha rupas", noting the rise and fall of the abdomen while sitting quietly, walking at a snail's pace, etc. Some of these practices were popular long before Buddha, some appeared at the same time, and some appeared only recently. They all yield benefits. Did Buddha offer nothing more than a rehashing of the ancient and ever-popular theme of perform-this-ritual-perfectly-and- you-will-be-saved? The Satipatthana sutta is not just a peculiar variant on that theme. It is a remarkable discourse on how the path of liberation is via satipatthana, not ritual. Satipatthana can arise in the most unusual, unritual-like moments -- like walking, eating, speaking, obeying the calls of nature, passing through a charnel ground, etc. Instead of being an exhortation to turn our every action into a ritual, Dhamma liberates us from the view that ritual is the means to salvation. Ritual can be quite edifying, but we must be on guard against false estimation of its function and purpose. ___________________ -> Dan: (Would it be clearer to state that it is not a path of "do this [ritual], do that [ritual] -- the act of doing these prescribed [rituals] will lead to understanding"?) Reading the suttas with this understanding, it becomes clear that the Buddha did not prescribe practices for attaining wisdom. -> Erik: Right, "reading the suttas with that understanding" will lead to you find validation for that preconceived view, since it's possible to take any text and reinterpret it in light of one's own preconceptions. ** Dan: Certainly, there is a strong tendency for people to wildly twist others' words to match their own preconceptions! [Is this tendency papañca?] But what I'm saying is that if you can open your mind to a different interpretation, you may just find that your own preconceptions may be shattered. At the very least, there is benefit in looking at things from different perspectives.** (I'm experimenting with notation: The "->" is for old stuff; the "**" is for new.) __________________________________ -> Erik (on FM): Evam me suttam (Nava Sutta): "Even though this wish may occur to a monk who dwells without devoting himself to development -- 'O that my mind might be released from effluents through lack of clinging!' -- still his mind is not released from the effluents through lack of clinging. Why is that? From lack of developing, it should be said. Lack of developing what? The four frames of reference, the four right exertions, the four bases of power, the five faculties, the five strengths, the seven factors for Awakening, the noble eightfold path." ** Dan: These are certainly to be developed, with the utmost urgency and total effort. However, they must be developed in the context of the eightfold path, central to which is right view (4NT); otherwise, the development doesn't go in the right direction, doesn't lead to liberation. As an example, consider effort/energy/endeavour which is one of the components of each: the right exertions, the bases of power, the five faculties, the five strengths, the seven factors for Awakening, the noble eightfold path. We read from the Dhammasangani (376): Katamam tasmim samaye viriyindriyam hoti? "What at that time is the faculty of effort/energy/endeavor?" "That which is mental endeavor (viriyarhambo), riddance of lethargy, exerting harder and harder, endeavoring higher and higher, striving, painstaking zeal, utmost exertion, steadfastness, resoluteness, unfaltering endeavor, having sustained desire (chanda) to strive, not relinquishing the task, discharging the task well, effort (viriya) as the faculty of effort, power of effort, wrong effort -- this at that time is the faculty of endeavor." Wrong effort?! Everything sounded pretty good up to that point! This is a description of the viriya cetasika arising with lobha-mula- cittani. It is interesting to read how it differs from the viriya cetasika arising with the sense-sphere kusala cittas: [Dhs. 13] "What at that time is the faculty of effort/energy/endeavor? That which is mental endeavor (viriyarhambo), riddance of lethargy, exerting harder and harder, endeavoring higher and higher, striving, painstaking zeal, utmost exertion, steadfastness, resoluteness, unfaltering endeavor, having sustained desire (chanda) to strive, not relinquishing the task, discharging the task well, effort (viriya) as the faculty of effort, power of effort, right effort -- this at that time is the faculty of endeavor." The only difference is the word "right" in the second paragraph contrasting with the "wrong" of the first. It's fine and dandy to toss around lists of the five this's and the four that's, but it is critical to be able to discern clearly when they are "right" or "wrong" as they arise. This hinges on development of discernment and understanding. Is this done via ritual? I don't think so.** ___________________________ -> Dan: Understanding does not arise from ritual or from a recipe book. -> Erik: Just like a meal doesn't arise from a recipe book. It takes the appropriate ingredients, cooked according to the recipe, to wind up with a satisfying meal. ** Dan: For delighting the senses, there is no substitute for a good recipe, followed correctly! For nourishing the body, there is no need for recipe books. Do we eat for nourishment or delighting the senses? ** __________________________ -> Erik: Here's one dictionary definition for "descriptive": "Involving or characterized by description; serving to describe." Here's one of the definitions for "prescriptive": "Making or giving injunctions, directions, laws, or rules." Based on the definitions of the terms, is "there is the case where a monk develops..." descriptive or prescriptive? Does it describe what already is (descriptive)? or does it prescribe (sorry, can't avoid using the word here) a course of action to be taken? ** Dan: Unclear. If you were to say "There is the case where a monk develops satipatthana by doing such and such," I'd say it sounded prescriptive. But I don't recall having seen that format in the suttas. I have seen something like: "There is the case where a monk discerns such and such when doing such and such." This is descriptive. ** ____________________________ -> Dan: Ritual can be so comforting... It takes great confidence in the Buddha and his Dhamma to abandon clinging to ritual. -> Erik: And views even more so than ritual. ** Dan: Hmmm... I look at them as parts of the same parcel of fetters to be broken at precisely the same moment, and precisely because they are so closely related. Could you elaborate on what you mean? ** Dan 13177 From: Date: Fri May 10, 2002 1:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6)(Protection) Hi Christine you asked in the below post; Does Buddhism encourage protection of those in need of protection. The following is found in Bhikkhu Bodhi's "All-embracing net of views". A Treatise on the Paramis. by Acariya Dhammapala. Bhikkhu Bodhi writes in the intro: "Treatise on the Paramis" which is found in at least two places in the Pali exegetical literature,in a complete version in the Cariyapitaka Atthakatha, and in an abridged version in the Tika or subcommentry to the Brahmajala Sutta. Here we have substituted the more complete version,which is also used in the new subcommentry. The Treatise: (x)How are they to be practiced? (1)The perfection of giving,firstly,is to be practised by benefitting beings in many ways-by relinquishing ones happiness,belongings,body and life to others,by dispelling their fear and by instructing them in the dhamma. (then we jump to the dispelling their fear section) The Giving of fearlessness is the giving of protection to beings when they have become frightened on account of kings,thieves,fire,water,enemies,lions,tigers,other wild beasts,dragons,orges,demons,goblins etc. with Metta S In a message dated 10/05/02 19:56:21 E. Australia Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > Dear Sarah, (Larry) and All, > > Interesting post, Sarah. The real question for me, accepting > that 'our accumulation of dosa is the real cause that aversion arises > time and again,' is not blame or pointing the finger at a particular > individual. In actual everday hands-on living of our lives, and > while understanding that complex conditions bring about suffering - > are we to ignore people being wronged, whether it is ourselves, dear > ones, or even perfect strangers? Are we not to attempt to assist or > protect (in a non-violent way) those we feel are being treated > unfairly and suffering? Is there total moral neutrality? Should we > speak out about perceived injustices, or should we just say 'It's > their fruits of kamma' or 'Uh-huh hurt feelings.. shows lack of > advancement in the practice yet, too much dosa,mana, clinging, or not > enough ' ? Often, it is easier to preserve silence, > than speak out and attract retribution, or risk losing valued > friendships.... > Non-action, like action, is an intentional choice. And if I don't > act, when I could have acted, or if I choose one action instead of > another, the results of that action or non-action are my kama-vipaka > eventually? > Does Buddhism encourage protection of those in need of protection, > speaking out about injustices, social action? > Does Buddhism have any equivalent of Reverend Marin > Niemoellers "First They Came For".... > "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't > speak up because I wasn't a communist. > Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a > Jew. > Then the came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because > I wasn't a trade unionist. > Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was > a protestant. > Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to > speak for me." > Seemingly a dramatic quote of course, compared to an ordinary person > being treated unfairly in daily interactions, but it is talking about > the importance of making a stand against wrong. Small daily > happenings are miniature reflections of what happens on a larger > scale nationally and internationally. When the harm being done (as > in the categories above) is to a person who is a little different to > the majority, or to whom the majority seem to be either opposed or > indifferent, how easy it is to magnify their faults and minimise (or > be unable to hear or see clearly) the role of those others doing > wrong. How easy to look for the approval of the majority(more like > us), and feel validated. > So what is a Buddhist to do, to live in the world correctly and > unselfishly, with loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and > equanimity regarding others? Watch our own mind states, and be aware > when dosa arises. Is that all? Does this mean ignoring the suffering > of others when it could be ameliorated or prevented? Extending or > pervading metta, but taking no action? What do the Teachings say? > > metta, > Christine > 13178 From: Sarah Date: Fri May 10, 2002 6:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6) Dear Christine, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Sarah, (Larry) and All, > > Interesting post, Sarah. ..... Thanks Chris;-) You’ve raised pertinent points and questions and I’ll look forward to hearing other comments as I'm out of time. I know these are issues close to the heart for many of us. I’ll be busy as usual over the weekend - losts of students testing ‘my’ metta;-). Have a good restful weekend yourself. Sarah ===== 13179 From: abhidhammika Date: Fri May 10, 2002 8:06am Subject: Kamma In Color: To Joyce, Dhammarati, Howard, Robert Dear Joyce, Venerable Dhammarati, Howard, and Robert How are you? Joyce wrote: "Perhaps you might be willing to pick any Sutta you feel appropriate for the list, or part of one and then model this bringing out what is most essential, the important insights in the Sutta based on your current understanding." Also Venerable Dhammarati wrote: "Do any of the Abhidhammaka friends know of where in the Abhidhamma these four kinds of kamma are mentioned..? …. Please take some time to find and quote from the Abhidhamma on Kamma." Howard also asked: "I find this to be an interesting question you (Dhammarati) raise, and I am interested in hearing the answers." ----------------------------------------------------- Suan Lu Zaw responded as follows. In line with the above requests, I looked into Vitthaara Suttam on four groups of actions. I found this Suttam quite far-reaching. For starter, it contains etiology, the Buddha's answer to the existence of rebirth, the Buddha's concept of action, and the like. To appreciate the beauty of this Suttam on one hand, and to accommodate the requests of the above dhamma friends on the other hand, I decided to write a new modern commentary in English language to complement the existing Pali commentary on this Suttam. Before I wrote a commentary on this Suttam, I also decided to translate the original Suttam afresh into English despite the existence of previous translations done by other scholars. It is my view that there is always room for improvement in translation from one language into another. Fresh translations also give the readers the opportunity to compare different versions and gain new insights. Accordingly, whenever I translate an original Pali work, I do so in such a way as to help future or other scholars to produce even better translations. I do that by making sure that my own translations are syntactically literal and in as natural English as possible. In short, students of Pali and Pali scholars alike can perform "Syntax Walk-through" in my translation and thereby improve or enhance their further understanding of Pali language. Vitthaara Suttam, from which the following translation was made, can be found in Section 233, Kammavaggo, Catukkanipaata, Anguttaranikaayo on Chatthasangayana CD-ROM version 3 produced by Vipassana Research Institute. Those who use Roman edition should see page 230 in Volume 2 of that edition. VITTHAARA SUTTAM ON FOUR GROUPS OF KAMMA Vitthaara Suttam On Four Groups Of Kamma Translated By Suan Lu Zaw Monks, four actions have been declared by me by having personally realized them with extraordinary wisdom. What are the four? Monks, there is dark action having dark result. Monks, there is white action having white result. Monks, there is dark and white action having dark and white result. Minks, there is un-dark and un-white action having un-dark and un-white result, which takes place for depletion of actions. Monks, what is dark action having dark result? Here, monks, some carry out physical action with anger, verbal action with anger, and mental action with anger. Having carried out physical action with anger, having carried out verbal action with anger, and having carried out mental action with anger, he is reborn in the harsh world. Being reborn in the harsh world, harsh contacts touch him. Being touched by harsh contacts, he experiences the really miserable harsh feelings like those beings in hell do. Monks, this is called dark action having dark result. Monks, what is white action having white result? Here, monks, some carry out physical action with dis-anger, verbal action with dis- anger, and mental action with dis-anger. Having carried out physical action with dis-anger, having carried out verbal action with dis- anger, and having carried out mental action with dis-anger, he is reborn in the gentle world. Being reborn in the gentle world, gentle contacts touch him. Being touched by gentle contacts, he experiences the really pleasant gentle feelings like Subhakinha Brahma gods do. Monks, this is called white action having white result. Monks, what is dark and white action having dark and white result? Here, monks, some carry out physical action with anger as well as with dis-anger, verbal action with anger as well as with dis-anger, and mental action with anger as well as with dis-anger. Having carried out physical action with anger as well as with dis-anger, having carried out verbal action with anger as well as with dis- anger, and having carried out mental action with anger as well as with dis-anger, he is reborn in the harsh and gentle world. Being reborn in the harsh and gentle world, harsh as well as gentle contacts touch him. Being touched by harsh as well as gentle contacts, he experiences the mixed feelings of pleasure and misery like human beings, some sensuous gods and some mansion-owning halfway beings do. Monks, this is called dark and white action having dark and white result. Monks, what is un-dark and un-white action having un-dark and un- white result, which takes place for depletion of actions? Here, monks, such activation as to eradicate dark action having dark result, such activation as to eradicate white action having white result, and such activation as to eradicate dark and white action having dark and white result, this activation is called un-dark and un-white action having un-dark and un-white result, which takes place for depletion of actions. Monks, these four actions have been declared by me by having personally realized them with extraordinary wisdom. NOTES ON KEY TERMS The phrase "with anger" is a translation of the Pali compound "sabyaapajjam" which was defined as "sadosam" in the Pali commentary. Sadosam = sa + dosam. Doso is defined as anger in Pali Text Society's Pali – English Dictionary, see page 332. The phrase "with dis-anger" is a translation of the Pali word "abyaapajjam". The opposite of the Pali term "doso" is "adoso". Dis-anger is the literal translation of "adoso". Abyaapajjo is described as a synonym of adoso in Section 33, Dhammasanganii. Hence, I translated abyaapajjam as with dis-anger in order to contrast it with anger in Paragraph Two of the Vitthaara Suttam. In Section 397, Siilakkhandha Pali, Diighanikaayo, we find "bhikkhu averam abyaapajjam mettacittam bhaaveti. Without enmity, and with dis- anger, the monk develops the loving mind". Thus, dis-anger is a technical term to convey love or loving kindness as one of its meanings. It does not refer to the mere absence of anger as when our minds are with greed. Un-dark is a translation of the word "akanha, not dark". Here, un- darkness does not refer to other colors such as whiteness. It means counteracting the very color of darkness. Un-dark means anti-dark. Thus, un-dark action would counteract the dark actions and their dark results. Un-white is a translation of the word "asukka, not white". Here, too, un-whiteness does not refer to darkness or other colors. It means counteracting the very color of whiteness. Un-white means anti-white. Thus, un-white action would counteract the white actions and their white results. . To read the original Suttam in Pali, please follow the following link. http://www.tipitaka.org/tipitaka/s0402m3/s0402m3-frm.html And, please also visit the following link to download and install the Pali font on your computer so that the Pali letters appear on your screen correctly. http://www.tipitaka.org/general/pali.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ NEW MODERN COMMENTARY ON VITTHAARA SUTTAM BY SUAN LU ZAW COMING SOON. ------------------------------------------------------------------- With regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org 13180 From: frank kuan Date: Fri May 10, 2002 9:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] "ritual" [reply to Erik] Hi Dan and Erik, I enjoyed your dialogue, but if we can put aside the argument on the semantics of "descriptive" and "prescriptive", the main issue still boils down to one of practice versus theory. Erik's point: without REGULARLY DOING the meditation practices described/prescribed in the suttas, i.e. 4 this, 5 that, 37 this, understanding of dhamma remains at the level of intellectual understanding and second hand views. It is only through PRACTICE that the understanding of dhamma can become direct realizations. Dan's point: If we follow those dedscriptive/prescriptive practices as a ritual without right view, then we still won't develop realizations. fk: I agree with both points, but now the question to Dan becomes how do you propose to develop right view apart from following doing the strenuous practices (even ritualistically while right view is still under development)? To use a yoga analogy (I do 6 times a week ashtanga yoga practice): There are periods of months where it feels like I'm doing my yoga practice like a ritual, i.e. breathing properly, controlling the bandhas, directing gaze/attention at the appropriate spot at each inhale/exhale/posture. Feels like I'm not making progress for long periods of time, but then one day the practice blossoms and a breakthrough happens. It would not be possible for breakthroughs to happen if I didn't maintain the continuity of daily "ritualistic" practice. In the same way, I don't see how right view can arise apart from the strenuous forms of practice prescribed/described by the Buddha. The path of dhamma is not for the weak, and there are no short cuts. There is a place for book study and intellectual understanding, but if it remains in that realm then it's ultimately useless. -fk 13181 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri May 10, 2002 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] dispassion and nibbana op 09-05-2002 06:35 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > ADL: "And why, Malunkyaputta, has this not been explained by me? It is > because it is not connected with the goal, it is not fundamental to the > Brahma-faring, and does not conduce to turning away from, nor to > dispassion, stopping, calming, super-knowledge, awakening, nor to > nibbana." > > Dear Nina and dsg, > > Could you comment on the above quote, explaining the terms, their > relationship and sequence? > > 1. connected to the goal (pali?), [right view?] > > 2. Brahma-faring (brahmacariya), the holy life, entered for the purpose > of attaining deliverance of mind, MN29, [right intention?] > > 3. turning away from, disenchantment, (nibbida), culminating stages of > insight, Wisdom MN n.265, [right speech?] > > 4. dispassion (viraga), attainment of supramundane path, Wisdom MN > n.265, [right action?] > > 5. stopping, cessation (niroda), ???, [right livelihood?] > > 6. calming, peace (upasama, santi), pacification of lobha, dosa, moha, > MN 140.28, [right effort?] > > 7. super-knowledge, direct knowledge (abhinna), directly knowing anicca, > dukkha, anatta, Wisdom MN n. 22, [right mindfulness?] > > 8. awakening (sambodhi), full understanding of 4 noble truths???, [right > concentration?] > > 9. nibbana > Dear Larry, I went to the Co. which I have in Thai, not in Pali. As to Brahmafaring, brahma cariya, divine life, can refer to the monk's life, but also to the life of all those who develop the eightfold Path. As you will see, the terms here do not refer to the factors of the eightfold Path. The Buddha does not explain speculative views, because they do not lead to the goal. The Co. explains: But what the Buddha explains leads to the goal, and as the Co states, the opposite applies to what has just been stated: it leads to dispassion, etc. Thus, the goal is the eradication of defilements and reaching the end of rebirth. The development of insight will lead to the abandoning of clinging to self, and all other defilements. Viraga can mean detachment and nirodha extinction. Used in connection with the process of the development of panna, leading to more and more turning away from conditioned dhammas and inclining towards nibbana. Superknowledge: the direct understanding of dhammas as they are, as you indicated under 7. This leads to the realization of the four noble Truths when enlightenment is attained. I now come to Deanna's Q about nibbana: Deanna: I do have a question - why is nibbana not a conditioned dhamma? If right understanding of dhamma is necessary along with right effort and mindfulness how is it possible that enlightenment is not dependant on anything? I'm confused. Anyone care to shed some light on this for me? N: What arises because of conditions has to fall away, all sankhara dhammas are impermanent and thus dukkha, unsatisfactory. If nibbana would be conditioned it would be impermanent and dukkha, but nibbana is the end of dukkha. Enlightenment is not the same as nibbana. It means the attainment of nibbana when the supramundane cittas with panna arise, which have nibbana as its object. The supramundane citta, lokuttara citta itself falls away, it is impermanent and dukkha, but the object it experiences is the unconditioned dhamma. Indeed, many, many conditions are needed for the realization of the four noble Truths at the moment of enlightenment. Right understanding of the reality that appears now, be it hearing, sound or hardness, has to be developed again and again, with courage, without becoming bored. Nina. 13182 From: rickbolton510 Date: Fri May 10, 2002 0:25pm Subject: Virus attachments from this group I am receiving e-mails every day with attachments having the KLEZ virus, including from members of this group. The virus sends itself using the owners 'Outlook' program to everyone on the address list. The subject line will say almost anything. So be aware! I check all my attachments with the Yahoo virus check for free. Good luck all, Rick 13183 From: onco111 Date: Fri May 10, 2002 2:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "ritual" [reply to Erik] Hi Frank, It's great to hear from you. I think we are in basic agreement, although not entirely. It is often fruitful to discuss the differences. ______________ -> fk: the main issue still boils down to one of practice versus theory. ** Dan: I think both Erik and I would say that the main issue is Right View, what the characteristics and nature of the path are, and how panya is developed. I'm arguing that satipatthana is conditioned by hearing true Dhamma and yoniso manasikara. I don't think Erik disputes that, but he would throw in some techniques for "practicing satipatthana" specifically. ** > > Erik's point: without REGULARLY DOING the meditation > practices described/prescribed in the suttas, i.e. 4 > this, 5 that, 37 this, understanding of dhamma remains > at the level of intellectual understanding and second > hand views. It is only through PRACTICE that the > understanding of dhamma can become direct > realizations. I fully agree the it is only through PRACTICE (bhavana?) that full understanding of Dhamma can arise. Full, all-out, total effort and practice is needed. However, it must be full, all-out, total Right effort. What distinguishes "Right" effort from "wrong"? Certainly not the format of a ritual. > Dan's point: If we follow those > dedscriptive/prescriptive practices as a ritual > without right view, then we still won't develop > realizations. Right. But I would go one step further and say that viewing descriptions of experiences as prescriptive practices IS viewing them as ritual, and that the view of ritual as effecting liberation is a fetter to be broken. > I agree with both points, but now the question to Dan > becomes how do you propose to develop right view apart > from following doing the strenuous practices (even > ritualistically while right view is still under > development)? I don't have anything against strenuous practices; in fact, I find them very helpful and engage in them regularly. But the question is what are they helpful for? Training the mind, strengthening the mind, protecting the mind from certain types of akusala. These can be great benefits, but they must not be confused with panya nor with satipatthana. They can also be counterproductive if done with a view of self directing the practice or with the view that the self that directs and practices can direct its own destruction by perfecting such a practice or by perfecting the performance of a ritual. > To use a yoga analogy (I do 6 times a week ashtanga > yoga practice): There are periods of months where it > feels like I'm doing my yoga practice like a ritual, > i.e. breathing properly, controlling the bandhas, > directing gaze/attention at the appropriate spot at > each inhale/exhale/posture. Feels like I'm not making > progress for long periods of time, but then one day > the practice blossoms and a breakthrough happens. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "breakthrough." Could you elaborate? > The path of dhamma is not for the weak, and there are > no short cuts. Sadhu (x3)! > There is a place for book study and > intellectual understanding, but if it remains in that > realm then it's ultimately useless. Sadhu (x3 again)! 13184 From: yuzhonghao Date: Fri May 10, 2002 3:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "ritual" [reply to Erik] Hi Frank, Dan, Erik and all, To add on what you have said, I would like to say that one can read all about swimming without knowing how to swim. Reading and studying may help, but it really takes practice to learn the skill. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., frank kuan wrote: > Hi Dan and Erik, > I enjoyed your dialogue, but if we can put aside the > argument on the semantics of "descriptive" and > "prescriptive", the main issue still boils down to one > of practice versus theory. > > Erik's point: without REGULARLY DOING the meditation > practices described/prescribed in the suttas, i.e. 4 > this, 5 that, 37 this, understanding of dhamma remains > at the level of intellectual understanding and second > hand views. It is only through PRACTICE that the > understanding of dhamma can become direct > realizations. > > Dan's point: If we follow those > dedscriptive/prescriptive practices as a ritual > without right view, then we still won't develop > realizations. > > fk: > I agree with both points, but now the question to Dan > becomes how do you propose to develop right view apart > from following doing the strenuous practices (even > ritualistically while right view is still under > development)? > > To use a yoga analogy (I do 6 times a week ashtanga > yoga practice): There are periods of months where it > feels like I'm doing my yoga practice like a ritual, > i.e. breathing properly, controlling the bandhas, > directing gaze/attention at the appropriate spot at > each inhale/exhale/posture. Feels like I'm not making > progress for long periods of time, but then one day > the practice blossoms and a breakthrough happens. > > It would not be possible for breakthroughs to happen > if I didn't maintain the continuity of daily > "ritualistic" practice. In the same way, I don't see > how right view can arise apart from the strenuous > forms of practice prescribed/described by the Buddha. > > The path of dhamma is not for the weak, and there are > no short cuts. There is a place for book study and > intellectual understanding, but if it remains in that > realm then it's ultimately useless. > > -fk 13185 From: Date: Fri May 10, 2002 4:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dispassion and nibbana Nina, thanks for your elucidation and research. I was thinking this might be a step-wise progression that mirrored the eightfold path, but evidently it isn't. best wishes, Larry ----------------- ADL: "And why, Malunkyaputta, has this not been explained by me? It is because it is not connected with the goal, it is not fundamental to the Brahma-faring, and does not conduce to turning away from, nor to dispassion, stopping, calming, super-knowledge, awakening, nor to nibbana." 13186 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 10, 2002 8:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma In Color Suan Many thanks for your translation of this interesting sutta. I could be wrong, but I am guessing that the 4th kind of kamma refers to moments of mundane or supramundane path consciousness (this being the only kind of kamma that does not conduce to further rebirth in samsara). I look forward to reading your commentary in due course. Jon --- abhidhammika wrote: > > Vitthaara Suttam, from which the following translation was made, can > be found in Section 233, Kammavaggo, Catukkanipaata, Anguttaranikaayo > on Chatthasangayana CD-ROM version 3 produced by Vipassana Research > Institute. Those who use Roman edition should see page 230 in Volume > 2 of that edition. > > > VITTHAARA SUTTAM ON FOUR GROUPS OF KAMMA > > Vitthaara Suttam On Four Groups Of Kamma > > Translated By Suan Lu Zaw > > Monks, four actions have been declared by me by having personally > realized them with extraordinary wisdom. What are the four? Monks, > there is dark action having dark result. Monks, there is white action > having white result. Monks, there is dark and white action having > dark and white result. Minks, there is un-dark and un-white action > having un-dark and un-white result, which takes place for depletion > of actions. > > Monks, what is dark action having dark result? Here, monks, some > carry out physical action with anger, verbal action with anger, and > mental action with anger. Having carried out physical action with > anger, having carried out verbal action with anger, and having > carried out mental action with anger, he is reborn in the harsh > world. Being reborn in the harsh world, harsh contacts touch him. > Being touched by harsh contacts, he experiences the really miserable > harsh feelings like those beings in hell do. Monks, this is called > dark action having dark result. > > Monks, what is white action having white result? Here, monks, some > carry out physical action with dis-anger, verbal action with dis- > anger, and mental action with dis-anger. Having carried out physical > action with dis-anger, having carried out verbal action with dis- > anger, and having carried out mental action with dis-anger, he is > reborn in the gentle world. Being reborn in the gentle world, gentle > contacts touch him. Being touched by gentle contacts, he experiences > the really pleasant gentle feelings like Subhakinha Brahma gods do. > Monks, this is called white action having white result. > > Monks, what is dark and white action having dark and white result? > Here, monks, some carry out physical action with anger as well as > with dis-anger, verbal action with anger as well as with dis-anger, > and mental action with anger as well as with dis-anger. Having > carried out physical action with anger as well as with dis-anger, > having carried out verbal action with anger as well as with dis- > anger, and having carried out mental action with anger as well as > with dis-anger, he is reborn in the harsh and gentle world. Being > reborn in the harsh and gentle world, harsh as well as gentle > contacts touch him. Being touched by harsh as well as gentle > contacts, he experiences the mixed feelings of pleasure and misery > like human beings, some sensuous gods and some mansion-owning halfway > beings do. Monks, this is called dark and white action having dark > and white result. > > Monks, what is un-dark and un-white action having un-dark and un- > white result, which takes place for depletion of actions? Here, > monks, such activation as to eradicate dark action having dark > result, such activation as to eradicate white action having white > result, and such activation as to eradicate dark and white action > having dark and white result, this activation is called un-dark and > un-white action having un-dark and un-white result, which takes place > for depletion of actions. Monks, these four actions have been > declared by me by having personally realized them with extraordinary > wisdom. > > > NOTES ON KEY TERMS > > The phrase "with anger" is a translation of the Pali > compound "sabyaapajjam" which was defined as "sadosam" in the Pali > commentary. Sadosam = sa + dosam. > Doso is defined as anger in Pali Text Society's Pali – English > Dictionary, see page 332. > > The phrase "with dis-anger" is a translation of the Pali > word "abyaapajjam". The opposite of the Pali term "doso" is "adoso". > Dis-anger is the literal translation of "adoso". Abyaapajjo is > described as a synonym of adoso in Section 33, Dhammasanganii. Hence, > I translated abyaapajjam as with dis-anger in order to contrast it > with anger in Paragraph Two of the Vitthaara Suttam. > > In Section 397, Siilakkhandha Pali, Diighanikaayo, we find "bhikkhu > averam abyaapajjam mettacittam bhaaveti. Without enmity, and with dis- > anger, the monk develops the loving mind". > > Thus, dis-anger is a technical term to convey love or loving kindness > as one of its meanings. It does not refer to the mere absence of > anger as when our minds are with greed. > > Un-dark is a translation of the word "akanha, not dark". Here, un- > darkness does not refer to other colors such as whiteness. It means > counteracting the very color of darkness. Un-dark means anti-dark. > > Thus, un-dark action would counteract the dark actions and their dark > results. > > Un-white is a translation of the word "asukka, not white". Here, too, > un-whiteness does not refer to darkness or other colors. It means > counteracting the very color of whiteness. Un-white means anti-white. > > Thus, un-white action would counteract the white actions and their > white results. 13187 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 10, 2002 9:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Antidotes to lobha Lucy --- Lucy wrote: > Hi Jon > I misunderstood your use of the words seeing and understanding. I'm more > used to reading these words to imply experiential, largely non-conceptual > realisations - especially when addressing the uprooting of kilesa - So the > way I read your post was along the lines of "the effective way to deal with > lobha is to realise enlightenment" - which is very true, of course, but > unlikely to happen to this citta-stream in a hurry. Sorry if I got you > wrong. No apology necessary. I believe my posts are easily mis-read in this way, so I’m sure the problem lies with my manner of expression rather than the reader! > I agree it's useful to know lobha etc. You see it arise ( = it's already > been and gone), you examine it inside out, measure it, identify it, give > it a name, look for the roots, project the consequences of its > manifestation, remember the teachings, recognise that it's a hindrance, > etc. .... and then, what do you do ? That was really the gist of my > question. How to go about relinquishing the objects of attachment? and > relinquishing the tendency to develop attachment? on a moment to moment > basis. I’m sure we would all like to have less kilesa (or at least less of the kind of kilesa that we recognise as such). But while less kilesa does indeed result from the development of the path, this doesn’t mean that the development of the path is ‘tied’ in any sense to having less kilesa in our lives now. From my reading, the path is developed if there is awareness of a presently arising reality, whatever that reality may be, and it doesn’t matter whether it is kusala or akusala, nama or rupa, internal or eternal. The reduction of the kilesa is something that occurs as a natural consequence of the development of awareness and the ensuing understanding, but should not be the focus of that development. Having the objective of having less kilesa in our life now is, I believe, to fall into the trap of expectations. It inevitably inclines us to a form of practice that involves suppression in one form or another. > I know the answer is cultivation, but expedient means can help to > keep the mind on the cultivation track, you need to aspire to cultivation > and remember to keep it going. At least, in my example of offering hills, > if you have an accident and die right there, citta will be pointing in the > right direction. At best, you develop a habit of remembering the Path when > you're out and about clinging to everything you see. It's all training! It’s training only if it’s kusala and, in particular, if it’s right view :-). > > I thing that proper study of understanding at a theoretical level is the > most useful > > preparation of the soil for the cultivation of the real thing. > > > The theoretical level on its own doesn't work very well for me, though it > may well work for others. This mind needs a lot more field work on all > fronts. It may be that in science one acquires a very healthy disrespect > for anything "theoretical" and you can't really trust something you always > take with a pinch of salt. Now, combined with the lab / field work, it > starts making more sense. Agreed that the theoretical level on its own is not the development of the path. But a proper theoretical basis is indispensable to the development of the path, I think. > Glad you enjoyed the holiday - ours is on Monday. > > Best wishes > Lucy Thanks. Hope you had a good week away (Norfolk?). Jon 13188 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat May 11, 2002 0:02am Subject: RE: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long) Dear Christine, I think the key to develop the 4-brahma vihara is to know their characteristics, and know how they are different from lobha, dosa, and moha. Without knowing this, when we think we are having metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha, it may just be wishful thinking out of our attachment to those qualities. Let me list the near enemies of the 4 qualities, from memory (so please check, if you have the opportunities!) Metta has lobha as its near enemy. It is easy to mistake lobha for metta. For example, when we treat somebody kindly who is dear to us, is that metta or lobha? Very difficult to tell. Karuna has dosa as its near enemy. Without hearing the Buddha's teachings, some people mistake dosa (unhappiness for other people's misery) as karuna. When we see a thin, malnourished child, is the wish to do something for the child really driven by our need to drive away the unpleasant feeling (domanassa) or is it driven by karuna? Mudita has lobha as its near enemy. When we see happiness of somebody dear to us, is that by attachment or by mudita? Equanimity has ignorance as its near enemy. Some people mistake ignorance and its associated indifferent feeling as equanimity (often stated as upekkha). Equanimity is the quality of not falling into unwholesome states. When we feel indifferent toward someone's plight, is that lack of metta (and lack of equanimity) or is there a knowledge that we cannot do anything for the person and that each person has kamma as their own? We normally like to think good thing about ourselves (like we have metta, karuna, mudita, and equanmity, especially comparing to other people!), but without knowing these different qualities, then developing them to a high degree is impossible, and a lot of time, thinking that we actually have these qualities are just wishful thinking. The thing is to develop kusala, and to discard akusala. What if we are in a situation that requires us to rebuke somebody to help others? My question would then be, is that rebuke done out of kusala or akusala? Rebuking somebody out of anger to help other people are akusala kamma, and one will certainly suffer the result of that akusala kamma, and enjoy the fruit out of the kusala intention for another. We need to be straight and true to the dhamma: if it is kusala, then it is kusala; if it is akusala, it is akusala. Wishing it some way or another doesn't change the realities. I reiterate the story from Maha-pari-nibbana sutta. The Buddha asked V. Ananda for water (when he was sick) 3 different times, but V. Ananda mentioned to the Buddha that the water was unsuitable for drinking because of recent herd crossing. The Buddha insisted, and V. Ananda eventually found suitable water. The fact that the Buddha couldn't get suitable water was said to be his chasing away his herd from unsuitable water in a previous live. Although he did this out of good intention, but akusala alternated with kusala, and the bad vipaka resulted from the akusala kamma. I believe the Buddha encouraged us to develop all levels of kusala (dana, sila, and bhavana) whenever an opportunity presents itself. He certainly didn't praise akusala or indifferent feeling (out of ignorance). But we also have to remember, all these qualities rise because of conditions. Without hearing the Buddha's teaching, they probably are conditioned by our own accumulations and the people with are associated with. However, with the Buddha's teachings, we can develop them to the finest degree, by hearing detailed teachings about these qualities and their enemies, by considering them in our daily lives, by knowing their benefits and the faults of their opposites, and by knowing them as they truly are: conditioned realities that fall away immediately that is neither self or ours. kom > -----Original Message----- > From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 2:56 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6) > > > Dear Sarah, (Larry) and All, > > Interesting post, Sarah. The real question for > me, accepting > that 'our accumulation of dosa is the real cause > that aversion arises > time and again,' is not blame or pointing the > finger at a particular > individual. In actual everday hands-on living > of our lives, and > while understanding that complex conditions > bring about suffering - > are we to ignore people being wronged, whether > it is ourselves, dear > ones, or even perfect strangers? Are we not to > attempt to assist or > protect (in a non-violent way) those we feel are > being treated > unfairly and suffering? Is there total moral > neutrality? Should we > speak out about perceived injustices, or should > we just say 'It's > their fruits of kamma' or 'Uh-huh hurt feelings.. > shows lack of > advancement in the practice yet, too much > dosa,mana, clinging, or not > enough ' ? Often, it is easier to > preserve silence, > than speak out and attract retribution, or risk > losing valued > friendships.... > Non-action, like action, is an intentional > choice. And if I don't > act, when I could have acted, or if I choose one > action instead of > another, the results of that action or non-action > are my kama-vipaka > eventually? > Does Buddhism encourage protection of those in > need of protection, > speaking out about injustices, social action? > Does Buddhism have any equivalent of Reverend Marin > Niemoellers "First They Came For".... > "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the > communists, and I didn't > speak up because I wasn't a communist. > Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak > up because I wasn't a > Jew. > Then the came for the trade unionists, and I > didn't speak up because > I wasn't a trade unionist. > Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't > speak up because I was > a protestant. > Then they came for me, and by that time there was > no one left to > speak for me." > Seemingly a dramatic quote of course, compared to > an ordinary person > being treated unfairly in daily interactions, but > it is talking about > the importance of making a stand against wrong. > Small daily > happenings are miniature reflections of what > happens on a larger > scale nationally and internationally. When the > harm being done (as > in the categories above) is to a person who is a > little different to > the majority, or to whom the majority seem to be > either opposed or > indifferent, how easy it is to magnify their > faults and minimise (or > be unable to hear or see clearly) the role of > those others doing > wrong. How easy to look for the approval of the > majority(more like > us), and feel validated. > So what is a Buddhist to do, to live in the world > correctly and > unselfishly, with loving-kindness, compassion, > sympathetic joy, and > equanimity regarding others? Watch our own mind > states, and be aware > when dosa arises. Is that all? Does this mean > ignoring the suffering > of others when it could be ameliorated or > prevented? Extending or > pervading metta, but taking no action? What do > the Teachings say? > > metta, > Christine > 13189 From: rikpa21 Date: Sat May 11, 2002 0:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] "ritual" [reply to Erik] --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" wrote: > Hi Frank, > It's great to hear from you. I think we are in basic agreement, > although not entirely. It is often fruitful to discuss the > differences. > > ______________ > -> fk: the main issue still boils down to one of practice versus > theory. > > ** Dan: I think both Erik and I would say that the main issue is Right > View, what the characteristics and nature of the path are, and how > panya is developed. I'm arguing that satipatthana is conditioned by > hearing true Dhamma and yoniso manasikara. I don't think Erik disputes > that, but he would throw in some techniques for "practicing > satipatthana" specifically. ** > > > > > Erik's point: without REGULARLY DOING the meditation > > practices described/prescribed in the suttas, i.e. 4 > > this, 5 that, 37 this, understanding of dhamma remains > > at the level of intellectual understanding and second > > hand views. It is only through PRACTICE that the > > understanding of dhamma can become direct > > realizations. > > I fully agree the it is only through PRACTICE (bhavana?) that full > understanding of Dhamma can arise. Full, all-out, total effort and > practice is needed. However, it must be full, all-out, total Right > effort. What distinguishes "Right" effort from "wrong"? Certainly not > the format of a ritual. Hi Dan, This seems to be a sticking point in our dialogues--the semantic issue of what constitutes "ritual". Specifically the type of ritual that is ineffective in terms of delivering the fruits of the path. My understanding is that it is *outer* observances of rites (and I include sila in this mix) without the concomitant mental factors those rituals are designed to engender, that is the type of ritual to be abandoned. The best analogy I can come up with at this point is that of the monk who obeys the letter of the Vinaya, who displays all the behavioral characteristics of an arahat on the outside, whose mind is still caught in the grip of attachment, aversion, and ignorance. One may consider Cambodia's infamous Ta Mok ("The Butcher"), who was a monk for ten years until joining in with Pol Pot (after failing the basic Pali exams needed to go further with his Buddhist studies). As far as I know, that's long enough in the robes to be considered a "lo ta" (senior monk), and yet, those years of observing sila apparently had too weak an effect on Ta Mok's understanding that he did not find it inappropriate to oversee the ruthless murder of hundreds of thousands of people. So in this specific case, the ritual observances of the Vinaya seemed to have little effect whatsoever on Ta Mok's understanding, thus substantiating the point that mere outer observances are ineffective. Alternatively, what would have happened had that sila naturally and spontaneously arisen as a side-effect of realizing the fruits of the path? For this reason I think it's important to have a clear understanding of what constitutes silabbataparamasa--that one cannot rely on mere outer rites and observances and expect freedom to arise from outer mimicry absent right understanding. On this point I think we may agree: it's not the shaved head, or the saffron (or burgundy) robes that matter, it's all about the mentality. The path is about cultivating right understanding and the appropriate mental factors: alobha, adosa, amoha, panna, dhamma-vicaya, viriya, piti, passadhi, samadhi, upekkha, to the appropriate balance and degree, and that this constitutes the essence of the Path, that this does not depend on outer obserances, but rather on *inner* observances--on observing the body in & of itself, the feelings in & of themselves, the mind in & of itself, and dhammas in & of themselves. > > Dan's point: If we follow those > > dedscriptive/prescriptive practices as a ritual > > without right view, then we still won't develop > > realizations. > > Right. But I would go one step further and say that viewing > descriptions of experiences as prescriptive practices IS viewing them > as ritual, and that the view of ritual as effecting liberation is a > fetter to be broken. Please see above. If you really want to get technical, the entire Vinaya Pitaka is a set of outer behavioral "ritual" designed to act as a guide and a support for the trainee. It doesn't help everyone, as can be observed using an extreme case like Ta Mok, but it does help create better conditions (such as avoidance of the akusala accumulated through body & speech) for understanding nonetheless. Otherwise, why would the Buddha have laid out so many rules for his disciples? But absent right understanding, it's just more silabbataparamasa. That said, for many, emulation--even outer emulation absent right understanding--can still serve as an excellent way to get the inner part (where it counts--in the mind) into conformance, as long as it's practiced in accordance with ever-increasing understanding, or panna, if you prefer the term. If ritual's done for its own sake, though, without right understanding (or the increasing straightening of views that happens in the course of training), then it is the fetter of silabbataparamasa. Cheers, Erik 13190 From: onco111 Date: Sat May 11, 2002 2:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] "ritual" [reply to Erik] Victor: > To add on what you have said, I would like to say that one can read > all about swimming without knowing how to swim. Reading and studying > may help, but it really takes practice to learn the skill. You raise two important issues here. Certainly, the importance of practice is agreed on by all, and that there is a big distinction between swimming and reading about swimming (as there is between Dhamma and reading about Dhamma). The question is what are the characteristics of right practice. Is satipatthana a skill? Dan 13191 From: onco111 Date: Sat May 11, 2002 4:34am Subject: Silabbataparamasa -- inner vs. outer? Dear Erik, You write: > This seems to be a sticking point in our dialogues--the semantic > issue of what constitutes "ritual". Specifically the type of ritual > that is ineffective in terms of delivering the fruits of the path. I think you hit the nail on the head (but not the knee with a ball- peen hammer!); although rather than calling it a "semantic issue", I'd argue that understanding ritual is a cornerstone of Right View. [Of course, by "understanding" I mean via bhavanamayapanya, not via semantics.] There may be a distinction between "inner" and "outer" ritual as you suggest, but there is a deeper distinction between ritual and non-ritual that lies at the heart of silabbataparamasa as a fetter. I very much appreciate your clear explanation of how the "outer" silabbataparamasa does little to purify the mind. And your explanation applies equally well to "inner" silabbataparamasa. I have a few comments interspersed... > My understanding is that it is *outer* observances of rites (and I > include sila in this mix) without the concomitant mental factors > those rituals are designed to engender, that is the type of ritual > to be abandoned. The best analogy I can come up with at this point > is that of the monk who obeys the letter of the Vinaya, who displays > all the behavioral characteristics of an arahat on the outside, > whose mind is still caught in the grip of attachment, aversion, and > ignorance. Yes, it reminds me of a wonderful quote (from Zen?): "Arahants don't keep precepts; they don't break precepts" [paraphrase]. I read this as meaning that purity of heart leads to purity of action and not the other way around. > So in this specific case, the ritual observances of the Vinaya > seemed to have little effect whatsoever on Ta Mok's understanding, > thus substantiating the point that mere outer observances are > ineffective. Alternatively, what would have happened had that sila > naturally and spontaneously arisen as a side-effect of realizing the > fruits of the path? It would have been an entirely different story... > For this reason I think it's important to have a clear understanding > of what constitutes silabbataparamasa--that one cannot rely on mere > outer rites and observances and expect freedom to arise from outer > mimicry absent right understanding. This is really excellent, Erik. This is a clear statement of why I think it so odd to read the satipatthana sutta as a series of exercises in which we are to try to mimic satipatthana. It's only clear, though, when it is seen that the distinction between outer and inner rites and rituals is transcended when we talk about the Samma's. Critical to development of samma's is understanding that the distinction between ritual and non-ritual is closely related to the distinction between atta and anatta, and between ditthi and samma ditti but that the distinction between inner ritual and outer ritual is not. > Please see above. If you really want to get technical, the entire > Vinaya Pitaka is a set of outer behavioral "ritual" designed to act > as a guide and a support for the trainee. It doesn't help everyone, > as can be observed using an extreme case like Ta Mok, but it does > help create better conditions (such as avoidance of the akusala > accumulated through body & speech) for understanding nonetheless. > Otherwise, why would the Buddha have laid out so many rules for his > disciples? But absent right understanding, it's just more > silabbataparamasa. > That said, for many, emulation--even outer emulation absent right > understanding--can still serve as an excellent way to get the inner > part (where it counts--in the mind) into conformance, as long as > it's practiced in accordance with ever-increasing understanding, or > panna, if you prefer the term. If ritual's done for its own sake, > though, without right understanding (or the increasing straightening > of views that happens in the course of training), then it is the > fetter of silabbataparamasa. I think this is right -- Vinaya without right understanding is silabbataparamasa, and that when there is no understanding, silabbataparamasa is better than no silabbataparamasa. Your explanation is great, but I would modify it just a little to include "inner" silabbataparamasa in the same boat as "outer" silabbataparamasa, to wit: If you really want to get technical, prescribed meditation exercises are behavioral "rituals" designed to act as a guide and a support for the trainee. But absent right understanding, they are just more silabbataparamasa. That said, for many, emulation--even outer emulation [like taking precepts or using Satipatthana sutta as an instruction manual] absent right understanding--can still serve as an excellent way to discipline the inner part, without which understanding cannot develop. If ritual's done for its own sake, though, without right understanding, then it is the fetter of silabbataparamasa. It is a mistake to think that practicing and perfecting following rules will result in wisdom -- the fetter of [outer] silabbataparamasa. It is also a mistake to think that practicing and perfecting meditation techniques will result in wisdom -- the fetter of [inner] silabbataparamasa. Arahants don't establish sati; they don't misunderstand sati. Dan 13192 From: onco111 Date: Sat May 11, 2002 4:50am Subject: [dsg] Re: Right Concentration - [kom] Dear Kom, Thank you for this post. You seem to step in in just the right places with just the right comments. But isn't hasituppadacitta a rootless functional, not a javana? Also, doesn't it seem impossible to even imagine no javanas without sati? Great reminder of how long the path is... Dan > > Dan: This "unbroken mindfulness" sounds very > > peculiar to me. Yes, > > I've heard it said many times before and have > > even been deluded into > > thinking I've experienced it at times. But even > > when the mind is numb > > to it, always there is sense consciousness, investigating > > consciousness, five-door adverting consciousness, > > mind-door adverting > > consciousness intervening -- and sati in none of > > these. This is there > > to be observed in practice, in FM, in daily life, > > in study but it > > does require seeing to see. Sati cannot be > > Thank you for this important reminder. Only an arahant has > virtually perfect awareness (awareness in most javanas). > And even that, in some javanas, there is no sati (hasitupada > citta). We don't have perfect awareness in javanas because > there is no condition to have them. > > kom 13193 From: yuzhonghao Date: Sat May 11, 2002 6:37am Subject: Re: "ritual" [reply to Erik] Hi Dan, Regarding your first question on what are the characteristics of right practice, I would like to ask it as: what is the path* leading to the cessation of dukkha? Regarding your second question "Is satipatthana a skill?" As one of its definitions, the word "skill" means "a learned power of doing something competently: a developed aptitude or ability"** The word "satipatthana" is defined as "intent contemplation and mindfulness, earnest thought, application of mindfulness"*** My answer is: Satipatthana is not a skill, but the skill in satipatthana is. Likewise, Swimming itself is not a skill, but the skill of how to swim is. Regards, Victor *See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn45-008.html **See http://www.webster.com/ ***See http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/ --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" wrote: > Victor: > > To add on what you have said, I would like to say that one can read > > all about swimming without knowing how to swim. Reading and > studying > > may help, but it really takes practice to learn the skill. > > You raise two important issues here. Certainly, the importance of > practice is agreed on by all, and that there is a big distinction > between swimming and reading about swimming (as there is between > Dhamma and reading about Dhamma). The question is what are the > characteristics of right practice. > > Is satipatthana a skill? > > Dan 13194 From: manji Date: Sat May 11, 2002 7:04am Subject: RE: [dsg] nibbana - conditioned? I pay homage do the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha. I take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha. Nibbana is un-conditioned, therefore not dependent. Since it is not dependent and un-conditioned it cannot rise and fall. The clouds come, the clouds go. Walk inside, walk outside. During the day, the sun is always there. When is there an experience of the sun? Although the sun too is conditioned, you can see perhaps that falling away reveals what remains. This is a bit different than conditioning something new. Does the disappearance of the clouds condition the sun? So this is where the "burning up" process of meditation and mindfulness (eightfold path) reveals what remains. The obscuration of nibbana from moha (ignorance). And this moha isn't merely conceptual, and it isn't merely ignorance of what is conceptual (pannati). This whole process of letting go of the results of kamma, reveals more results of kamma, until one day what remains isn't conditioned. And these results of kamma can arise in conventional terms, but here is applied to paramattha dhamma. Letting go, without attachment. Letting go without aversion. Leading to panna (wisdom). So all these results are not self. "What is your original face?" Again, not self. :) Anyways, perhaps this helps. > -----Original Message----- > From: Deanna Shakti Johnson [mailto:deannajohnsonusa@y...] > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 7:11 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] nibbana - conditioned? > > > Dear All, > I want to thank everyone for their very interesting and thought provoking > posts. I have been learning alot. Happily I just received numerous books > including Abhidhamma in Daily Life and I am trying to work my way thru > them. I hope to be able to share more in the discussions. > I do have a question - why is nibbana not a conditioned dhamma? If right > understanding of dhamma is necessary along with right effort and > mindfulness how is it possible that enlightenment is not dependant on > anything? I'm confused. Anyone care to shed some light on this for me? > Shakti > > > Hi Robert, > > The "fundamental elements" I am referring to are the "conditioned > paramattha > dhammas." A nice listing of them is found near the beginning of the > Patisambhidamagga (Path of Discrimination) where they are broken down into > 201 states (dhammas). This is the "object-field" upon which insight is > cultivated. Dependent arising, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and no- > self > insight should be applied to these states. I have found the > Patisambhidamagga and the Visuddhimagga to be very valuable assistants in > helping to understand how the Suttas are directing to "break down > delusion." > (Not that much has been broken down mind you.) > > This passage of Howard's is awesome... > > >>>It seems to me that if, in trying to see the impersonality of all > dhammas, an essential enterprise (!), one is led to a belief in ultimate > dhammas with own-being, then one has traded one aspect of atta-view for > another. It also seems to me that a mere intellectual understanding of the > truth that all dhammas other than nibbana arise in dependence on causes > and > conditions still misses a full understanding of anatta. <<< 13195 From: manji Date: Sat May 11, 2002 7:07am Subject: RE: [dsg] nibbana - conditioned? Oops... one last remark... The "process" of the "revealing of what remains", this is conditioned. What remains, in the case of nibbanna is un-conditioned. :) -manji- > -----Original Message----- > From: manji [mailto:manji@s...] > Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 10:05 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [dsg] nibbana - conditioned? > > I pay homage do the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha. > I take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha. > > Nibbana is un-conditioned, therefore not dependent. Since it is not > dependent and un-conditioned it cannot rise and fall. > > The clouds come, the clouds go. Walk inside, walk outside. During the > day, the sun is always there. When is there an experience of the sun? > Although the sun too is conditioned, you can see perhaps that falling > away reveals what remains. This is a bit different than conditioning > something new. > > Does the disappearance of the clouds condition the sun? > > So this is where the "burning up" process of meditation and mindfulness > (eightfold path) reveals what remains. The obscuration of nibbana from > moha (ignorance). And this moha isn't merely conceptual, and it isn't > merely ignorance of what is conceptual (pannati). > > This whole process of letting go of the results of kamma, reveals more > results of kamma, until one day what remains isn't conditioned. And > these results of kamma can arise in conventional terms, but here is > applied to paramattha dhamma. Letting go, without attachment. Letting go > without aversion. Leading to panna (wisdom). So all these results are > not self. > > "What is your original face?" > > Again, not self. :) > > Anyways, perhaps this helps. > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Deanna Shakti Johnson [mailto:deannajohnsonusa@y...] > > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 7:11 AM > > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [dsg] nibbana - conditioned? > > > > > > Dear All, > > I want to thank everyone for their very interesting and thought > provoking > > posts. I have been learning alot. Happily I just received numerous > books > > including Abhidhamma in Daily Life and I am trying to work my way thru > > them. I hope to be able to share more in the discussions. > > I do have a question - why is nibbana not a conditioned dhamma? If > right > > understanding of dhamma is necessary along with right effort and > > mindfulness how is it possible that enlightenment is not dependant on > > anything? I'm confused. Anyone care to shed some light on this for > me? > > Shakti > > > > > > Hi Robert, > > > > The "fundamental elements" I am referring to are the "conditioned > > paramattha > > dhammas." A nice listing of them is found near the beginning of the > > Patisambhidamagga (Path of Discrimination) where they are broken down > into > > 201 states (dhammas). This is the "object-field" upon which insight is > > cultivated. Dependent arising, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and > no- > > self > > insight should be applied to these states. I have found the > > Patisambhidamagga and the Visuddhimagga to be very valuable assistants > in > > helping to understand how the Suttas are directing to "break down > > delusion." > > (Not that much has been broken down mind you.) > > > > This passage of Howard's is awesome... > > > > >>>It seems to me that if, in trying to see the impersonality of all > > dhammas, an essential enterprise (!), one is led to a belief in > ultimate > > dhammas with own-being, then one has traded one aspect of atta-view > for > > another. It also seems to me that a mere intellectual understanding of > the > > truth that all dhammas other than nibbana arise in dependence on > causes > > and > > conditions still misses a full understanding of anatta. <<< 13196 From: abhidhammika Date: Sat May 11, 2002 7:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma In Color: To Jon Dear Jon How are you? You wrote: "I am guessing that the 4th kind of kamma refers to moments of mundane or supramundane path consciousness (this being the only kind of kamma that does not conduce to further rebirth in samsara)." Your guess was very close because Commentary on Samkhitta Suttam, on which Vitthaara Suttam was an elaboration, settled on supramundane path consciousness. Thank you for your interest in my new commentary on Vitthaara Suttam. As soon as I finish writing it, I will post it to this list. Won't be long. With regards, Suan --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > Suan > > Many thanks for your translation of this interesting sutta. > > I could be wrong, but I am guessing that the 4th kind of kamma refers to moments of > mundane or supramundane path consciousness (this being the only kind of kamma that > does not conduce to further rebirth in samsara). > > I look forward to reading your commentary in due course. > > Jon > > --- abhidhammika wrote: > > > > Vitthaara Suttam, from which the following translation was made, can > > be found in Section 233, Kammavaggo, Catukkanipaata, Anguttaranikaayo > > on Chatthasangayana CD-ROM version 3 produced by Vipassana Research > > Institute. Those who use Roman edition should see page 230 in Volume > > 2 of that edition. > > > > > > VITTHAARA SUTTAM ON FOUR GROUPS OF KAMMA > > > > Vitthaara Suttam On Four Groups Of Kamma > > > > Translated By Suan Lu Zaw > > > > Monks, four actions have been declared by me by having personally > > realized them with extraordinary wisdom. What are the four? Monks, > > there is dark action having dark result. Monks, there is white action > > having white result. Monks, there is dark and white action having > > dark and white result. Minks, there is un-dark and un-white action > > having un-dark and un-white result, which takes place for depletion > > of actions. > > > > Monks, what is dark action having dark result? Here, monks, some > > carry out physical action with anger, verbal action with anger, and > > mental action with anger. Having carried out physical action with > > anger, having carried out verbal action with anger, and having > > carried out mental action with anger, he is reborn in the harsh > > world. Being reborn in the harsh world, harsh contacts touch him. > > Being touched by harsh contacts, he experiences the really miserable > > harsh feelings like those beings in hell do. Monks, this is called > > dark action having dark result. > > > > Monks, what is white action having white result? Here, monks, some > > carry out physical action with dis-anger, verbal action with dis- > > anger, and mental action with dis-anger. Having carried out physical > > action with dis-anger, having carried out verbal action with dis- > > anger, and having carried out mental action with dis-anger, he is > > reborn in the gentle world. Being reborn in the gentle world, gentle > > contacts touch him. Being touched by gentle contacts, he experiences > > the really pleasant gentle feelings like Subhakinha Brahma gods do. > > Monks, this is called white action having white result. > > > > Monks, what is dark and white action having dark and white result? > > Here, monks, some carry out physical action with anger as well as > > with dis-anger, verbal action with anger as well as with dis- anger, > > and mental action with anger as well as with dis-anger. Having > > carried out physical action with anger as well as with dis-anger, > > having carried out verbal action with anger as well as with dis- > > anger, and having carried out mental action with anger as well as > > with dis-anger, he is reborn in the harsh and gentle world. Being > > reborn in the harsh and gentle world, harsh as well as gentle > > contacts touch him. Being touched by harsh as well as gentle > > contacts, he experiences the mixed feelings of pleasure and misery > > like human beings, some sensuous gods and some mansion-owning halfway > > beings do. Monks, this is called dark and white action having dark > > and white result. > > > > Monks, what is un-dark and un-white action having un-dark and un- > > white result, which takes place for depletion of actions? Here, > > monks, such activation as to eradicate dark action having dark > > result, such activation as to eradicate white action having white > > result, and such activation as to eradicate dark and white action > > having dark and white result, this activation is called un-dark and > > un-white action having un-dark and un-white result, which takes place > > for depletion of actions. Monks, these four actions have been > > declared by me by having personally realized them with extraordinary > > wisdom. > > > > > > NOTES ON KEY TERMS > > > > The phrase "with anger" is a translation of the Pali > > compound "sabyaapajjam" which was defined as "sadosam" in the Pali > > commentary. Sadosam = sa + dosam. > > Doso is defined as anger in Pali Text Society's Pali – English > > Dictionary, see page 332. > > > > The phrase "with dis-anger" is a translation of the Pali > > word "abyaapajjam". The opposite of the Pali term "doso" is "adoso". > > Dis-anger is the literal translation of "adoso". Abyaapajjo is > > described as a synonym of adoso in Section 33, Dhammasanganii. Hence, > > I translated abyaapajjam as with dis-anger in order to contrast it > > with anger in Paragraph Two of the Vitthaara Suttam. > > > > In Section 397, Siilakkhandha Pali, Diighanikaayo, we find "bhikkhu > > averam abyaapajjam mettacittam bhaaveti. Without enmity, and with dis- > > anger, the monk develops the loving mind". > > > > Thus, dis-anger is a technical term to convey love or loving kindness > > as one of its meanings. It does not refer to the mere absence of > > anger as when our minds are with greed. > > > > Un-dark is a translation of the word "akanha, not dark". Here, un- > > darkness does not refer to other colors such as whiteness. It means > > counteracting the very color of darkness. Un-dark means anti- dark. > > > > Thus, un-dark action would counteract the dark actions and their dark > > results. > > > > Un-white is a translation of the word "asukka, not white". Here, too, > > un-whiteness does not refer to darkness or other colors. It means > > counteracting the very color of whiteness. Un-white means anti- white. > > > > Thus, un-white action would counteract the white actions and their > > white results. > 13197 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat May 11, 2002 8:41am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Right Concentration - [kom] Dear Dan, That's right. Hasitpadda-citta is the only rootless citta (without the hetu cetasikas) that can occur in Javanas, and occurs only in an arahant only. I think you are absolutely right about the long path. We can see how much sati occurs in a day, and can appreciate how long it would take to become an individual who is perfectly aware... Appreciating your recent posts very much. kom > -----Original Message----- > From: onco111 [mailto:dalthorp@o...] > Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 4:50 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: Right Concentration - [kom] > > > Dear Kom, > Thank you for this post. You seem to step in in > just the right places > with just the right comments. > > But isn't hasituppadacitta a rootless functional, > not a javana? > > Also, doesn't it seem impossible to even imagine > no javanas without > sati? Great reminder of how long the path is... > > Dan > 13198 From: abhidhammika Date: Sat May 11, 2002 8:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Iddhi: To Wynn, Sarah, Kom Dear Wynn, Sarah, Kom How are you? I have been following this thread for some time. I got the impression that Wynn could not resolve the issue of which level of Jhaana is adequate for the purposes of iddhi. Can I add something to this thread from another angle? Please allow me to adopt the Fourfold counting of Jhaana stages. Even though there are the four Aruupa Jhaanas in addition to the four Ruupa Jhaanas, all those four Aruupa Jhaanas are the branches of the Fourth Jhaana. They are the fourth Jhaana. Therefore, we can say that the fourth Jhaana is all we need in order to perform iddhi. Having said that, just attaining the fourth Jhaana is not enough for performance of iddhi. Once you got the fourth Jhaana, you needed to explore all branches of the fourth Jhaana. These branches of the fourth Jhaana are none other than Aruupa Jhaanas. In other words, the same fourth Jhaana includes both Ruupa and Aruupa branches. And, unless you have expertise in all branches of the fourth Jhaana, you won't be able to get off the ground iddhi-wise. Therefore, to be on safer grounds, a yogi needed to practice all the Ruupa and Aruupa branches of the fourth Jhaana. Hope I did not add to further confusion! With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., wynn wrote: > > Hi, > > > From jhana section: "...The 4 absorptions of the immaterial sphere (s. > above 5-8) still belong, properly speaking, to the 4th absorption as they > possess the same two constituents. < > > Actually, it is still not clear for me. > > Here, if we take all the arupa jhanas (5-8) as belonging to the 4th jhana, > then do we need the arupas jhana to perform supernormal powers? > > >The 4th fine-material absorption is also the base or starting point > (pádaka-jhána, q.v.) for the attaining of > the higher spiritual powers (abhiññá, q.v.).< > > But this statement is not supported by the Tipitaka nor the commentaries. > > I am curious whether the 4th Jhana (fine material absorption) is enough for > one to be able to perform supernatural powers. > > I know that when performing supernatural powers, the arupa jhanas are not > used at all. But Visudhimagga said one needs all 8 absorption to be able to > do it. (though it is not used when performing psychic powers) > > Thanks, > Wynn 13199 From: Date: Sat May 11, 2002 5:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long) Hi, Kom - I think you make very important points here. We need be clearly aware of the conceptual distinctions between the Brahma viharas and their near enemies. Then, the other side of the coin is to have direct, clear comprehension of exactly what is experienced at the time that one of the Brahma viharas seems to be in force. I think it is very useful to be particularly mindful on those occasions at which one of them seems to be in effect with regard to a stranger, for that is a likely circumstance for us not to be mistaken. An example in this regard is what happened to me yesterday. I spent yesterday afternoon through to 10 p.m. in the emergency room of a hospital. (I had been experiencing frequent very odd, though, ironically, not completely unpleasant, "episodes" yesterday which are quite difficult to describe. Whatever it was, it was some sort of malfunction. All tests were negative, and the conclusion was that it was probably due to an interaction of grapefruit (!!) with certain prescription medications of mine. I seem to be fine, now, having had no more grapefruit! ;-) In any case, while I was in the E.R., I met two other patients, both lovely gentlemen. One was an Indian man, one year older than I, who was intelligent, learned, and kindly - a teacher of Hindi grammar. He was there because an infection in the external wound from open-heart surgery had developed, and further surgery was likely needed to remove the infection. The other was a great guy, of Greek extraction, who had a recurrence of serious heart trouble, who was on oxygen, and who clearly was having difficulty breathing. He was an amazing, young looking man, 17 years my senior. Despite his problems, his sense of humor was in full force, brilliant, and absolutely charming - a very good person. What I experienced towards these strangers was a welling up of love and compassion, completely free of attachment or pity. The way I felt towards these strangers had the flavor of a "blessing" to me, a gift. It turned an otherwise "unpleasant" experience into something actually wonderful. Yesterday was a good day. Odd, huh? With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/11/02 3:04:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kom@a... writes: > > Dear Christine, > > I think the key to develop the 4-brahma vihara is to know > their characteristics, and know how they are different from > lobha, dosa, and moha. Without knowing this, when we think > we are having metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha, it may > just be wishful thinking out of our attachment to those > qualities. Let me list the near enemies of the 4 qualities, > from memory (so please check, if you have the > opportunities!) > > Metta has lobha as its near enemy. It is easy to mistake > lobha for metta. For example, when we treat somebody kindly > who is dear to us, is that metta or lobha? Very difficult > to tell. > > Karuna has dosa as its near enemy. Without hearing the > Buddha's teachings, some people mistake dosa (unhappiness > for other people's misery) as karuna. When we see a thin, > malnourished child, is the wish to do something for the > child really driven by our need to drive away the unpleasant > feeling (domanassa) or is it driven by karuna? > > Mudita has lobha as its near enemy. When we see happiness > of somebody dear to us, is that by attachment or by mudita? > > Equanimity has ignorance as its near enemy. Some people > mistake ignorance and its associated indifferent feeling as > equanimity (often stated as upekkha). Equanimity is the > quality of not falling into unwholesome states. When we > feel indifferent toward someone's plight, is that lack of > metta (and lack of equanimity) or is there a knowledge that > we cannot do anything for the person and that each person > has kamma as their own? > > We normally like to think good thing about ourselves (like > we have metta, karuna, mudita, and equanmity, especially > comparing to other people!), but without knowing these > different qualities, then developing them to a high degree > is impossible, and a lot of time, thinking that we actually > have these qualities are just wishful thinking. > > The thing is to develop kusala, and to discard akusala. > What if we are in a situation that requires us to rebuke > somebody to help others? My question would then be, is that > rebuke done out of kusala or akusala? Rebuking somebody out > of anger to help other people are akusala kamma, and one > will certainly suffer the result of that akusala kamma, and > enjoy the fruit out of the kusala intention for another. We > need to be straight and true to the dhamma: if it is kusala, > then it is kusala; if it is akusala, it is akusala. Wishing > it some way or another doesn't change the realities. > > I reiterate the story from Maha-pari-nibbana sutta. The > Buddha asked V. Ananda for water (when he was sick) 3 > different times, but V. Ananda mentioned to the Buddha that > the water was unsuitable for drinking because of recent herd > crossing. The Buddha insisted, and V. Ananda eventually > found suitable water. The fact that the Buddha couldn't get > suitable water was said to be his chasing away his herd from > unsuitable water in a previous live. Although he did this > out of good intention, but akusala alternated with kusala, > and the bad vipaka resulted from the akusala kamma. > > I believe the Buddha encouraged us to develop all levels of > kusala (dana, sila, and bhavana) whenever an opportunity > presents itself. He certainly didn't praise akusala or > indifferent feeling (out of ignorance). But we also have to > remember, all these qualities rise because of conditions. > Without hearing the Buddha's teaching, they probably are > conditioned by our own accumulations and the people with are > associated with. However, with the Buddha's teachings, we > can develop them to the finest degree, by hearing detailed > teachings about these qualities and their enemies, by > considering them in our daily lives, by knowing their > benefits and the faults of their opposites, and by knowing > them as they truly are: conditioned realities that fall away > immediately that is neither self or ours. > > kom > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13200 From: onco111 Date: Sat May 11, 2002 11:20am Subject: Re: "ritual" [Victor] Dear Victor, I'm not sure I understand what you mean... Spiritually speaking, what is the difference between swimming and satipatthana? Between satipatthana and yoga? Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > Hi Dan, > > Regarding your first question on what are the characteristics of > right practice, I would like to ask it as: what is the path* leading > to the cessation of dukkha? > > Regarding your second question "Is satipatthana a skill?" > > As one of its definitions, the word "skill" means "a learned power of > doing something competently: a developed aptitude or ability"** The > word "satipatthana" is defined as "intent contemplation and > mindfulness, earnest thought, application of mindfulness"*** > > My answer is: > Satipatthana is not a skill, but the skill in satipatthana is. > > Likewise, > Swimming itself is not a skill, but the skill of how to swim is. > > Regards, > Victor > > *See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn45-008.html > **See http://www.webster.com/ > ***See http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/ > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" wrote: > > Victor: > > > To add on what you have said, I would like to say that one can > read > > > all about swimming without knowing how to swim. Reading and > > studying > > > may help, but it really takes practice to learn the skill. > > > > You raise two important issues here. Certainly, the importance of > > practice is agreed on by all, and that there is a big distinction > > between swimming and reading about swimming (as there is between > > Dhamma and reading about Dhamma). The question is what are the > > characteristics of right practice. > > > > Is satipatthana a skill? > > > > Dan 13201 From: yuzhonghao Date: Sat May 11, 2002 2:05pm Subject: Re: "ritual" [Victor] Hi Dan, Let's go back to your original question: "Is satipatthana a skill?" My answer to you is: No, Satipatthana is not a skill. However, the skill in satipatthana is. If you are not sure what my answer means, let me know. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" wrote: > Dear Victor, > I'm not sure I understand what you mean... > > Spiritually speaking, what is the difference between swimming and > satipatthana? Between satipatthana and yoga? > > Dan > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > > Hi Dan, > > > > Regarding your first question on what are the characteristics of > > right practice, I would like to ask it as: what is the path* > leading > > to the cessation of dukkha? > > > > Regarding your second question "Is satipatthana a skill?" > > > > As one of its definitions, the word "skill" means "a learned power > of > > doing something competently: a developed aptitude or ability"** > The > > word "satipatthana" is defined as "intent contemplation and > > mindfulness, earnest thought, application of mindfulness"*** > > > > My answer is: > > Satipatthana is not a skill, but the skill in satipatthana is. > > > > Likewise, > > Swimming itself is not a skill, but the skill of how to swim is. > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > > > *See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn45-008.html > > **See http://www.webster.com/ > > ***See http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/ > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" wrote: > > > Victor: > > > > To add on what you have said, I would like to say that one can > > read > > > > all about swimming without knowing how to swim. Reading and > > > studying > > > > may help, but it really takes practice to learn the skill. > > > > > > You raise two important issues here. Certainly, the importance of > > > practice is agreed on by all, and that there is a big distinction > > > between swimming and reading about swimming (as there is between > > > Dhamma and reading about Dhamma). The question is what are the > > > characteristics of right practice. > > > > > > Is satipatthana a skill? > > > > > > Dan 13202 From: Date: Sat May 11, 2002 4:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Iddhi: To Wynn, Sarah, Kom Hi all, regarding magical feats, while trying to find the answer to another question I came across this description of piti (happiness) in Vism IV, 94. As you know piti is the proximate cause of ekaggata (one pointedness) and in the jhanas is brought on by vitakka and vicara (applied thought and sustained thought). There are five degrees of intensity of piti: minor, momentary, showering, uplifting, and pervading. This isn't really a skill, but it definitely sounds like fun. Larry ----------------- Herein, minor happiness is only able to raise the hairs on the body. Momentary happiness is like flashes of lightening at different moments. Showering happiness breaks over the body again and again like waves on the sea shore. Uplifting happiness can be powerful enough to levitate the body and make it spring up into the air. For this was what happened to the Elder Maha-Tissa, resident at Punnavallika. He went to the shrine terrace on the evening of the full moon day. Seeing the moonlight, he faced in the direction of the Great Shrine [at Anuradhapura], thinking 'At this very hour the four assemblies are worshipping at the Great Shrine!'. By means of objects formerly seen [there] he aroused uplifting happiness with the Enlightened One as object, and he rose into the air like a painted ball bounced off a plastered floor and alighted on the terrace of the Great Shrine.... So uplifting happiness can be powerful enough to levitate the body and make it spring up into the air. But when pervading (rapturous) happiness arises, the whole body is completely pervaded, like a filled bladder, like a rock cavern invaded by a huge inundation. Now this fivefold happiness, when conceived and matured, perfects the twofold tranquility, that is, bodily and mental tranquility. When tranquility is conceived and matured, it perfects the twofold bliss, that is, bodily and mental bliss. When bliss is conceived and matured, it perfects the threefold concentration, that is, momentary concentration, access concentration, and absorption concentration. 13203 From: tikmok Date: Sat May 11, 2002 5:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long) Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > I think you make very important points here. We need be clearly aware > of the conceptual distinctions between the Brahma viharas and their near > enemies. Then, the other side of the coin is to have direct, clear > comprehension of exactly what is experienced at the time that one of the > Brahma viharas seems to be in force. I think it is very useful to be > particularly mindful on those occasions at which one of them seems to be in > effect with regard to a stranger, for that is a likely circumstance for us > not to be mistaken. Thank you for reminding me that knowing the conceptual differences without knowing the actual differences ultimately doesn't improve my situation. I totally agree with you on this, with an addition. I see the direct comprehension as being on the same side of the coin of the conceptual study, being mutually supportive of one another. The direct, clear, and hopefully correct comprehension (by panna) cannot come about without hearing the teachings, and without understanding conceptually what the teachings are all about. There cannot be deepening appreciation of the teachings, without directly comprehending the realities that are arising now. The detailed teachings allow us to directly see how subtle kilesas are, and the more we directly see how subtle kilesas are, the more confidence we have in the teachings as well as the more conceptual understandings of the teachings. I think hearing about the dhammas (or thinking about them), and directly seeing the dhammas in daily life, go hand-in-hand. I think the mutual support of these 2 goes much deeper than some people recognize. This, of course, doesn't mean that we should neglect developing kusala at all other levels! kom 13204 From: Date: Sat May 11, 2002 5:30pm Subject: kilesa Dear group, can someone enlighten me as to what are 'defilements associated with agitation' and 'defilements associated with ignorance' in the quote from Vism XXII 46 below? The defilements are greed, hate, delusion, conceit, false view, uncertainty, torpor, agitation, consciencelessness, and shamelessness. thanks, Larry -------------- At the time of developing the eight mundane attainments the serenity power is in excess, while at the time of developing the contemplations of impermanence, etc., the insight power is in excess. But at the noble path moment they occur coupled together in the sense that neither one exceeds the other. So there is coupling of the powers in the case of each one of these four kinds of knowledge, according as it is said 'When he emerges from the defilements associated with agitation, and from the aggregates, his mental unification, non-distraction, concentration, has cessation as its domain. When he emerges from the defilements associated with ignorance and from the aggregates, his insight in the sense of contemplation has cessation as its domain. So serenity and insight have a single nature in the sense of emergence, they are coupled together, and neither exceeds the other. Hence it was said: He develops serenity and insight coupled together in the sense of emergence' 13205 From: Date: Sat May 11, 2002 1:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kilesa In a message dated 5/11/2002 5:33:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > 'When > he emerges from the defilements associated with agitation, and from the > aggregates, his mental unification, non-distraction, concentration, has > cessation as its domain. When he emerges from the defilements associated > with ignorance and from the aggregates, his insight in the sense of > Hi Larry Someone can probably give you a better answer, but in short...the defilements associated with agitation are any states that keep the mind from being concentrated. The defilements associated with ignorance are any states that keep the mind from attaining insight. The answer is contained within the paragraph you cite but it is hard to decifer sometimes. That passage, from the Visuddhimagga, is a quote from the Patisambhidamagga. (I'm pretty sure.) TG 13206 From: Date: Sat May 11, 2002 2:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long) Hi, Kom - In a message dated 5/11/02 8:10:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kom@a... writes: > Thank you for reminding me that knowing the conceptual differences > without knowing the actual differences ultimately doesn't improve my > situation. I totally agree with you on this, with an addition. I see the > direct comprehension as being on the same side of the coin of the > conceptual study, being mutually supportive of one another. > ============================== Actually, it is the two sides of the coin that support each other! I've never seen a one-sided coin!! ;-)) With two-sided (but not two-faced ;-) 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) 13207 From: Date: Sat May 11, 2002 7:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kilesa Hi TG, you are correct. The quote in Visuddhimagga is from Patisambhidamagga ii,98. I don't have this or even know what it is. What I was trying to sort out is which defilements, of the 10, are associated with agitation and which with ignorance. Also I was wondering if 'agitation' is 'uddhacca' (restlessness). I couldn't find the answer in Visuddhimagga. Is there any indication in Patisambhidamagga? Larry -------------- 'When he emerges from the defilements associated with agitation, and from the aggregates, his mental unification, non-distraction, concentration, has cessation as its domain. When he emerges from the defilements associated with ignorance and from the aggregates, his insight in the sense of contemplation has cessation as its domain. So serenity and insight have a single nature in the sense of emergence, they are coupled together, and neither exceeds the other. Hence it was said: He develops serenity and insight coupled together in the sense of emergence' 13208 From: frank kuan Date: Sat May 11, 2002 9:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Silabbataparamasa -- inner vs. outer? --- onco111 wrote: > > It is also a mistake to think that practicing and > perfecting > meditation techniques will result in wisdom -- the > fetter of [inner] > silabbataparamasa. > No disagreement here, but ... :-) Developing the tools that enable penetrating insight does not guarantee wisdom, but a far greater mistake is to dismiss these meditation practices as too difficult for us to develop. The greatest mistake is to believe that undeveloped wisdom could arise without the assistance of developing these meditation practices to a sufficient degree. -fk 13209 From: frank kuan Date: Sat May 11, 2002 9:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "ritual" [reply to Erik] --- onco111 wrote: > > I'm not sure what you mean when you say > "breakthrough." [in my ashtanga yoga practice] Could you > elaborate? > Hi Dan, What I mean is that progress in yoga and spiritual practice does not always show tangible incremental signs of improvement on a daily basis. Months can pass before progress is seen, but the crucial point is that those months of seeming non-progress laid the foundation for the "breakthrough". We must not cease persistent practice if we do not get instant results. There is no other way to create fertile conditions for genuine insight to arise. -fk 13210 From: frank kuan Date: Sat May 11, 2002 10:05pm Subject: 4 brahmavihara, 4 near enemies RE: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long) Hi Kom, Do you know which suttas describe the 4 near enemies? According to my recollection of what Jack Kornfield's book said (i.e. 2 levels of unverifiedness) : near enemy of sympathetic joy (mudita) is jealousy, near enemy of equanimity (upekkha) is indifference/apathy -fk --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Christine, > > I think the key to develop the 4-brahma vihara is to > know > their characteristics, and know how they are > different from > lobha, dosa, and moha. Without knowing this, when > we think > we are having metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha, it > may > just be wishful thinking out of our attachment to > those > qualities. Let me list the near enemies of the 4 > qualities, > from memory (so please check, if you have the > opportunities!) > > Metta has lobha as its near enemy. It is easy to > mistake > lobha for metta. For example, when we treat > somebody kindly > who is dear to us, is that metta or lobha? Very > difficult > to tell. > > Karuna has dosa as its near enemy. Without hearing > the > Buddha's teachings, some people mistake dosa > (unhappiness > for other people's misery) as karuna. When we see a > thin, > malnourished child, is the wish to do something for > the > child really driven by our need to drive away the > unpleasant > feeling (domanassa) or is it driven by karuna? > > Mudita has lobha as its near enemy. When we see > happiness > of somebody dear to us, is that by attachment or by > mudita? > > Equanimity has ignorance as its near enemy. Some > people > mistake ignorance and its associated indifferent > feeling as > equanimity (often stated as upekkha). Equanimity is > the > quality of not falling into unwholesome states. > When we > feel indifferent toward someone's plight, is that > lack of > metta (and lack of equanimity) or is there a > knowledge that > we cannot do anything for the person and that each > person > has kamma as their own? > > We normally like to think good thing about ourselves > (like > we have metta, karuna, mudita, and equanmity, > especially > comparing to other people!), but without knowing > these > different qualities, then developing them to a high > degree > is impossible, and a lot of time, thinking that we > actually > have these qualities are just wishful thinking. > > The thing is to develop kusala, and to discard > akusala. > What if we are in a situation that requires us to > rebuke > somebody to help others? My question would then be, > is that > rebuke done out of kusala or akusala? Rebuking > somebody out > of anger to help other people are akusala kamma, and > one > will certainly suffer the result of that akusala > kamma, and > enjoy the fruit out of the kusala intention for > another. We > need to be straight and true to the dhamma: if it is > kusala, > then it is kusala; if it is akusala, it is akusala. > Wishing > it some way or another doesn't change the realities. > > I reiterate the story from Maha-pari-nibbana sutta. > The > Buddha asked V. Ananda for water (when he was sick) > 3 > different times, but V. Ananda mentioned to the > Buddha that > the water was unsuitable for drinking because of > recent herd > crossing. The Buddha insisted, and V. Ananda > eventually > found suitable water. The fact that the Buddha > couldn't get > suitable water was said to be his chasing away his > herd from > unsuitable water in a previous live. Although he > did this > out of good intention, but akusala alternated with > kusala, > and the bad vipaka resulted from the akusala kamma. > > I believe the Buddha encouraged us to develop all > levels of > kusala (dana, sila, and bhavana) whenever an > opportunity > presents itself. He certainly didn't praise akusala > or > indifferent feeling (out of ignorance). But we also > have to > remember, all these qualities rise because of > conditions. > Without hearing the Buddha's teaching, they probably > are > conditioned by our own accumulations and the people > with are > associated with. However, with the Buddha's > teachings, we > can develop them to the finest degree, by hearing > detailed > teachings about these qualities and their enemies, > by > considering them in our daily lives, by knowing > their > benefits and the faults of their opposites, and by > knowing > them as they truly are: conditioned realities that > fall away > immediately that is neither self or ours. > > kom > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: christine_forsyth > [mailto:cforsyth@v...] > > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 2:56 AM > > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6) > > > > > > Dear Sarah, (Larry) and All, > > > > Interesting post, Sarah. The real question for > > me, accepting > > that 'our accumulation of dosa is the real cause > > that aversion arises > > time and again,' is not blame or pointing the > > finger at a particular > > individual. In actual everday hands-on living > > of our lives, and > > while understanding that complex conditions > > bring about suffering - > > are we to ignore people being wronged, whether > > it is ourselves, dear > > ones, or even perfect strangers? Are we not to > > attempt to assist or > > protect (in a non-violent way) those we feel are > > being treated > > unfairly and suffering? Is there total moral > > neutrality? Should we > > speak out about perceived injustices, or should > > we just say 'It's > > their fruits of kamma' or 'Uh-huh hurt feelings.. > > shows lack of > > advancement in the practice yet, too much > > dosa,mana, clinging, or not > > enough ' ? Often, it is easier to > > preserve silence, > > than speak out and attract retribution, or risk > > losing valued > > friendships.... > > Non-action, like action, is an intentional > > choice. And if I don't > > act, when I could have acted, or if I choose one > > action instead of > > another, the results of that action or non-action > > are my kama-vipaka > > eventually? > > Does Buddhism encourage protection of those in > > need of protection, > > speaking out about injustices, social action? > > Does Buddhism have any equivalent of Reverend > Marin > > Niemoellers "First They Came For".... > > "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the > > communists, and I didn't > > speak up because I wasn't a communist. > > Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak > > up because I wasn't a > > Jew. > > Then the came for the trade unionists, and I > > didn't speak up because > === message truncated === 13211 From: frank kuan Date: Sat May 11, 2002 10:05pm Subject: 4 brahmavihara, 4 near enemies RE: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long) Hi Kom, Do you know which suttas describe the 4 near enemies? According to my recollection of what Jack Kornfield's book said (i.e. 2 levels of unverifiedness) : near enemy of sympathetic joy (mudita) is jealousy, near enemy of equanimity (upekkha) is indifference/apathy -fk --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Christine, > > I think the key to develop the 4-brahma vihara is to > know > their characteristics, and know how they are > different from > lobha, dosa, and moha. Without knowing this, when > we think > we are having metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha, it > may > just be wishful thinking out of our attachment to > those > qualities. Let me list the near enemies of the 4 > qualities, > from memory (so please check, if you have the > opportunities!) > > Metta has lobha as its near enemy. It is easy to > mistake > lobha for metta. For example, when we treat > somebody kindly > who is dear to us, is that metta or lobha? Very > difficult > to tell. > > Karuna has dosa as its near enemy. Without hearing > the > Buddha's teachings, some people mistake dosa > (unhappiness > for other people's misery) as karuna. When we see a > thin, > malnourished child, is the wish to do something for > the > child really driven by our need to drive away the > unpleasant > feeling (domanassa) or is it driven by karuna? > > Mudita has lobha as its near enemy. When we see > happiness > of somebody dear to us, is that by attachment or by > mudita? > > Equanimity has ignorance as its near enemy. Some > people > mistake ignorance and its associated indifferent > feeling as > equanimity (often stated as upekkha). Equanimity is > the > quality of not falling into unwholesome states. > When we > feel indifferent toward someone's plight, is that > lack of > metta (and lack of equanimity) or is there a > knowledge that > we cannot do anything for the person and that each > person > has kamma as their own? > > We normally like to think good thing about ourselves > (like > we have metta, karuna, mudita, and equanmity, > especially > comparing to other people!), but without knowing > these > different qualities, then developing them to a high > degree > is impossible, and a lot of time, thinking that we > actually > have these qualities are just wishful thinking. > > The thing is to develop kusala, and to discard > akusala. > What if we are in a situation that requires us to > rebuke > somebody to help others? My question would then be, > is that > rebuke done out of kusala or akusala? Rebuking > somebody out > of anger to help other people are akusala kamma, and > one > will certainly suffer the result of that akusala > kamma, and > enjoy the fruit out of the kusala intention for > another. We > need to be straight and true to the dhamma: if it is > kusala, > then it is kusala; if it is akusala, it is akusala. > Wishing > it some way or another doesn't change the realities. > > I reiterate the story from Maha-pari-nibbana sutta. > The > Buddha asked V. Ananda for water (when he was sick) > 3 > different times, but V. Ananda mentioned to the > Buddha that > the water was unsuitable for drinking because of > recent herd > crossing. The Buddha insisted, and V. Ananda > eventually > found suitable water. The fact that the Buddha > couldn't get > suitable water was said to be his chasing away his > herd from > unsuitable water in a previous live. Although he > did this > out of good intention, but akusala alternated with > kusala, > and the bad vipaka resulted from the akusala kamma. > > I believe the Buddha encouraged us to develop all > levels of > kusala (dana, sila, and bhavana) whenever an > opportunity > presents itself. He certainly didn't praise akusala > or > indifferent feeling (out of ignorance). But we also > have to > remember, all these qualities rise because of > conditions. > Without hearing the Buddha's teaching, they probably > are > conditioned by our own accumulations and the people > with are > associated with. However, with the Buddha's > teachings, we > can develop them to the finest degree, by hearing > detailed > teachings about these qualities and their enemies, > by > considering them in our daily lives, by knowing > their > benefits and the faults of their opposites, and by > knowing > them as they truly are: conditioned realities that > fall away > immediately that is neither self or ours. > > kom > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: christine_forsyth > [mailto:cforsyth@v...] > > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 2:56 AM > > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6) > > > > > > Dear Sarah, (Larry) and All, > > > > Interesting post, Sarah. The real question for > > me, accepting > > that 'our accumulation of dosa is the real cause > > that aversion arises > > time and again,' is not blame or pointing the > > finger at a particular > > individual. In actual everday hands-on living > > of our lives, and > > while understanding that complex conditions > > bring about suffering - > > are we to ignore people being wronged, whether > > it is ourselves, dear > > ones, or even perfect strangers? Are we not to > > attempt to assist or > > protect (in a non-violent way) those we feel are > > being treated > > unfairly and suffering? Is there total moral > > neutrality? Should we > > speak out about perceived injustices, or should > > we just say 'It's > > their fruits of kamma' or 'Uh-huh hurt feelings.. > > shows lack of > > advancement in the practice yet, too much > > dosa,mana, clinging, or not > > enough ' ? Often, it is easier to > > preserve silence, > > than speak out and attract retribution, or risk > > losing valued > > friendships.... > > Non-action, like action, is an intentional > > choice. And if I don't > > act, when I could have acted, or if I choose one > > action instead of > > another, the results of that action or non-action > > are my kama-vipaka > > eventually? > > Does Buddhism encourage protection of those in > > need of protection, > > speaking out about injustices, social action? > > Does Buddhism have any equivalent of Reverend > Marin > > Niemoellers "First They Came For".... > > "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the > > communists, and I didn't > > speak up because I wasn't a communist. > > Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak > > up because I wasn't a > > Jew. > > Then the came for the trade unionists, and I > > didn't speak up because > === message truncated === 13212 From: frank kuan Date: Sat May 11, 2002 10:06pm Subject: 4 brahmaviharas, 4 near enemies RE: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long) Hi Kom, Do you know which suttas describe the 4 near enemies? According to my recollection of what Jack Kornfield's book said (i.e. 2 levels of unverifiedness) : near enemy of sympathetic joy (mudita) is jealousy, near enemy of equanimity (upekkha) is indifference/apathy -fk --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Christine, > > I think the key to develop the 4-brahma vihara is to > know > their characteristics, and know how they are > different from > lobha, dosa, and moha. Without knowing this, when > we think > we are having metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha, it > may > just be wishful thinking out of our attachment to > those > qualities. Let me list the near enemies of the 4 > qualities, > from memory (so please check, if you have the > opportunities!) > > Metta has lobha as its near enemy. It is easy to > mistake > lobha for metta. For example, when we treat > somebody kindly > who is dear to us, is that metta or lobha? Very > difficult > to tell. > > Karuna has dosa as its near enemy. Without hearing > the > Buddha's teachings, some people mistake dosa > (unhappiness > for other people's misery) as karuna. When we see a > thin, > malnourished child, is the wish to do something for > the > child really driven by our need to drive away the > unpleasant > feeling (domanassa) or is it driven by karuna? > > Mudita has lobha as its near enemy. When we see > happiness > of somebody dear to us, is that by attachment or by > mudita? > > Equanimity has ignorance as its near enemy. Some > people > mistake ignorance and its associated indifferent > feeling as > equanimity (often stated as upekkha). Equanimity is > the > quality of not falling into unwholesome states. > When we > feel indifferent toward someone's plight, is that > lack of > metta (and lack of equanimity) or is there a > knowledge that > we cannot do anything for the person and that each > person > has kamma as their own? > > We normally like to think good thing about ourselves > (like > we have metta, karuna, mudita, and equanmity, > especially > comparing to other people!), but without knowing > these > different qualities, then developing them to a high > degree > is impossible, and a lot of time, thinking that we > actually > have these qualities are just wishful thinking. > > The thing is to develop kusala, and to discard > akusala. > What if we are in a situation that requires us to > rebuke > somebody to help others? My question would then be, > is that > rebuke done out of kusala or akusala? Rebuking > somebody out > of anger to help other people are akusala kamma, and > one > will certainly suffer the result of that akusala > kamma, and > enjoy the fruit out of the kusala intention for > another. We > need to be straight and true to the dhamma: if it is > kusala, > then it is kusala; if it is akusala, it is akusala. > Wishing > it some way or another doesn't change the realities. > > I reiterate the story from Maha-pari-nibbana sutta. > The > Buddha asked V. Ananda for water (when he was sick) > 3 > different times, but V. Ananda mentioned to the > Buddha that > the water was unsuitable for drinking because of > recent herd > crossing. The Buddha insisted, and V. Ananda > eventually > found suitable water. The fact that the Buddha > couldn't get > suitable water was said to be his chasing away his > herd from > unsuitable water in a previous live. Although he > did this > out of good intention, but akusala alternated with > kusala, > and the bad vipaka resulted from the akusala kamma. > > I believe the Buddha encouraged us to develop all > levels of > kusala (dana, sila, and bhavana) whenever an > opportunity > presents itself. He certainly didn't praise akusala > or > indifferent feeling (out of ignorance). But we also > have to > remember, all these qualities rise because of > conditions. > Without hearing the Buddha's teaching, they probably > are > conditioned by our own accumulations and the people > with are > associated with. However, with the Buddha's > teachings, we > can develop them to the finest degree, by hearing > detailed > teachings about these qualities and their enemies, > by > considering them in our daily lives, by knowing > their > benefits and the faults of their opposites, and by > knowing > them as they truly are: conditioned realities that > fall away > immediately that is neither self or ours. > > kom > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: christine_forsyth > [mailto:cforsyth@v...] > > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 2:56 AM > > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6) > > > > > > Dear Sarah, (Larry) and All, > > > > Interesting post, Sarah. The real question for > > me, accepting > > that 'our accumulation of dosa is the real cause > > that aversion arises > > time and again,' is not blame or pointing the > > finger at a particular > > individual. In actual everday hands-on living > > of our lives, and > > while understanding that complex conditions > > bring about suffering - > > are we to ignore people being wronged, whether > > it is ourselves, dear > > ones, or even perfect strangers? Are we not to > > attempt to assist or > > protect (in a non-violent way) those we feel are > > being treated > > unfairly and suffering? Is there total moral > > neutrality? Should we > > speak out about perceived injustices, or should > > we just say 'It's > > their fruits of kamma' or 'Uh-huh hurt feelings.. > > shows lack of > > advancement in the practice yet, too much > > dosa,mana, clinging, or not > > enough ' ? Often, it is easier to > > preserve silence, > > than speak out and attract retribution, or risk > > losing valued > > friendships.... > > Non-action, like action, is an intentional > > choice. And if I don't > > act, when I could have acted, or if I choose one > > action instead of > > another, the results of that action or non-action > > are my kama-vipaka > > eventually? > > Does Buddhism encourage protection of those in > > need of protection, > > speaking out about injustices, social action? > > Does Buddhism have any equivalent of Reverend > Marin > > Niemoellers "First They Came For".... > > "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the > > communists, and I didn't > > speak up because I wasn't a communist. > > Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak > > up because I wasn't a > > Jew. > > Then the came for the trade unionists, and I > > didn't speak up because > === message truncated === 13213 From: Date: Sat May 11, 2002 6:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kilesa Hi Larry In the Manual of Abhidhamma (Abhidhammattha Sangaha) ignorance (delusion) and agitation (restlessness) are listed as "unwholesome universals" meaning that they accompany all unwholesome states. This, of course, would also mean that they accompany all defilements. The Patisambhidhamma (Path of Discrimination) is making the point that -- insight is key in overcoming ignorance and concentration (serenity) is key in overcoming agitation. Also that insight and concentration (serenity) must be combined in order to emerge (break free) from defilements. The Path of Discrimination (Patisambhidamagga) is one of the 15 books from the 5th Nikaya. The Visuddhimagga (Path of Purification) relies on it a lot. TG 13214 From: Sarah Date: Sat May 11, 2002 11:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long) Dear Howard, --- upasaka@a... wrote: > I think it is very useful to be > particularly mindful on those occasions at which one of them seems to be > in > effect with regard to a stranger, for that is a likely circumstance for > us > not to be mistaken. ..... Speaking for myself, there is so much ignorance accumulated, that any occasion or circumstance is one in which mental states are likely to be mistaken. We tend to think in terms of an occasion or stretch of time or action, but in reality the noble and far less noble states are changing very rapidly and so at one moment there may be metta, the next attachment and so on. ..... Having said that, I sincerely hope you have no recurrence of the ‘episode’ that sent you to the ER and really appreciated your account of kindness and compassion for the other patients. I’m quite sure you also helped ‘turn’ what might have been a difficult and unpleasant occasion for them into a meaningful and happy one. They’re probably still talking about your kindness;-) The account was also an excellent example of how so often we think of a particular ‘occasion’ or set of symptoms as being unpleasant (visit to ER or unusual symptoms), but really the moments of vipaka (result of kamma) through the sense doors are very brief and it’s the following unwholesome mental states that are the real problem. Even the bodily experiences at these times are not all unpleasant either as you’ve said. Thank you, Howard, for sharing the fine examples of metta and compassion. Who knows, but maybe, just maybe, these mental states had ‘cured’ the problem by the time the drs started the tests;-)) Hoping you stay well and healthy, Sarah ===== > An example in this regard is what happened to me yesterday. I > spent > yesterday afternoon through to 10 p.m. in the emergency room of a > hospital. > (I had been experiencing frequent very odd, though, ironically, not > completely unpleasant, "episodes" yesterday which are quite difficult to > > describe. Whatever it was, it was some sort of malfunction. All tests > were > negative 13215 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 12, 2002 2:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Deciding how best to act Christine, DaiWen Christine, your post to Sarah raises aspects of dhamma that some people have difficulty coming to terms with. And it reminded me of a recent post of DaiWen's that I had meant to comment on. Christine said: > Non-action, like action, is an intentional choice. And if I don't > act, when I could have acted, or if I choose one action instead of > another, the results of that action or non-action are my kama-vipaka > eventually? > Does Buddhism encourage protection of those in need of protection, > speaking out about injustices, social action? I agree that non-action can be as much an intentional choice as action. But as I understand the teachings, the merits of any (non-) action are determined solely by the quality of the accompanying mental state, and not to any extent by the conventional outcome. So is sympathetic action more likely to be kusala than non-action? I think each person can only answer this by reference to their own experience. What may come easily and naturally to one might be contrary to the nature of another. And for a given person, much will depend on the kind of situation involved, anyway. There is no inherent merit in one course rather than the other, since so much depends on individual accumulations. In the end we all do what we are inclined to, with what little kusala we can muster. DaiWen's question raises similar issues: > Given all this, I am not clear on what my role > should be in terms of taking action or > insisting on taking action against such an > individual. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' thing to be done here. You can only (non-) act as you see best. At least you have the benefit of some understanding of kusala and akusala, kamma and vipaka. You know that the ultimate merit of any (non-) action you may take will depend on the degree of kusala with which it is performed, while its results as far as the parties involved are concerned will depend in part on the kamma of those parties. This knowledge may help shape a decision that is different from what it might otherwise have been. Jon --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Sarah, (Larry) and All, > > Interesting post, Sarah. The real question for me, accepting > that 'our accumulation of dosa is the real cause that aversion arises > time and again,' is not blame or pointing the finger at a particular > individual. In actual everday hands-on living of our lives, and > while understanding that complex conditions bring about suffering - > are we to ignore people being wronged, whether it is ourselves, dear > ones, or even perfect strangers? Are we not to attempt to assist or > protect (in a non-violent way) those we feel are being treated > unfairly and suffering? Is there total moral neutrality? Should we > speak out about perceived injustices, or should we just say 'It's > their fruits of kamma' or 'Uh-huh hurt feelings.. shows lack of > advancement in the practice yet, too much dosa,mana, clinging, or not > enough ' ? Often, it is easier to preserve silence, > than speak out and attract retribution, or risk losing valued > friendships.... > Non-action, like action, is an intentional choice. And if I don't > act, when I could have acted, or if I choose one action instead of > another, the results of that action or non-action are my kama-vipaka > eventually? > Does Buddhism encourage protection of those in need of protection, > speaking out about injustices, social action? > Does Buddhism have any equivalent of Reverend Marin > Niemoellers "First They Came For".... > "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't > speak up because I wasn't a communist. > Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a > Jew. > Then the came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because > I wasn't a trade unionist. > Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was > a protestant. > Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to > speak for me." > Seemingly a dramatic quote of course, compared to an ordinary person > being treated unfairly in daily interactions, but it is talking about > the importance of making a stand against wrong. Small daily > happenings are miniature reflections of what happens on a larger > scale nationally and internationally. When the harm being done (as > in the categories above) is to a person who is a little different to > the majority, or to whom the majority seem to be either opposed or > indifferent, how easy it is to magnify their faults and minimise (or > be unable to hear or see clearly) the role of those others doing > wrong. How easy to look for the approval of the majority(more like > us), and feel validated. > So what is a Buddhist to do, to live in the world correctly and > unselfishly, with loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and > equanimity regarding others? Watch our own mind states, and be aware > when dosa arises. Is that all? Does this mean ignoring the suffering > of others when it could be ameliorated or prevented? Extending or > pervading metta, but taking no action? What do the Teachings say? > > metta, > Christine 13216 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 12, 2002 2:27am Subject: RE: [dsg] Satipatthana and concepts/realities Frank --- frank kuan wrote: > Hi Jon, > I appreciate the explanation, but ultimately my > confusion with the mindfulnless sutta (MN 10) has to > do with lack of distinction between foundation #4 > (mindfulness of "mind objects") and the other > foundations. In other words, foundation #4 seems to > overlap heavily with the other 3 foundations You may well be right, Frank, when you say there is overlap. It seems this way to me, too. However, I don’t have any textual references on this point**. > even > though contemplation of "mind-objects" implies a > distinct technique worth its own catgeory. However, we differ on this point :-). I don’t see the 4 foundations of mindfulness as 'distinct techniques', since the sutta is not about *techniques* of any kind, to my understanding. According to the commentary, the division into 4 is simply for the purpose of analytical explanation. In the commentary to the beginning of the section on breathing it says: "Now the Blessed One, desirous of bringing about diverse kinds of attainments of distinction in beings by the Discourse on the Arousing of Mindfulness, began to teach the analytically explanatory portion [niddesavara] with the word "And how o bhikkhus." He did that after *dividing into four the one mindfulness that is right* [ekameva sammasatim] by way of the contemplation on the body, on feelings, on consciousness, and on mental objects." The commentary also atthe end summarises the sutta by reference to the 21 objects of satipatthana, and this of course ignores completely the classification into 4 foundations. > Here's an example. > Under contemplation of mind (3rd foundation): > "He understands mind affected by lust as mind as mind > affected by lust..." > > Under contemplation of "mind-objeccts" (4th > foundation) 5 hindrances section: > "a monk understands, there is sensual desire in me; or > ... there is no sensual desire in me." One clear (to me) example of overlap is the inclusion of the 5 aggregates in the section on 'dhammas (dhammanupasana). Since the 5 aggregates include all dhammas, they include all the objects of satipatthana mentioned in the other 3 sections. > Is there overlap/redundancy between 3rd and 4th > foundation, or is there a distinct difference between > those two methods of mindfulness? > > To me, it seems like foundation #4 is just saying that > any of the buddhist concepts/classifications that the > buddha taught can be used as a framework or template > to do the first 3 foundations of mindulness. > Understood in this way, it makes sense to me. But if I > treat the 4th foundation as a separate distinct > method, as "mind-object" tends to imply, then I just > become confounded because of so much overlap with the > first 3 foundations. Jon, in your previous post you > point out that the 4th foundation is a "real time" > operation contemplating dhammas, but ALL FOUR > foundations are real time, so again it is not > something special to distinguish the 4th foundation. I agree with this comment, Frank. I didn't mean to single out the 4th as being special in this regard. > Jon, I appreciate the time you took to explain some of > the buddhist classifications that you use to interpret > the 4th foundation, but to me, those classificaitons > still do not separate the 4th foundation in such a way > to make it very distinct, in the same way for example > as mindfulness of form and mindfulness of feeling are > very distinct. The 4 foundations are distinct only as to their objects (not as to being techniques) and even then there is a degree of overlap (to my understanding) Jon **PS I do recall seeing it suggested somewhere (Visuddhimagga ?) that any given instance of satipatthana is 1 or other of the 4 foundations -- this could be read as a implying that there is no overlap when properly understood. 13217 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 12, 2002 2:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Prompted/unprompted (was, ADL ch. 6 (18-23)) Nina Thanks very much for this information. Interesting that there are instances of prompted dhammas where this is not an indication of weakness. Jon --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Larry and Jon, I liked your discussion on prompted and unprompted, and > I could just add a detail I learnt from A. Sujin. Jhanacittas and lokuttara > cittas are always reckoned as sasankharika, prompted. The reason: there have > to be first maha-kusala cittas accompanied by pa~n~naa, which actually do > the prompting. In Samatha pa~n~naa has to know exactly the conditions for > being calm with the meditation subject, so that defilements are subdued. In > Vipassana pa~n~naa has to understand clearly and thoroughly the dhamma at > that moment as it is: impermanent, dukkha or anatta. I quote from Survey, > Ch 20, Associated Dhammas: > After explaining that only cittas of the sense-sphere are classified as > prompted and unprompted, we read: > < The cittas which are of a higher grade , namely, rupavacara cittas, > arupavacara cittas, and lokuttara cittas, are not classified by way of > asankharika and sasankharika. All of them are prompted, sasankharika. The > reason for this is that they are dependent on the appropriate development as > a necessary condition for their arising. In this context being sasankharika > does not mean that they are weak such as in the case of kamavacara cittas > which are prompted, sasankharika. Before rupavacara citta, arupavacara citta > and lokuttara citta arise, there must each time be kamavacara citta > accompanied by pa~n~naa.> end quote. > Nina. 13218 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 12, 2002 2:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 5/5/02 9:22:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > jonoabb@y... writes: > > I'm not sure in what sense you would see visible or audible data as being > > 'phantom' or 'a > > shadow'. The fact that these phenomena are conditioned and last for only a > > brief moment > > doesn't mean that they lack characteristics of their own capable of being > > discerned by > > consciousness accompanied by panna (termed 'individual essence'). Do you > > see a necessary > > contradiction in these 2 attributes (conditionality vs. own essence)? > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The problem I have here is with the adjectival phrase "of their own" > in the sentence "The fact that these phenomena are conditioned and last for > only a brief moment doesn't mean that they lack characteristics of their own > capable of being discerned by consciousness accompanied by panna (termed > 'individual essence')." Everything about these phenomena, including their > very existence, arises in total dependence on conditions, all of which are > equally empty of own-being. What arises in total dependence on other > conditions does not have own-being, and inasmuch as these other conditions > are equally without own-being, the emptiness is thoroughgoing. I think you are saying: (a) Phenomena arise in dependence on conditions (b) Something that arises in dependence on something else cannot have own-being (c) Accordingly, these phenomena could not have a distinct characteristic I am with you on (a) and (b), but not on (c). In the Abhidhamma, the attribute of 'empty of self' is not seen as necessarily connoting 'lacking own (i.e., distinct) characteristic'. Jon 13219 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 12, 2002 2:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sitting and mindfulness [Anders] Anders I'm not sure that I have anything of substance to add to Dan's post(s), but I have one or two comments on the Satipatthana Sutta itself. --- anders_honore wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Rob E > > C. Sitting vipassana > > You refer to long periods (3 years) sitting in vipassana meditation > leading to obvious > > changes in one's sense of self. Can you point to any instance in > the texts of the Buddha > > recommending such a practice, or any mention at all of 'sitting > vipassana meditation'. > > The Satipatthana 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 and setting mindfulness to the > fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; > mindful he breathes out. " It goes without saying, of course, that mindfulness can arise while one is sitting, as in this passage from the sutta. The crucial question though is whether the teachings recommend sitting *as a means to* the development of mindfulness. In the passage you have quoted, the monk seems to be someone who is already adept at mindfulness, since he is able to 'set mindfulness to the fore' and to maintain it ('always mindful') as he breathes. Note also that the mindfulness here is not yet mindfulness related to *breathing* in particular -- that part of the sutta follows after your passage. Apart from that, however, there is the question of later passages in the same sutta. If we read your passage as suggesting a *sitting practice* for mindfulness, then how are we to read the follwing passages, also from the 'body' section: "And further, O bhikkhus, when he is going, a bhikkhu understands: 'I am going'; when he is standing, he understands: 'I am standing'; when he is sitting, he understands: 'I am sitting'; when he is lying down, he understands: 'I am lying down'; or just as his body is disposed so he understands it. … "And further, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu in walking, in standing (in a place), in sitting (in some position), in sleeping, in waking, in speaking and in keeping silence, is a person practising clear comprehension." > And all the other foundations too. To my reading of the sutta, the passage you have quoted refers to mindfulness of breathing only, not to the other instances of mindfulness of the body and certainly not to the other 3 'foundations'. But the same question can be asked. Is the Buddha setting out a practice or technique, or is he identifying the objects that mindfulness can take, without limitation to the circumstances of their arising: "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands the consciousness with lust [or the other kilesas], as with lust [etc.]; the consciousness without lust [etc.], as without lust [etc.]; …" [from the secion on citta/mind] … "How, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental objects in the mental objects of the five hindrances? "Here, O bhikkhus, when sensuality [or any of the other hindrances] is present, a bhikkhu knows with understanding: 'I have sensuality [etc.],' or when sensuality [etc.] is not present, he knows with understanding: 'I have no sensuality [etc.].' … " [from the section on dhammas/mind-objects] I hope this makes some sense to you, Anders. I realise the sutta is open to more than one interpretation, but I think it is worth careful and repeated study. Jon 13220 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 12, 2002 2:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? Howard I hope you don’t mind me coming in on this thread (since this is a topic we are discussing in another thread). --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert - > In a message dated 5/3/02 4:48:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > > Dhammas like feeling and anger and greed and hardness are real - > > unlike concepts such as human and man - but dhammas are impermanent. > > A dhamma cannot be changed into something other than what it is > > right now, but it lasts for an infinitely brief instant only, no > > matter we want it to stay or go. > > best wishes > > robert > > > > > ============================ > Yes, these dhammas exist, conditions exist - they are not imagined. > The question is what their mode of existence is. They are things-in-relation, > arising in dependence on other, similarly empty conditions, including > discernment (vi~n~nana). We tend to see them as separate and self-existing, > and that is avijja. I've pondered over this for some time, but remain puzzled about one or two of your references. 'Dhammas are things-in-relation'. What particular aspect do you have in mind here, over and above the fact that dhammas are conditioned? 'We tend to see dhammas as separate'. I am not sure in what sense you mean this. Individual dhammas are said to be discrete, I believe, even when arising in conjunction with other dhammas. Is it not more helpful to consider that we tend to see wholes (concepts) and not the individual (i.e., separate) dhammas that are the realities to which those concepts refer? Jon 13221 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun May 12, 2002 3:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long)[Kom] Dear Kom, and All, Thank you for your post. Thought about it over the last couple of days and, no doubt, I'll continue to think about it. There is nothing in it that I could disagree with from a Dhamma point of view. Though I admit to having heavily researched 'other options'.:) It seems that if I wished to find support for 'righteous anger' I shouldn't be a Theravadan....I should be a follower of Soka Gakkai International, as they are the only buddhists who don't strongly warn against it and, in fact, value it. I have been reading an article called "The Divine Abidings - The Four Skillful Emotions Explained", which also discusses the point you made, that each of the divine abidings has a near enemy, which is a state which resembles the true abiding but misses it by being tinged with the defilements. And each also has a far enemy, which is its polar opposite and which cannot share the same mental continuum. http://www.baynet.net/~arcc/dhamma/divabid.html and regarding 'righteous anger'... "We should especially be on guard for the arising of "righteous" anger. Remember that ill-will is a poison and that you are only hurting yourself, karmically and spiritually, when you harbour a grudge for an imagined, or even a real, wrong." I remember that recently 'elsewhere', we were talking about the surprising last line of the "Mulapariyaya Sutta - The Root Sequence" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn001.html >>"That is what the Blessed One said. Displeased, the monks did not delight in the Blessed One's words"<< I certainly understand how they felt.... It is hard to hear, and harder to accept, something that goes against how a person believes the world is, that is so much a part of a person, that they don't even know it is 'a belief', and not 'the way things are'..... things like that to 'fight injustice and evil, defend the poor and powerless' are always 'admirable' things to do. Social Work at the hospital is not going to feel quite the same after such a shaking up of certainty about motives.....it will be interesting observing myself over the next week or two. :-) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Christine, > > I think the key to develop the 4-brahma vihara is to know > their characteristics, and know how they are different from > lobha, dosa, and moha. Without knowing this, when we think > we are having metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha, it may > just be wishful thinking out of our attachment to those > qualities. Let me list the near enemies of the 4 qualities, > from memory (so please check, if you have the > opportunities!) > > Metta has lobha as its near enemy. It is easy to mistake > lobha for metta. For example, when we treat somebody kindly > who is dear to us, is that metta or lobha? Very difficult > to tell. > > Karuna has dosa as its near enemy. Without hearing the > Buddha's teachings, some people mistake dosa (unhappiness > for other people's misery) as karuna. When we see a thin, > malnourished child, is the wish to do something for the > child really driven by our need to drive away the unpleasant > feeling (domanassa) or is it driven by karuna? > > Mudita has lobha as its near enemy. When we see happiness > of somebody dear to us, is that by attachment or by mudita? > > Equanimity has ignorance as its near enemy. Some people > mistake ignorance and its associated indifferent feeling as > equanimity (often stated as upekkha). Equanimity is the > quality of not falling into unwholesome states. When we > feel indifferent toward someone's plight, is that lack of > metta (and lack of equanimity) or is there a knowledge that > we cannot do anything for the person and that each person > has kamma as their own? > > We normally like to think good thing about ourselves (like > we have metta, karuna, mudita, and equanmity, especially > comparing to other people!), but without knowing these > different qualities, then developing them to a high degree > is impossible, and a lot of time, thinking that we actually > have these qualities are just wishful thinking. > > The thing is to develop kusala, and to discard akusala. > What if we are in a situation that requires us to rebuke > somebody to help others? My question would then be, is that > rebuke done out of kusala or akusala? Rebuking somebody out > of anger to help other people are akusala kamma, and one > will certainly suffer the result of that akusala kamma, and > enjoy the fruit out of the kusala intention for another. We > need to be straight and true to the dhamma: if it is kusala, > then it is kusala; if it is akusala, it is akusala. Wishing > it some way or another doesn't change the realities. > > I reiterate the story from Maha-pari-nibbana sutta. The > Buddha asked V. Ananda for water (when he was sick) 3 > different times, but V. Ananda mentioned to the Buddha that > the water was unsuitable for drinking because of recent herd > crossing. The Buddha insisted, and V. Ananda eventually > found suitable water. The fact that the Buddha couldn't get > suitable water was said to be his chasing away his herd from > unsuitable water in a previous live. Although he did this > out of good intention, but akusala alternated with kusala, > and the bad vipaka resulted from the akusala kamma. > > I believe the Buddha encouraged us to develop all levels of > kusala (dana, sila, and bhavana) whenever an opportunity > presents itself. He certainly didn't praise akusala or > indifferent feeling (out of ignorance). But we also have to > remember, all these qualities rise because of conditions. > Without hearing the Buddha's teaching, they probably are > conditioned by our own accumulations and the people with are > associated with. However, with the Buddha's teachings, we > can develop them to the finest degree, by hearing detailed > teachings about these qualities and their enemies, by > considering them in our daily lives, by knowing their > benefits and the faults of their opposites, and by knowing > them as they truly are: conditioned realities that fall away > immediately that is neither self or ours. > > kom > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] > > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 2:56 AM > > To: dhammastudygroup@y... > > Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6) > > > > > > Dear Sarah, (Larry) and All, > > > > Interesting post, Sarah. The real question for > > me, accepting > > that 'our accumulation of dosa is the real cause > > that aversion arises > > time and again,' is not blame or pointing the > > finger at a particular > > individual. In actual everday hands-on living > > of our lives, and > > while understanding that complex conditions > > bring about suffering - > > are we to ignore people being wronged, whether > > it is ourselves, dear > > ones, or even perfect strangers? Are we not to > > attempt to assist or > > protect (in a non-violent way) those we feel are > > being treated > > unfairly and suffering? Is there total moral > > neutrality? Should we > > speak out about perceived injustices, or should > > we just say 'It's > > their fruits of kamma' or 'Uh-huh hurt feelings.. > > shows lack of > > advancement in the practice yet, too much > > dosa,mana, clinging, or not > > enough ' ? Often, it is easier to > > preserve silence, > > than speak out and attract retribution, or risk > > losing valued > > friendships.... > > Non-action, like action, is an intentional > > choice. And if I don't > > act, when I could have acted, or if I choose one > > action instead of > > another, the results of that action or non-action > > are my kama-vipaka > > eventually? > > Does Buddhism encourage protection of those in > > need of protection, > > speaking out about injustices, social action? > > Does Buddhism have any equivalent of Reverend Marin > > Niemoellers "First They Came For".... > > "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the > > communists, and I didn't > > speak up because I wasn't a communist. > > Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak > > up because I wasn't a > > Jew. > > Then the came for the trade unionists, and I > > didn't speak up because > > I wasn't a trade unionist. > > Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't > > speak up because I was > > a protestant. > > Then they came for me, and by that time there was > > no one left to > > speak for me." > > Seemingly a dramatic quote of course, compared to > > an ordinary person > > being treated unfairly in daily interactions, but > > it is talking about > > the importance of making a stand against wrong. > > Small daily > > happenings are miniature reflections of what > > happens on a larger > > scale nationally and internationally. When the > > harm being done (as > > in the categories above) is to a person who is a > > little different to > > the majority, or to whom the majority seem to be > > either opposed or > > indifferent, how easy it is to magnify their > > faults and minimise (or > > be unable to hear or see clearly) the role of > > those others doing > > wrong. How easy to look for the approval of the > > majority(more like > > us), and feel validated. > > So what is a Buddhist to do, to live in the world > > correctly and > > unselfishly, with loving-kindness, compassion, > > sympathetic joy, and > > equanimity regarding others? Watch our own mind > > states, and be aware > > when dosa arises. Is that all? Does this mean > > ignoring the suffering > > of others when it could be ameliorated or > > prevented? Extending or > > pervading metta, but taking no action? What do > > the Teachings say? > > > > metta, > > Christine > > 13222 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Sun May 12, 2002 4:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long) --- Dear Kom. This is very good post. I was especially interested in the piece:I reiterate the story from Maha-pari-nibbana sutta. The > Buddha asked V. Ananda for water (when he was sick) 3 > different times, but V. Ananda mentioned to the Buddha that > the water was unsuitable for drinking because of recent herd > crossing. The Buddha insisted, and V. Ananda eventually > found suitable water. The fact that the Buddha couldn't get > suitable water was said to be his chasing away his herd from > unsuitable water in a previous live. Although he did this > out of good intention, but akusala alternated with kusala, > and the bad vipaka resulted from the akusala kamma."" I haven't read this in English, did you get it in the Thai? A similar thing happened withregard to the Buddha's attainment, As you know it took him 6years after he left the palce before finally reaching samasambuddha. This is not usual for a bodhisatta in the life they attain and most become Buddhas on the very day they leave laylife. The Buddha of this time spent most of the 6years caught up useless austerities. This was because in his last human life (vessantara), when he gave his children to the Brahmin, he had a few moments of aversion when he heard the Brahmin beating them as he went away. (I'm doing this from memory so might have a detail wrong). Fortunately he quickly conquered the defilement and was able to perfect the parami. best wishes robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Christine, > > I think the key to develop the 4-brahma vihara is to know > their characteristics, and know how they are different from > lobha, dosa, and moha. Without knowing this, when we think > we are having metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha, it may > just be wishful thinking out of our attachment to those > qualities. Let me list the near enemies of the 4 qualities, > from memory (so please check, if you have the > opportunities!) > > Metta has lobha as its near enemy. It is easy to mistake > lobha for metta. For example, when we treat somebody kindly > who is dear to us, is that metta or lobha? Very difficult > to tell. > > Karuna has dosa as its near enemy. Without hearing the > Buddha's teachings, some people mistake dosa (unhappiness > for other people's misery) as karuna. When we see a thin, > malnourished child, is the wish to do something for the > child really driven by our need to drive away the unpleasant > feeling (domanassa) or is it driven by karuna? > > Mudita has lobha as its near enemy. When we see happiness > of somebody dear to us, is that by attachment or by mudita? > > Equanimity has ignorance as its near enemy. Some people > mistake ignorance and its associated indifferent feeling as > equanimity (often stated as upekkha). Equanimity is the > quality of not falling into unwholesome states. When we > feel indifferent toward someone's plight, is that lack of > metta (and lack of equanimity) or is there a knowledge that > we cannot do anything for the person and that each person > has kamma as their own? > > We normally like to think good thing about ourselves (like > we have metta, karuna, mudita, and equanmity, especially > comparing to other people!), but without knowing these > different qualities, then developing them to a high degree > is impossible, and a lot of time, thinking that we actually > have these qualities are just wishful thinking. > > The thing is to develop kusala, and to discard akusala. > What if we are in a situation that requires us to rebuke > somebody to help others? My question would then be, is that > rebuke done out of kusala or akusala? Rebuking somebody out > of anger to help other people are akusala kamma, and one > will certainly suffer the result of that akusala kamma, and > enjoy the fruit out of the kusala intention for another. We > need to be straight and true to the dhamma: if it is kusala, > then it is kusala; if it is akusala, it is akusala. Wishing > it some way or another doesn't change the realities. > > I reiterate the story from Maha-pari-nibbana sutta. The > Buddha asked V. Ananda for water (when he was sick) 3 > different times, but V. Ananda mentioned to the Buddha that > the water was unsuitable for drinking because of recent herd > crossing. The Buddha insisted, and V. Ananda eventually > found suitable water. The fact that the Buddha couldn't get > suitable water was said to be his chasing away his herd from > unsuitable water in a previous live. Although he did this > out of good intention, but akusala alternated with kusala, > and the bad vipaka resulted from the akusala kamma. > > I believe the Buddha encouraged us to develop all levels of > kusala (dana, sila, and bhavana) whenever an opportunity > presents itself. He certainly didn't praise akusala or > indifferent feeling (out of ignorance). But we also have to > remember, all these qualities rise because of conditions. > Without hearing the Buddha's teaching, they probably are > conditioned by our own accumulations and the people with are > associated with. However, with the Buddha's teachings, we > can develop them to the finest degree, by hearing detailed > teachings about these qualities and their enemies, by > considering them in our daily lives, by knowing their > benefits and the faults of their opposites, and by knowing > them as they truly are: conditioned realities that fall away > immediately that is neither self or ours. > > kom > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] > > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 2:56 AM > > To: dhammastudygroup@y... > > Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6) > > > > > > Dear Sarah, (Larry) and All, > > > > Interesting post, Sarah. The real question for > > me, accepting > > that 'our accumulation of dosa is the real cause > > that aversion arises > > time and again,' is not blame or pointing the > > finger at a particular > > individual. In actual everday hands-on living > > of our lives, and > > while understanding that complex conditions > > bring about suffering - > > are we to ignore people being wronged, whether > > it is ourselves, dear > > ones, or even perfect strangers? Are we not to > > attempt to assist or > > protect (in a non-violent way) those we feel are > > being treated > > unfairly and suffering? Is there total moral > > neutrality? Should we > > speak out about perceived injustices, or should > > we just say 'It's > > their fruits of kamma' or 'Uh-huh hurt feelings.. > > shows lack of > > advancement in the practice yet, too much > > dosa,mana, clinging, or not > > enough ' ? Often, it is easier to > > preserve silence, > > than speak out and attract retribution, or risk > > losing valued > > friendships.... > > Non-action, like action, is an intentional > > choice. And if I don't > > act, when I could have acted, or if I choose one > > action instead of > > another, the results of that action or non-action > > are my kama-vipaka > > eventually? > > Does Buddhism encourage protection of those in > > need of protection, > > speaking out about injustices, social action? > > Does Buddhism have any equivalent of Reverend Marin > > Niemoellers "First They Came For".... > > "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the > > communists, and I didn't > > speak up because I wasn't a communist. > > Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak > > up because I wasn't a > > Jew. > > Then the came for the trade unionists, and I > > didn't speak up because > > I wasn't a trade unionist. > > Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't > > speak up because I was > > a protestant. > > Then they came for me, and by that time there was > > no one left to > > speak for me." > > Seemingly a dramatic quote of course, compared to > > an ordinary person > > being treated unfairly in daily interactions, but > > it is talking about > > the importance of making a stand against wrong. > > Small daily > > happenings are miniature reflections of what > > happens on a larger > > scale nationally and internationally. When the > > harm being done (as > > in the categories above) is to a person who is a > > little different to > > the majority, or to whom the majority seem to be > > either opposed or > > indifferent, how easy it is to magnify their > > faults and minimise (or > > be unable to hear or see clearly) the role of > > those others doing > > wrong. How easy to look for the approval of the > > majority(more like > > us), and feel validated. > > So what is a Buddhist to do, to live in the world > > correctly and > > unselfishly, with loving-kindness, compassion, > > sympathetic joy, and > > equanimity regarding others? Watch our own mind > > states, and be aware > > when dosa arises. Is that all? Does this mean > > ignoring the suffering > > of others when it could be ameliorated or > > prevented? Extending or > > pervading metta, but taking no action? What do > > the Teachings say? > > > > metta, > > Christine > > 13223 From: Date: Sun May 12, 2002 2:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] kilesa Hi, TG - In a message dated 5/12/02 1:59:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > The Patisambhidamagga (Path of Discrimination) is making the point that -- > insight is key in overcoming ignorance and concentration (serenity) is key > in > overcoming agitation. Also that insight and concentration (serenity) must > be > combined in order to emerge (break free) from defilements. > > ================================= Could you please direct me to where this can be found (what pages or section) in this work. I have a copy of the Path of Discrimination, but I find it isn't the easiest work to read. BTW, I personally think that this is really more of a commentarial work than something that properly belongs in the sutta pitaka. (This is not to say that I think little of it. In fact, I very much like, for example, the fact that is discusses sabhava (own-being/self-nature) and, on my reading, denies it. But what I like in it or don't is irrelevant to whether or not it properly belongs in the sutta pitaka and whether or not it is actual word of the Buddha.) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13224 From: wynn Date: Sun May 12, 2002 6:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Iddhi: To Wynn, Sarah, Kom Hi Suan, Thank you for your reply. You certainly make it very clear now. Thanks, Wynn 13225 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 12, 2002 6:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] giving protection, abhaya dana op 10-05-2002 14:58 schreef Bodhi2500@a... op Bodhi2500@a...: > (1)The perfection of giving,firstly,is to be practised by benefitting beings > in many ways-by relinquishing ones happiness,belongings,body and life to > others,by dispelling their fear and by instructing them in the dhamma. > > (then we jump to the dispelling their fear section) > > The Giving of fearlessness is the giving of protection to beings when they > have become frightened on account of > kings,thieves,fire,water,enemies,lions,tigers,other wild > beasts,dragons,orges,demons,goblins etc. > Dear Bodhi 2500, (sorry, I do not know your name), and all, I am translating A. Sujin's book on the perfections, and was just about to type what you quoted. I consider these days abhaya dana, the giving of fearlessness, a lot. When there is this kind of dana, we have no grudges, we forgive wrongs and have goodwill for the person who was unpleasant. A. Sujin in her book stresses how all the perfections are connected and come into play. I find it inspiring to see forgiving as a kind of dana. In Thai to is to forgive. (Maybe Kom can say more about this) A. Sujin writes: She then explains how essential panna is for the development of the perfections. I had something happen to me. A family member I call X has done some injustice to me, and although it was my duty to visit X, I thought, to what use is my visit, I have so many other things to do, X will not appreciate it. After deliberation with my husband I thought it was good to have metta for X, to forgive X. So we see if there is dosa left we cannot even do other kinds of kusala. My kusala is often sasankharika, induced or prompted. Or it happens that I forgive, but aversion arises again. That means, not enough accumulation of the perfections. Also patience is important. I like the commentary to the Cariyapitaka: there should be an unpleasant person, otherwise we cannot train in patience. This is like an example given once by Eric, taken from the Mahayana tradition, that your enemy can be your teacher. So, we should be glad when someone speaks harsh words to us, or write harsh E mails to us. A. Sujin said in her book that some people appear to be very patient and others do not. Those who are patient have trained this virtue she said. She has an immense amount herself. Dan and Eric discussed training, and as Dan said, no self who directs the training, but there can be training in the perfections, in patience, and that can be a real hard training! How much can we stand ? We have to think also of very unimportant happenings in daily life, dropping something on the floor, breaking a dish, hearing loud music, stumbling. I had just written this and then there was small chaos in my kitchen, dropping small frozen bits of patatoe on the kitchen floor while I was frying in hot oil. Picking them up one by one. Just as well I had written about patience in small things! Realities present themselves and we can never know what will happen: reflection on patience or awareness of it as only a kind of nama, cold presenting itself, or clinging to the fact of remembering patience. They present themselves in a unsystematical way; I did not select to remember patience, I did not select cold. How could we first be aware of rupa, then of feeling, then of citta and then of dhamma? I do not see anything systematical here. It is especially panna that is the condition for training in the perfections, because, as Kom said, you have to know the citta well, know the good qualities and their near enemies. I cannot resist quoting the end of his post I appreciate so much: Now that I am in the mood of quoting, I also was particularly happy with Sarah's post about encouragement to remember the brahma viharas when writing E mails, and about situations where we are wronged or dear ones who are wronged by others: I find that it helps to realize that the cittas which inspired harsh words and the cittas which were unpleasant experiences have fallen away immediately. Why holding on to it. With appreciation of all the good posts that remind me to develop the perfections, Nina. 13226 From: Date: Sun May 12, 2002 2:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long) Hi, Sarah - Thanks for the kind wishes. I seem to be fine now. Evidently, what occurred was an interaction between grapefruit and, mainly, Lipitor, a cholesterol-controlling medication, as well as with several other medications I take. It turns out that grapefruit interacts badly with numerous common medications, a fact that would be good for people to know. I even found several web sites dealing with this topic, one of which is the following: http://www.powernetdesign.com/grapefruit Actually, I've been told by a pharmacist that people have died from grapefruit-medication interactions. As you correctly point out, with regard to feelings of compassion etc, and other mind-state characteristics, most mind-moments, let alone their detailed characteristics, are missed by us. Our attention, our mindfulness and clear comprehension, is generally far too gross, not anywhere sufficiently microscopic, to see clearly the detailed moment-to-moment flux of mindstates, especially during "ordinary" (i.e. non-meditative) circumstances, and the best we can usually do is to get an overall sense of what predominates, along with an occasional focussing in on greater detail. With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/12/02 2:46:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > > Dear Howard, > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > > I think it is very useful to be > > particularly mindful on those occasions at which one of them seems to be > > in > > effect with regard to a stranger, for that is a likely circumstance for > > us > > not to be mistaken. > ..... > Speaking for myself, there is so much ignorance accumulated, that any > occasion or circumstance is one in which mental states are likely to be > mistaken. We tend to think in terms of an occasion or stretch of time or > action, but in reality the noble and far less noble states are changing > very rapidly and so at one moment there may be metta, the next attachment > and so on. > ..... > > Having said that, I sincerely hope you have no recurrence of the ‘episode’ > that sent you to the ER and really appreciated your account of kindness > and compassion for the other patients. I’m quite sure you also helped > ‘turn’ what might have been a difficult and unpleasant occasion for them > into a meaningful and happy one. They’re probably still talking about your > kindness;-) > > The account was also an excellent example of how so often we think of a > particular ‘occasion’ or set of symptoms as being unpleasant (visit to ER > or unusual symptoms), but really the moments of vipaka (result of kamma) > through the sense doors are very brief and it’s the following unwholesome > mental states that are the real problem. Even the bodily experiences at > these times are not all unpleasant either as you’ve said. > > Thank you, Howard, for sharing the fine examples of metta and compassion. > Who knows, but maybe, just maybe, these mental states had ‘cured’ the > problem by the time the drs started the tests;-)) > > Hoping you stay well and healthy, > > Sarah > ===== > > > An example in this regard is what happened to me yesterday. I > > spent > > yesterday afternoon through to 10 p.m. in the emergency room of a > > hospital. > > (I had been experiencing frequent very odd, though, ironically, not > > completely unpleasant, "episodes" yesterday which are quite difficult to > > > > describe. Whatever it was, it was some sort of malfunction. All tests > > were > > negative > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13227 From: yuzhonghao Date: Sun May 12, 2002 6:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sitting and mindfulness [Anders] Hi Jon, Anders and all, I would like to share some thoughts regarding the practice of satipatthana. --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: [snip] > > The Satipatthana 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 and setting mindfulness to the > > fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; > > mindful he breathes out. " > > It goes without saying, of course, that mindfulness can arise while one is sitting, > as in this passage from the sutta. The crucial question though is whether the > teachings recommend sitting *as a means to* the development of mindfulness. > The teaching in Satipatthana Sutta describes how satipatthana is practiced; thus whether the teaching recommends sitting as a means to the development of mindfulness is subject to speculation. Having read that the Buddha said: "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. " the unnamed monk the Buddha mentioned in the discourse is a model that I would emulate. And this is how I learn how to establish mindfulness from reading the Satipatthana Sutta: following the examples in the discourse and emulate them. It is a process of "learning by doing" and takes repetitive practice. Regards, Victor 13228 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun May 12, 2002 7:12am Subject: RE: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): dukkha Kiriya Dear Robert, The piece, I believe, comes from the commentaries from Maha-pari-nibbana sutta. The piece that you heard about dukkha-kiriya is also interesting. Another story (related one?) about why he had to do that for 6 years is because in one life, when the bodhi-satta was associated with people with the wrong view, he criticized a samma-sambuddha "the balded sammana's dispensation is truly hard", and hence he had to do dukkha-kiriya for 6 years before he reached the attainment. kkkkm > -----Original Message----- > From: robertkirkpatrick.rm > [mailto:robertkirkpatrick@r...] > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 4:30 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long) > > > --- > Dear Kom. > This is very good post. I was especially > interested in the piece:I > reiterate the story from Maha-pari-nibbana sutta. The > > Buddha asked V. Ananda for water (when he was sick) 3 > > different times, but V. Ananda mentioned to the > Buddha that > > the water was unsuitable for drinking because > of recent herd > > crossing. The Buddha insisted, and V. Ananda eventually > > found suitable water. The fact that the Buddha > couldn't get > > suitable water was said to be his chasing away > his herd from > > unsuitable water in a previous live. Although > he did this > > out of good intention, but akusala alternated > with kusala, > > and the bad vipaka resulted from the akusala kamma."" > I haven't read this in English, did you get it in > the Thai? > A similar thing happened withregard to the > Buddha's attainment, As > you know it took him 6years after he left the > palce before finally > reaching samasambuddha. This is not usual for a > bodhisatta in the > life they attain and most become Buddhas on the > very day they leave > laylife. The Buddha of this time spent most of > the 6years caught up > useless austerities. This was because in his last > human life > (vessantara), when he gave his children to the > Brahmin, he had a few > moments of aversion when he heard the Brahmin > beating them as he > went away. (I'm doing this from memory so might > have a detail > wrong). Fortunately he quickly conquered the > defilement and was able > to perfect the parami. > best wishes > robert 13229 From: Date: Sun May 12, 2002 3:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/12/02 5:38:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > In a message dated 5/5/02 9:22:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > jonoabb@y... writes: > > > > I'm not sure in what sense you would see visible or audible data as > being > > > 'phantom' or 'a > > > shadow'. The fact that these phenomena are conditioned and last for > only a > > > brief moment > > > doesn't mean that they lack characteristics of their own capable of > being > > > discerned by > > > consciousness accompanied by panna (termed 'individual essence'). Do > you > > > see a necessary > > > contradiction in these 2 attributes (conditionality vs. own essence)? > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > The problem I have here is with the adjectival phrase "of their > own" > > in the sentence "The fact that these phenomena are conditioned and last > for > > only a brief moment doesn't mean that they lack characteristics of their > own > > capable of being discerned by consciousness accompanied by panna (termed > > 'individual essence')." Everything about these phenomena, including their > > > very existence, arises in total dependence on conditions, all of which > are > > equally empty of own-being. What arises in total dependence on other > > conditions does not have own-being, and inasmuch as these other > conditions > > are equally without own-being, the emptiness is thoroughgoing. > > I think you are saying: > (a) Phenomena arise in dependence on conditions > (b) Something that arises in dependence on something else cannot have > own-being > (c) Accordingly, these phenomena could not have a distinct characteristic > > I am with you on (a) and (b), but not on (c). In the Abhidhamma, the > attribute of > 'empty of self' is not seen as necessarily connoting 'lacking own (i.e., > distinct) > characteristic'. > > Jon > > ================================ I wouldn't be with me on (c) either! ;-)) I would not say: "Accordingly, these phenomena could not have a distinct characteristic" It is not that they do not have distinct characteristics. They do. Phenomena do have characteristics. We recognize phenomena based on their characteristics. What is the case is that these characteristics are not *intrinsic*, not "owned", but arise in dependence on other empty conditions. The very phenomena, themselves, as existents, are not self-owned, but depend on their characteristics (in fact, cannot be separated from them), depend on being discerned, and arise, as by a conjurer's trick, from the confluence of other empty phenomena. I don't think we differ on the facts, Jon, but on how we think about them. We differ, I think, on our emphasis. There is also a difference, I think, in "flavor". My sense of things is that of a thoroughgoing impersonality and insubstantiality, without discrete, separate, independent, self-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) 13230 From: Date: Sun May 12, 2002 3:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? Hi, Jon - I just sent off a reply to another post of yours which, I think, will serve as a reply to this one as well. I'll leave this, for you to look at that other reply. The central question, as I see it, is the question of confounding discreteness in occurrence with independent existence, with self-existence. With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/12/02 5:48:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > I hope you don’t mind me coming in on this thread (since this is a topic we > are > discussing in another thread). > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 5/3/02 4:48:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > > > Dhammas like feeling and anger and greed and hardness are real - > > > unlike concepts such as human and man - but dhammas are impermanent. > > > A dhamma cannot be changed into something other than what it is > > > right now, but it lasts for an infinitely brief instant only, no > > > matter we want it to stay or go. > > > best wishes > > > robert > > > > > > > > ============================ > > Yes, these dhammas exist, conditions exist - they are not > imagined. > > The question is what their mode of existence is. They are > things-in-relation, > > arising in dependence on other, similarly empty conditions, including > > discernment (vi~n~nana). We tend to see them as separate and > self-existing, > > and that is avijja. > > I've pondered over this for some time, but remain puzzled about one or two > of your > references. > > 'Dhammas are things-in-relation'. What particular aspect do you have in > mind here, > over and above the fact that dhammas are conditioned? > > 'We tend to see dhammas as separate'. I am not sure in what sense you mean > this. > Individual dhammas are said to be discrete, I believe, even when arising in > conjunction with other dhammas. Is it not more helpful to consider that we > tend to > see wholes (concepts) and not the individual (i.e., separate) dhammas that > are the > realities to which those concepts refer? > > Jon > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13231 From: Date: Sun May 12, 2002 6:49am Subject: On the Realist Interpretation /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13232 From: Date: Sun May 12, 2002 6:50am Subject: Re: On the Realist Interpretation Whoops! Hit the send button WAY too soon! ;-) I'll try again. 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) 13233 From: Date: Sun May 12, 2002 6:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] kilesa In a message dated 5/12/2002 6:14:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Could you please direct me to where this can be found (what pages or > section) in this work. I have a copy of the Path of Discrimination, but I > find it isn't the easiest work to read. > BTW, I personally think that this is really more of a commentarial > work than something that properly belongs in the sutta pitaka. (This is not > to say that I think little of it. In fact, I very much like, for example, > the > fact that is discusses sabhava (own-being/self-nature) and, on my reading, > denies it. But what I like in it or don't is irrelevant to whether or not > it > properly belongs in the sutta pitaka and whether or not it is actual word > of > the Buddha.) > > With metta, > Howard > Hi Howard In the "Path of Discrimination" the "Treatise on Coupling" Page 287 -- 295 deals heavily with the issue of insight and serenity combining. I agree with your analysis of the Patisambhidamagga. I think of it as a hybrid between Sutta and Abhidhamma. It seems closer to Sutta based than Abhidhamma based, which may be why they put it in the 5th Nikaya. This book is a marvel of insight analysis. Ven. Nanamoli died before it was "polished" and the one problem I have with the translation is his use of the word "idea" for dhamma. He was experimenting with it and I doubt he would have kept it in if he had been alive but that is 100% speculation. Anyway, I find if I substitute the word "state(s)" for his "idea(s)" the work makes much more sense 99% of the time. This text requires full concentration throughout and takes several readings before its structure becomes more apparent and makes it an "easier read." Nevertheless, its like a nursery rhyme compared to the Dhammasangani or Patthana. LOL TG 13234 From: Date: Sun May 12, 2002 7:15am Subject: On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory Hi, all - The following is in response to recent conversations on DSG, and it constitutes a slight reworking of something I previously wrote out, but, I believe, never mailed: In one reading of the Dhamma Theory, during the period in which a dhamma exists, it is a true existent. While it exists, or is in effect, it is independent in the sense that those conditions which came together resulting in the arising of this dhamma have previously ceased, and no longer exist. Thus, while the dhamma exists, it does so alone and unconditionally. Why, then, does the dhamma then cease? What changes condition its cessation, inasmuch as at the time it exists, those conditions which caused it to arise are *already* nonexistent? Moreover, given that the dhamma is a true existent, its cessation is then a true annihilation! Thus we have both substantialism and annihilationism countenanced by the very same theory! A discussion along the lines of the foregoing appears to indicate that a realist understanding of the Dhamma Theory is a conventional theory of the genus "pluralistic realism" which seems to be at odds with basics of the Buddha's Dhamma. Comments, anyone? With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13235 From: Date: Sun May 12, 2002 7:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory In a message dated 5/12/2002 11:18:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > > > The following is in response to recent conversations on DSG, and it > constitutes a slight reworking of something I previously wrote out, but, I > believe, never mailed: > In one reading of the Dhamma Theory, during the period in which a > dhamma exists, it is a true existent. While it exists, or is in effect, it > is > independent in the sense that those conditions which came together > resulting > in the arising of this dhamma have previously ceased, and no longer exist. > Thus, while the dhamma exists, it does so alone and unconditionally. > Why, then, does the dhamma then cease? What changes condition its > cessation, inasmuch as at the time it exists, those conditions which caused > it to arise are *already* nonexistent? Moreover, given that the dhamma is a > true existent, its cessation is then a true annihilation! Thus we have both > substantialism and annihilationism countenanced by the very same theory! > A discussion along the lines of the foregoing appears to indicate > that > a realist understanding of the Dhamma Theory is a conventional theory of > the > genus "pluralistic realism" which seems to be at odds with basics of the > Buddha's Dhamma. > Comments, anyone? > > With metta, > Howard > My comment is its bogus. Dhamma here meaning "living teachings of dhamma." The Buddha clearly states all sorts of reasons why Dhamma continues to become or does not continue to become. Its not magic. Its Dependent Arising. TG PS I hope I understood what you were talking about. LOL 13236 From: Date: Sun May 12, 2002 8:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory Hi, TG - In a message dated 5/12/02 2:54:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > My comment is its bogus. Dhamma here meaning "living teachings of dhamma." > > The Buddha clearly states all sorts of reasons why Dhamma continues to > become > or does not continue to become. Its not magic. Its Dependent Arising. > > TG > > PS I hope I understood what you were talking about. LOL > ======================== I'm not certain whether you understand me or not. Are we in agreement or disagreement on 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) 13237 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 12, 2002 3:58pm Subject: Re: 4 brahmavihara, 4 near enemies RE: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long) Dear Frank (& Kom), --- frank kuan wrote: > Hi Kom, > Do you know which suttas describe the 4 near > enemies? According to my recollection of what Jack > Kornfield's book said (i.e. 2 levels of > unverifiedness) : > > near enemy of sympathetic joy (mudita) is jealousy, > near enemy of equanimity (upekkha) is > indifference/apathy ***** Let me add the following extract (which I posted ages ago) from the Atthasalini below. I understand that the near enemy of mudita (sympathetic joy) is “joy based on the homelife” (Vis, 1X,100), i.e happiness connected with attachment. The far enemy is dislike or aversion. In the Vis, it mentions “aversion (boredom)”. The proximate cause for both mudita and jealousy is the same, however and that is someone else’s good fortune. With regard to upekkha (equanimity), the Atth below mentions delusion accompanied by indifference as the near enemy. In the Vis (1X, 101) we read that “equanimity has the equanimity of unknowing based on the home life as its near enemy”.Below we read lusta and aversion are the far enemies (“greed and resentment” in the Vis. translation). ***** QUOTE > from the Atthasalini (PTS edition p.260): ..Each of them has two enemies, near and distant. To expand: of the Divine State of love the near enemy is lust, because, like love, it sees merits. It is like a foe lurking near a man. Quickly it finds access. Hence love should be well protected from lust. Ill-will is its distant enemy. From its dissimilarity in nature it is like a man's foe dwelling in a mountain fastness, etc. hence love should be cultivated secure from ill-will. It is impossible that one should cultivate love and at the same time get angry. As to pity , one who views visible objects, desirable, lovable, endearing, delightful, associated with craving, objects which have not been obtained formerly as now past, ceased, changed, is filled with the sorrow called worldly. This, because it also contemplates adversity, is the near enemy of the Divine State of pity. From its dissimilarity in nature cruelty is the distant enemy. Hence pity should be cultivated secure from cruelty. It is impossible that one should cultivate pity and at the same time strike with the hand etc. As to sympathy (mudita), one who views visible objects, desirable, etc, is filled with joy called wordly. This, because it also contemplates prosperity, is the near enemy of the Divine State of sympathy. From its dissimilarity in nature dislike is its distant enemy. Hence sympathy should be cultivated secure from it. It is impossible that one should by sympathetic and at the same time be discontented with secluded monasteries or with the higher moral states . The fool who has seen a visible object and who is deluded, an average man who has not overcome the limits of his lower nature and result of former births, who does not see the evils of all conditioned things, is unacquainted with the teaching- this average man is filled with such indifference as is not able to transcend the visible object. Hence it is called worldly, and is mere delusion. Owing to its similarity in not considering faults and merits, it is the near enemy of the Divine State of equanimity (upekkha>. From their dissimilarity in nature, both lust and aversion are its distant enemies. Hence equanimity should be cultivated secure from them. It is impossible that one should cultivate equanimity, and at the same time be enamoured with, or hurt another.... ***** Thanks for encouraging me to check, Sarah ==== 13238 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Sun May 12, 2002 6:34pm Subject: Re: On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory Dear Howard, In theravada there is no possibilty of any dhamma , except nibbana, existing "alone and unconditionally.". Just one example: ALL dhammas (except nibbana) have arammana paccaya (object condition) as one of their present conditions. best wishes robert --- --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, all - > > The following is in response to recent conversations on DSG, and it > constitutes a slight reworking of something I previously wrote out, but, I > believe, never mailed: > In one reading of the Dhamma Theory, during the period in which a > dhamma exists, it is a true existent. While it exists, or is in effect, it is > independent in the sense that those conditions which came together resulting > in the arising of this dhamma have previously ceased, and no longer exist. > Thus, while the dhamma exists, it does so alone and unconditionally. > Why, then, does the dhamma then cease? What changes condition its > cessation, inasmuch as at the time it exists, those conditions which caused > it to arise are *already* nonexistent? Moreover, given that the dhamma is a > true existent, its cessation is then a true annihilation! Thus we have both > substantialism and annihilationism countenanced by the very same theory! > A discussion along the lines of the foregoing appears to indicate that > a realist understanding of the Dhamma Theory is a conventional theory of the > genus "pluralistic realism" which seems to be at odds with basics of the > Buddha's Dhamma. > Comments, anyone? > > With metta, > Howard 13239 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Sun May 12, 2002 6:41pm Subject: Re: On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory correction. --- Sorry, I should have said that For instance all cittas have arammana paccaya as one of their present conditions. In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: > Dear Howard, > In theravada there is no possibilty of any dhamma , except nibbana, > existing "alone and unconditionally.". Just one example: ALL dhammas > (except nibbana) have arammana paccaya (object condition) as one of > their present conditions. > best wishes > robert > --- --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > > > The following is in response to recent conversations on > DSG, and it > > constitutes a slight reworking of something I previously wrote > out, but, I > > believe, never mailed: > > In one reading of the Dhamma Theory, during the period in > which a > > dhamma exists, it is a true existent. While it exists, or is in > effect, it is > > independent in the sense that those conditions which came together > resulting > > in the arising of this dhamma have previously ceased, and no > longer exist. > > Thus, while the dhamma exists, it does so alone and > unconditionally. > > Why, then, does the dhamma then cease? What changes > condition its > > cessation, inasmuch as at the time it exists, those conditions > which caused > > it to arise are *already* nonexistent? Moreover, given that the > dhamma is a > > true existent, its cessation is then a true annihilation! Thus we > have both > > substantialism and annihilationism countenanced by the very same > theory! > > A discussion along the lines of the foregoing appears to > indicate that > > a realist understanding of the Dhamma Theory is a conventional > theory of the > > genus "pluralistic realism" which seems to be at odds with basics > of the > > Buddha's Dhamma. > > Comments, anyone? > > > > With metta, > > Howard 13240 From: onco111 Date: Sun May 12, 2002 6:41pm Subject: Re: "ritual" [reply to Frank] Dear Frank, > What I mean is that progress in yoga and spiritual > practice does not always show tangible incremental > signs of improvement on a daily basis. Months can pass > before progress is seen, but the crucial point is that > those months of seeming non-progress laid the > foundation for the "breakthrough". We must not cease > persistent practice if we do not get instant results. > There is no other way to create fertile conditions for > genuine insight to arise. When I first started practicing meditation with an intensive 2-week retreat, I saw a lot of what I called "progress" on a daily basis. I was delighted, even ecstatic at how wonderful it all was. When I discussed this with a monk as I was returning home, he told me that the delight with the calm and the special sensual experiences would fade shortly, and, of course, he was right. After going back home, I found that nothing had really changed, despite the (mistaken) perception of great progress. I got into a pattern of intensive retreat (10 days to 4 weeks) once per year and daily maintenance practice (one to two hours per day) and kept it up for seven years. After that, I could no longer go on intensive retreats without failing in other responsibilities, but I kept up on the daily practice. The calm and the concentration and the witnessing of subtle sensations and the special experiences got more and more pronounced and profound feeling. So many things seemed like breakthroughs and progress! And yet, for the most part they weren't really. My ideas of breakthroughs and progress have changed in the years since. Come to think of it, I don't think much about "progress" at all anymore, and still less about "breakthroughs." If I compare myself now to myself when I first learned about Dhamma 14 years ago, I see a tremendous difference. How much of the "progress" is due to learning Dhamma and how much is due to simple maturing? Clearly, some is due to each, and for much of it, it is difficult to discern the cause. However, for some of it, it is clear that it was conditioned by Dhamma... Breakthroughs -- If by "breakthough" you mean a single realization that significantly and noticeably changes they way you approach and live life, I can count on one hand the number of maturing breakthroughs in the past 14 years, and can count on one finger the number of Dhamma breakthroughs. In some sense, then, it is not difficult to tell just which part of the progress is Dhamma-related and which part is just due to standard maturing. Single moments of sharp insight -- when something becomes very clear for an instant (like a flash), and the mind immediately thereafter thinks: "Aha! So this is what those words really mean" or "Aha! There it was" -- certainly can have an impact and happen with far greater frequency than the kind of breakthrough discussed above (maybe even several times per year). You can remember these long after the fact, but in looking back, it is clear that any given insight like this does not have a significant, lasting effect. Single moments of softer insight -- when something becomes suddenly very clear over a short period of time as several dim flashes seem to illuminate the understanding, and the mind thinks: "O.K. I see that now" or "O.K. There it was" -- happen with much greater frequency (maybe even daily or several times a day). The moments are mildly disorienting. I can remember few specific instances of these, but I can see their effects accumulating. Special experiences -- when something out of the ordinary happens in formal meditation when the mind is calm and the concentration sharp, and the mind thinks: "Cool! I'm making progress now" or "Cool! Things are going well now" or "I'm so glad I sat down to practice today" -- happen on occasion with daily formal practice and may happen frequently during intensive retreats. They seem to have some residual effects throughout the day or even for several days. The mind may seem calmer or lighter for some time, and there may well be an increased frequency and intensity of pleasant vedana. This can feel very nice. A common (and ditthi inducing) result of such a special experience "breakthrough" is increased lobha disguised as "progress." Case I. In my experience, the "special experiences" have been strongly and directly related to formal practice. These are certainly pleasant, but there is little (if any) connection with panya. However, there is a very strong, almost irresistable temptation to think that the special experiences are either insight, evidence of insight, or conducive to insight and to discount or ignore or even fail to see the lobha conditioned by these pleasant experiences. Case II. The single moments of sharp insight seem also to have been related directly related to the formal training. The concentration is sharpened to the extent that even subtle sensations appear very clear. A small insight appears in sharp relief and seems like a big insight. The mind reacts with strong lobha for these small insights that feel big. In both these cases, there is development of a preference for the conditions of quiet room, closed eyes, spine erect, concentration sharp -- lobha for special conditions, special experiences is unwittingly cultivated. So dangerous! The real working field for Dhamma is every moment, all types of conditions, every type of experience. When practice of Dhamma is confined to special places, special times, special conditions, special techniques, special experiences, we forget about studying the present moment because the concentration is not so sharp or because there are distractions or because we have to work on other obligations or sensual ingulgences ("I'll think about Dhamma later...") Case III. The single moments of softer insight that occur with some frequency and whose effects are noticeably accumulated are not directly related to formal practice. In fact, they may even occur more frequently when the practice is not viewed as a technique to be done in such and such a place or in such and such a way, but rather, each moment is taken as an opportunity for practice. And it's not a matter of *A Practice*, per se, but, rather, just practice. No directing the mind to a particular object, but, instead, being aware of the characteristics of the mind that appears at this moment, as it arises and passes away, understanding the characteristics of mind as it arises and passes away. How? Well, when sati arises, this moment is understood as seeing, that moment as hearing, this mind with lobha, that mind with dosa, this dosa arising from craving, etc. Sati does not arise from anyone directing the mind to note any particular object or to look for any particular thing, but when dhammas arise with right view and sati, the characteristics are known and understood. They just arise and pass away, without being anyone, without being directed by anyone, without being conjured by anyone, without being owned by anyone. Mind with panya simply knows about dhammas and what to do with them and how to react to them without anyone needing to tell it about the dhammas and what to do with them and how to react to them. Dan 13241 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Sun May 12, 2002 6:57pm Subject: Re: On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory --Dear Howard, This extract from the introduction of "Conditions" by Nina van gorkom probably answers some of your queries: "Rúpas, physical phenomena, do not arise singly, but in groups, which can be produced by kamma, by citta, by heat or by nutrition . Thus we see that there is no reality which arises singly. Realities do not arise by their own power, they are dependant on other phenomena which make them arise. Moreover, there is not any reality which arises from a single cause, there is a concurrence of several conditions through which realities arise. ....If we understand that there is a multiplicity of conditions we will be less inclined to think that pain and pleasure can be controlled by a self. Or do we still think so? ...Nåma conditions rúpa and rúpa conditions nåma. We read in the Visuddhimagga (XVIII, 32) about the interdependence of nåma and rúpa: ... For just as when two sheaves of reeds are propped up one against the other, each one gives the other consolidating support, and when one falls the other falls, so too, in the five-constituent (five khandhas ) becoming, mentality-materiality occurs as an interdependent state, each of its components giving the other consolidating support, and when one falls owing to death, the other falls too. Hence the Ancients said: The mental and material Are twins and each supports the other; When one breaks up they both break up Through interconditionality. ......In being mindful of nåma and rúpa we will learn to distinguish their different characteristics, thus, we will not confuse nåma and rúpa, and we will also know them as conditioned realities, not self.""endquote best wishes robert - In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, all - > > The following is in response to recent conversations on DSG, and it > constitutes a slight reworking of something I previously wrote out, but, I > believe, never mailed: > In one reading of the Dhamma Theory, during the period in which a > dhamma exists, it is a true existent. While it exists, or is in effect, it is > independent in the sense that those conditions which came together resulting > in the arising of this dhamma have previously ceased, and no longer exist. > Thus, while the dhamma exists, it does so alone and unconditionally. > Why, then, does the dhamma then cease? What changes condition its > cessation, inasmuch as at the time it exists, those conditions which caused > it to arise are *already* nonexistent? Moreover, given that the dhamma is a > true existent, its cessation is then a true annihilation! Thus we have both > substantialism and annihilationism countenanced by the very same theory! > A discussion along the lines of the foregoing appears to indicate that > a realist understanding of the Dhamma Theory is a conventional theory of the > genus "pluralistic realism" which seems to be at odds with basics of the > Buddha's Dhamma. > Comments, anyone? > > With metta, > Howard 13242 From: Date: Sun May 12, 2002 9:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kilesa Hi TG, Since we don't seem to have a definitive statement, I'm going to take a stab at it and say this means lobha, dosa, mana (conceit), ditthi, ahirika (shamelessness), and anottappa (consciencelessness) are cut off by insight and moha, vicikiccha (doubt), thina (torpor), and uddhacca (restlessness) are cut off by jhana. Incidently, ditthi and vicikiccha are eliminated at stream entry. Dosa is eliminated at non-returner state. Lobha, moha, mana, thina, uddhacca, anottappa, and ahirika are eliminated at arahatship. best wishes, Larry ----------------- "At the time of developing the eight mundane attainments the serenity power is in excess, while at the time of developing the contemplations of impermanence, etc., the insight power is in excess. But at the noble path moment they occur coupled together in the sense that neither one exceeds the other. So there is coupling of the powers in the case of each one of these four kinds of knowledge, according as it is said 'When he emerges from the defilements associated with agitation, and from the aggregates, his mental unification, non-distraction, concentration, has cessation as its domain. When he emerges from the defilements associated with ignorance and from the aggregates, his insight in the sense of contemplation has cessation as its domain. So serenity and insight have a single nature in the sense of emergence, they are coupled together, and neither exceeds the other. Hence it was said: He develops serenity and insight coupled together in the sense of emergence.'" Vism XXII, 46 13243 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 12, 2002 11:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 4 Ultimate Realities? (Sarah) Hi TG (& Howard), --- TGrand458@a... wrote: > Hi Sarah. > > I put the question mark back in the title. ;-) I understand your > points and > I thank you for them. > > I just wanted to comment on one point you made suggesting that seeing > things > as phantoms would in essence be counter-productive. (I deleted the > e-mail > accidentally.) I think you were pointing out that it is another concept > to > get in the way of seeing things directly. ..... I think I was just indicating that attempts to 'break down' elements or see them as 'phantoms' or 'mirages' or 'plaintain trees' is not the same of being aware of the characteristics or realities. This doesn't mean the concepts are not useful for reminding us of the impermanence or non-core/anatta nature. As you indicate below, the use of different concepts can help decrease the attachment and wrong view that is so ingrained. Thanks for clarifying and apologies for anything that wasn't clear.< I also mostly agreed with Howard's follow-on comments, except for "the awareness of the emptiness of conceptual dhammas";-)> Appreciating all your contributions Sarah ====== > > I began this topic by quoting the Samyutta Nikaya and this is how the > Buddha > recommended seeing "realities"... > > Form -- should be seen as -- A Lump of Foam > Feeling -- should be seen as -- A Bursting Bubble > Perception -- should be seen as -- A Mirage > Mental Formations -- should be seen as -- A Plaintain Tree (coreless) > Consciousness -- should be seen as -- A Conjurors Trick > > The way I see it, 'phantoms' fits in pretty well. Perhaps the Buddha > saw > that certain concepts and even imaginations (based on principles of > dependent > arising, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and no-self) could be used to > help > free the mind from attachment. > > Take care. TG 13244 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 12, 2002 11:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Hi Howard, --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sarah - > > Concepts are thoughts. Thoughts are mind objects. ..... Yes ..... >What concepts > *refer* to, what they subsume, are frequently illusory, imagined, and > not > existent at all. ..... yes ..... >The concept of a red fire engine is a *thought*. ..... Yes ..... >It > exists - > just as hardness, anger, and smells exist. ..... Thinking or Experiencing (of the concept or thought) exists. So does the accompanying anger, pleasure and so on. However, I don't agree that 'the red fire engine', 'the phantom', even the 'seeing' or 'hearing' as objects of thinking exist. And so, only the thinking, anger, pleasure or other realities can be objects of awareness. I know we have something of an ‘impasse’ here, but both for this point and for some of the others you are raising in other posts on characteristics, sabhava, self-nature, I’d like to add a quote: ..... Quote from Sub Cy to Mulapariyaya Sutta, B.Bodhi p32: ***** “They bear their own characteristics”: although there are no dhammas devoid of their own characteristics , this is still said for the purpose of showing that these are mere dhammas endowed with their specific natures devoid of such attributions as that of a “being” etc. Whereas such entities as self, beauty, pleasureableness, and permanence, etc, or nature (pakati), substance (dabba), soul (jiva), body etc, which are mere misconstructions (parikappitaakaaramatta) due to craving and views, or such entities as “sky-flowers” etc which are mere expressions of conventional discourse (lokavohaaramatta), cannot be discovered as ultimately real actualities (saccika.t.thaparamatthato), these dhammas (i.e. those endowed with a specific nature) can. Tthese dhammas are discovered as ultimately real actualities. And though there is no real distinction (between these dhammas and their characteristics), still, in order to facilitate understanding, the exposition makes a distinction as a mere metaphorical device (upacaaramatta). Or else they are borne, they are discerned, known, according to their specific nature, thus they are dhammas (dhaariiyanti vaa yathaasabhaavato avadhaariyanti ~naayantii ti dhammaa). ***** Always good to hear your considerations, Sarah ==== 13245 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 13, 2002 0:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long) Hi again Howard, --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sarah - > > Thanks for the kind wishes. I seem to be fine now. Evidently, > what > occurred was an interaction between grapefruit and, mainly, Lipitor, ..... Glad to hear you're OK now. One hears of grapefruit diets and grapefruit pills, so I guess it's powerful stuff;-) ..... > As you correctly point out, with regard to feelings of compassion > etc, > and other mind-state characteristics, most mind-moments, let alone their > > detailed characteristics, are missed by us. Our attention, our > mindfulness > and clear comprehension, is generally far too gross, not anywhere > sufficiently microscopic, to see clearly the detailed moment-to-moment > flux > of mindstates, especially during "ordinary" (i.e. non-meditative) > circumstances, and the best we can usually do is to get an overall sense > of > what predominates, along with an occasional focussing in on greater > detail. ..... This is just what I understood from your post and for once we're in full agreement Like you say, sometimes when giving or showing kindness or speaking out, we can only have "an overall sense of what prdominates". Sometimes later, like when I'm about to fall asleep, I find there may be further reflection or reminders of some kusala (wholesome state)from the day and this can be occasion for a little more kusala with calm, although again it's very often (usually) quickly followed by attachment. Thank you again for the kind examples and good reminders even whilst waiting at a hospital. Sarah ===== 13246 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon May 13, 2002 3:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Deciding how best to act Hi Jon, You are quite right about the difficulty in coming to terms with this aspect of dhamma. It is interesting that it is not a case of hearing and 'not' understanding....because I do, at least intellectually. Sometimes I feel as if there are two me's - a reasonable, rational one who drags a kicking and resisting one along. :-) Thanks for the common sense advice. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Christine, DaiWen > > Christine, your post to Sarah raises aspects of dhamma that some people have > difficulty coming to terms with. And it reminded me of a recent post of DaiWen's > that I had meant to comment on. > > Christine said: > > Non-action, like action, is an intentional choice. And if I don't > > act, when I could have acted, or if I choose one action instead of > > another, the results of that action or non-action are my kama- vipaka > > eventually? > > Does Buddhism encourage protection of those in need of protection, > > speaking out about injustices, social action? > > I agree that non-action can be as much an intentional choice as action. But as I > understand the teachings, the merits of any (non-) action are determined solely by > the quality of the accompanying mental state, and not to any extent by the > conventional outcome. > > So is sympathetic action more likely to be kusala than non-action? I think each > person can only answer this by reference to their own experience. What may come > easily and naturally to one might be contrary to the nature of another. And for a > given person, much will depend on the kind of situation involved, anyway. > > There is no inherent merit in one course rather than the other, since so much > depends on individual accumulations. In the end we all do what we are inclined to, > with what little kusala we can muster. > > DaiWen's question raises similar issues: > > Given all this, I am not clear on what my role > > should be in terms of taking action or > > insisting on taking action against such an > > individual. > > There is no 'right' or 'wrong' thing to be done here. You can only (non-) act as > you see best. At least you have the benefit of some understanding of kusala and > akusala, kamma and vipaka. You know that the ultimate merit of any (non-) action > you may take will depend on the degree of kusala with which it is performed, while > its results as far as the parties involved are concerned will depend in part on the > kamma of those parties. This knowledge may help shape a decision that is different > from what it might otherwise have been. > > Jon > > > --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Sarah, (Larry) and All, > > > > Interesting post, Sarah. The real question for me, accepting > > that 'our accumulation of dosa is the real cause that aversion arises > > time and again,' is not blame or pointing the finger at a particular > > individual. In actual everday hands-on living of our lives, and > > while understanding that complex conditions bring about suffering - > > are we to ignore people being wronged, whether it is ourselves, dear > > ones, or even perfect strangers? Are we not to attempt to assist or > > protect (in a non-violent way) those we feel are being treated > > unfairly and suffering? Is there total moral neutrality? Should we > > speak out about perceived injustices, or should we just say 'It's > > their fruits of kamma' or 'Uh-huh hurt feelings.. shows lack of > > advancement in the practice yet, too much dosa,mana, clinging, or not > > enough ' ? Often, it is easier to preserve silence, > > than speak out and attract retribution, or risk losing valued > > friendships.... > > Non-action, like action, is an intentional choice. And if I don't > > act, when I could have acted, or if I choose one action instead of > > another, the results of that action or non-action are my kama- vipaka > > eventually? > > Does Buddhism encourage protection of those in need of protection, > > speaking out about injustices, social action? > > Does Buddhism have any equivalent of Reverend Marin > > Niemoellers "First They Came For".... > > "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't > > speak up because I wasn't a communist. > > Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a > > Jew. > > Then the came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because > > I wasn't a trade unionist. > > Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was > > a protestant. > > Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to > > speak for me." > > Seemingly a dramatic quote of course, compared to an ordinary person > > being treated unfairly in daily interactions, but it is talking about > > the importance of making a stand against wrong. Small daily > > happenings are miniature reflections of what happens on a larger > > scale nationally and internationally. When the harm being done (as > > in the categories above) is to a person who is a little different to > > the majority, or to whom the majority seem to be either opposed or > > indifferent, how easy it is to magnify their faults and minimise (or > > be unable to hear or see clearly) the role of those others doing > > wrong. How easy to look for the approval of the majority(more like > > us), and feel validated. > > So what is a Buddhist to do, to live in the world correctly and > > unselfishly, with loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and > > equanimity regarding others? Watch our own mind states, and be aware > > when dosa arises. Is that all? Does this mean ignoring the suffering > > of others when it could be ameliorated or prevented? Extending or > > pervading metta, but taking no action? What do the Teachings say? > > > > metta, > > Christine > > 13247 From: jonoabb Date: Mon May 13, 2002 6:36am Subject: Re: On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, all - > > The following is in response to recent conversations on DSG, and it > constitutes a slight reworking of something I previously wrote out, but, I > believe, never mailed: I'm not sure if you're suggesting that what follows is a view that you have seen expressed in this list, but it's a new one on me! It certainly doesn't represent the orthodox teaching, as I understand it -- but then I don't think you're saying it does? Jon > In one reading of the Dhamma Theory, during the period in which a > dhamma exists, it is a true existent. While it exists, or is in effect, it is > independent in the sense that those conditions which came together resulting > in the arising of this dhamma have previously ceased, and no longer exist. > Thus, while the dhamma exists, it does so alone and unconditionally. > Why, then, does the dhamma then cease? What changes condition its > cessation, inasmuch as at the time it exists, those conditions which caused > it to arise are *already* nonexistent? Moreover, given that the dhamma is a > true existent, its cessation is then a true annihilation! Thus we have both > substantialism and annihilationism countenanced by the very same theory! > A discussion along the lines of the foregoing appears to indicate that > a realist understanding of the Dhamma Theory is a conventional theory of the > genus "pluralistic realism" which seems to be at odds with basics of the > Buddha's Dhamma. > Comments, anyone? > > With metta, > Howard 13248 From: Date: Mon May 13, 2002 3:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/13/02 9:44:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > > > The following is in response to recent conversations on > DSG, and it > > constitutes a slight reworking of something I previously wrote > out, but, I > > believe, never mailed: > > I'm not sure if you're suggesting that what follows is a view that > you have seen expressed in this list, but it's a new one on me! It > certainly doesn't represent the orthodox teaching, as I > understand it -- but then I don't think you're saying it does? > > Jon ============================== It is certainly not the orthodox teaching. I also don't think that it has ever been a position explicitly adopted by anyone on this list, but I do think there is a tendency in that direction. It is because of such a tendency (and tendencies towards substantialism, eternalism, and annihilationism have haunted both Theravada and Mahayana from the very beginning) that I am wary of the translation of the term 'paramattha dhamma' as "reality". With metta, Howard > > > In one reading of the Dhamma Theory, during the period in > which a > > dhamma exists, it is a true existent. While it exists, or is in > effect, it is > > independent in the sense that those conditions which came > together resulting > > in the arising of this dhamma have previously ceased, and no > longer exist. > > Thus, while the dhamma exists, it does so alone and > unconditionally. > > Why, then, does the dhamma then cease? What changes > condition its > > cessation, inasmuch as at the time it exists, those conditions > which caused > > it to arise are *already* nonexistent? Moreover, given that the > dhamma is a > > true existent, its cessation is then a true annihilation! Thus we > have both > > substantialism and annihilationism countenanced by the very > same theory! > > A discussion along the lines of the foregoing appears to > indicate that > > a realist understanding of the Dhamma Theory is a > conventional theory of the > > genus "pluralistic realism" which seems to be at odds with > basics of the > > Buddha's Dhamma. > > Comments, anyone? > > > > With metta, > > Howard > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13249 From: Sukin Date: Mon May 13, 2002 9:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory Dear Howard, I am happy that you have not seen anyone on the list suggest that paramattha dhammas exist independently of the conditions that brought those dhammas into being, but that you only see the danger of a tendency toward that kind of thinking. I liked the way you formulated your question very much, it gave me a better understanding of why you like to use the word "phantom" to describe dhamma. And I think it very useful to counter the tendency toward 'substantialism, eternalism, and annihilationism' as you have expressed. I think if we remember that dhammas *are* their characterisctics, and not something that have those characteristics, and also that they are 'conditions' and not just something that have come into existence because of other conditions, there can be a moving away from thinking that they are independent entities. Another thing - speculating here -, I also liked Dan's reminder about citta, that it is not 'something' that experiences but is the act of 'experiencing'. But I did not worry at that time about coming to a wrong understanding of what cittas truly are as a consequence of an non critical use of the word. Why, because I felt(here is the speculation) that we learn about anything from many different view points. The same phenomenon is viewed from the perspective of their function, characteristic, manifestation, cause, types, conditionality etc.,and also we view them from the perspective of them being paramattha dhammas, ayatana, khandhas, dhatus. But more importantly we are learning from people coming from different backgrounds, each understanding the same word in different ways and expressing their understandings to everyone to ponder and think. It wouldn't be very healthy if everyone agreed on everything, that can be very dangerous, I think. As long as we have not had direct experience of realities, wrong understanding can creep in anytime when the conditions are there. So for me I think its very important that I take part in or at least view these discussions regularly. For this I am very greatful to every member of this list. The members here not only straighten out wrong intellectual view, but also greatly encourage the direct experience of what these views point to. By the way, thanks for your warning about grapefruit and certain medications. I don't think we have grapefruit here, but we got pomelo and its my favourite fruit and juice, and I also take Lipitor on days when I've had too much cholesterol. I would have thought that I must have had the two together, but maybe not. Or is there some difference in basic chemical constituent?! Thanks again for your great posts. Best wishes, Sukin ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 9:13 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory 13250 From: onco111 Date: Mon May 13, 2002 11:34am Subject: [dsg] Re: On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory Howard > > > In one reading of the Dhamma Theory, during the period in > > which a > > > dhamma exists, it is a true existent. While it exists, or is in > > effect, it is > > > independent in the sense that those conditions which came > > together resulting > > > in the arising of this dhamma have previously ceased, and no > > longer exist. > > > Thus, while the dhamma exists, it does so alone and > > unconditionally. > > > Why, then, does the dhamma then cease? What changes > > condition its > > > cessation, inasmuch as at the time it exists, those conditions > > which caused > > > it to arise are *already* nonexistent? Sounds like you are back to thinking about Zeno! Dan 13251 From: manji Date: Mon May 13, 2002 1:52pm Subject: RE: [dsg] On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory I pay homage to and take refuge in Buddha... Dhamma... Sangha. It seems this was written in reference to the question "Who is the builder of this house?" instead of "What supports this house?". === Dependent origination, this is quite different than "dependent existence". "While it exists, or is in effect, it is independent in the sense that those conditions which came together resulting in the arising of this dhamma have previously ceased, and no longer exist." === "While it exists..." - this existence is arising or ceasing, subject to dependent origination, and as such the characteristic (through sanna) is anicca. Not permanent, and no intrinsic nature. "...it is independent in the sense that those conditions which came together resulting in the arising of this dhamma..." - Independent? These conditions are still causing/supporting its arising (s. dependent origination). Dhamma comes from "that which supports". Like the ridgepole. The house supported by the ridgepole. Without the ridgepole the house would fall. This is house is "bound" by that which serves the function of the "ridgepole". "... have previously ceased, and no longer exist." If this were so, then since the supports would be nonexistent ("dhr" meaning that which supports), that which is supported by those supports would cease, desist, fall away, dry up. However, if this dhamma is arising/arisen/supported, it most certainly is supported (s. citta/cetasika and dependent origination). There is a ridgepole there. Those "which have previously ceased" have not ceased, at list in this case. === "Thus, while the dhamma exists, it does so alone and unconditionally." - again, the dhamma is arising, not existing independently. It's arising is dependent on the conditions which support its arising (bubbles in a stream). This house could not come to be without this ridgepole... "Why, then, does the dhamma then cease?" - The supports cease. (Sanna can be a large factor ;) ) It cannot be arising any longer. "What changes condition its cessation..." - Again, the supports are removed, the ridgepole is broken. But it should be noted that the process of the cessation is an observed quality arising out of this dependent origination. This cessation that is a part of anicca. Cessation isn't conditioned, only the arising is conditioned. The process leading to cessation may be conditioned, but the cessation is not conditioned. Conditioning is constructive, it gives birth. "... as at the time it exits, those conditions which caused it to arise are *already* nonexistent." - This cannot be the case, because at the time it is arisen, with support. Without it, it would cease, desist, fall away... "Moreover, given that the dhamma is a true existent, its cessation is then a true annihilation!" - Again this dhamma is supported, and it may be supported right down to "citta". So this dhamma is not eternal, not possessing an intrinsic nature of its own, not permanent, subject to decay and loss. With regard to this cessation of dhamma it would mean that the supports would also have ceased. " Thus we have both substantialism and annihilationism countenanced by the very same theory!" There is no substance that is without support, there is no annihilation without substance. This theory is thus unsupported. Panatti. -manji- > -----Original Message----- > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 2:16 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com; dhamma-list@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory > > Hi, all - > > The following is in response to recent conversations on DSG, and it > constitutes a slight reworking of something I previously wrote out, but, I > believe, never mailed: > In one reading of the Dhamma Theory, during the period in which a > dhamma exists, it is a true existent. While it exists, or is in effect, it > is > independent in the sense that those conditions which came together > resulting > in the arising of this dhamma have previously ceased, and no longer exist. > Thus, while the dhamma exists, it does so alone and unconditionally. > Why, then, does the dhamma then cease? What changes condition its > cessation, inasmuch as at the time it exists, those conditions which > caused > it to arise are *already* nonexistent? Moreover, given that the dhamma is > a > true existent, its cessation is then a true annihilation! Thus we have > both > substantialism and annihilationism countenanced by the very same theory! > A discussion along the lines of the foregoing appears to indicate > that > a realist understanding of the Dhamma Theory is a conventional theory of > the > genus "pluralistic realism" which seems to be at odds with basics of the > Buddha's Dhamma. > Comments, anyone? > > With metta, > Howard 13252 From: manji Date: Mon May 13, 2002 2:23pm Subject: RE: [dsg] On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory - Correction Correction: > -----Original Message----- > From: manji [mailto:manji@s...] > Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 4:53 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [dsg] On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory > > I pay homage to and take refuge in Buddha... Dhamma... Sangha. > > It seems this was written in reference to the question "Who is the > builder of this house?" instead of "What supports this house?". It seems this was written in reference to the question "Who was the builder of this house?" instead of "Who is the builder of this house?". Also "What made this house instead of "What supports this house." With regard to the pannatti, There is (sanna?)... recollection... mental fabrication. -manji- 13253 From: Date: Mon May 13, 2002 4:17pm Subject: ADL ch. 8 (1) http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 8 (1) AHETUKA CITTAS If we want to know ourselves we should not merely know the moments we have akusala cittas or kusala cittas but other moments as well. When we see something ugly, we dislike what we see. At the moment of dislike there is akusala citta rooted in dosa (aversion). Before there is dislike, however, there must be moments of merely seeing the object. At these moments there are not yet akusala cittas, but cittas which are without 'root' (in Pali: hetu). There are six cetasikas which are hetu or 'root'. Three of these hetus are akusala; they are : lobha (attachment), dosa (aversion) and moha (ignorance). Three hetus are sobhana (beautiful); they are: alobha (greedlessness or generosity), adosa (non-hate or lovingkindness) and amoha (panna or wisdom). The citta or cetasika which is accompanied by a hetu is sahetuka. For example, dosa-mula-citta is sahetuka; moha and dosa are the hetus which arise with dosa-mula-citta. Cittas without hetu are ahetuka cittas. There are many ahetuka cittas arising in a day. Whenever we see, hear, smell, taste or receive impressions through the body-sense, there are ahetuka cittas before cittas with hetu (wholesome cittas or unwholesome cittas) arise. We are inclined to pay attention only to the moments of like and dislike, but we should know other moments as well; we should know ahetuka cittas. There are altogether eighteen types of ahetuka citta. Fifteen types of ahetuka citta are vipakacittas and three types are kiriyacittas (cittas which are 'inoperative', neither cause nor result). Seven of the ahetuka vipakacittas are akusala vipakacittas (result of unwholesome deeds) and eight of them are kusala vipakacittas (result of wholesome deeds). When an unpleasant object impinges on the eye-sense, seeing-consciousness only experiences what appears through the eyes; there is no dislike yet of the unpleasant object. Seeing-consciousness is an ahetuka vipakacitta. Cittas which dislike the object arise later on; these are seen. The citta which pays attention to the shape and form of something and knows what it is, does not experience an object through the eye-door but through the mind-door; it has a different characteristic. When one uses the word 'seeing' one usually means: paying attention to the shape and form of something and knowing what it is, but there must also be a kind of citta which merely sees visible object, and this citta does not know anything else. What we see we can call 'visible object' or 'colour' ; what is meant is: what appears through the eyes. When there is hearing, we can experience that hearing has a characteristic which is different from seeing; the citta which hears experiences sound through the ears. Only in experiencing the different characteristics of realities over and over again, will we come to know them as they are. People may think that there is a self which can see and hear at the same time, but through which door can the self be experienced? Taking realities for self is wrong view. Seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and receiving impressions through the body-sense do not arise without there being conditions for their arising; they are the result of kamma. Eye-sense, ear-sense, smelling-sense, tasting- sense and body-sense are rupas which are produced by kamma as well; they are the corporeal result of kamma. Only the mental result of kamma is called vipaka, and thus only citta and cetasika (mental factors arising with the citta) can be vipaka. Rupa is not vipaka. The Buddha taught that everything which arises must have conditions for its arising. When we see something unpleasant there must be a condition for it: it is the result of akusala kamma. Akusala vipaka cannot be the result of kusala kamma. Seeing something pleasant is kusala vipaka; this can only be the result of kusala kamma. The vipakacitta which arises when there is an unpleasant or pleasant impression through one of the five senses is ahetuka. At that moment there are no akusala hetus (unwholesome roots) or sobhana hetus (beautiful roots) arising with the citta. 13254 From: Date: Mon May 13, 2002 3:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 5/13/02 12:37:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sukin@k... writes: > > Dear Howard, > I am happy that you have not seen anyone on the list suggest that > paramattha dhammas exist independently of the conditions that brought > those dhammas into being, but that you only see the danger of a > tendency toward that kind of thinking. > I liked the way you formulated your question very much, it gave me a > better understanding of why you like to use the word "phantom" to > describe dhamma. > --------------------------------------- Howard: Good. I'm pleased. -------------------------------------- And I think it very useful to counter the tendency> > toward 'substantialism, eternalism, and annihilationism' as you have > expressed. I think if we remember that dhammas *are* their > characterisctics, > and not something that have those characteristics, -------------------------------------- Howard: Yes!! Excellent!!! This is exctly something I've been wanting to say. (No wonder I like it! ;-)) --------------------------------------- and also that they> > are 'conditions' and not just something that have come into existence > because of other conditions, there can be a moving away from thinking > that they are independent entities. ------------------------------------- Howard: I think this is wonderfully put. It matches my own thoughts on this matter exactly. ------------------------------------ > Another thing - speculating here -, I also liked Dan's reminder about citta, > that it is not 'something' that experiences but is the act of > 'experiencing'. > -------------------------------------- Howard: Again - something that I agree with and think is very important. Statements along the lines of "A citta is an intelligence" and "Cittas experience their object" are very misleading. A citta IS the experiencing of an object. It is an event. --------------------------------------- > But I did not worry at that time about coming to a wrong understanding > of what cittas truly are as a consequence of an non critical use of the > word. > Why, because I felt(here is the speculation) that we learn about anything > from many different view points. The same phenomenon is viewed from > the perspective of their function, characteristic, manifestation, cause, > types, conditionality etc.,and also we view them from the perspective > of them being paramattha dhammas, ayatana, khandhas, dhatus. But more > importantly we are learning from people coming from different backgrounds, > each understanding the same word in different ways and expressing their > understandings to everyone to ponder and think. It wouldn't be very healthy > if everyone agreed on everything, that can be very dangerous, I think. > As long as we have not had direct experience of realities, wrong > understanding > can creep in anytime when the conditions are there. So for me I think its > very > important that I take part in or at least view these discussions regularly. > For > this I am very greatful to every member of this list. The members here not > only straighten out wrong intellectual view, but also greatly encourage the > direct experience of what these views point to. > > By the way, thanks for your warning about grapefruit and certain > medications. > I don't think we have grapefruit here, but we got pomelo and its my > favourite > fruit and juice, and I also take Lipitor on days when I've had too much > cholesterol. I would have thought that I must have had the two together, > but > maybe not. Or is there some difference in basic chemical constituent?! > > Thanks again for your great posts. > > Best wishes, > Sukin > =========================== Thank you, Sukin, for your very friendly and enjoyable reply. 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) 13255 From: Date: Mon May 13, 2002 5:35pm Subject: Buddhaghosa's "Burden of Proof" Hi Everybody In the Visuddhimagga, there are a few occasions when Buddhaghosa brings up opinions of contemporary monks/scholars that don't accord with Dhamma from his point of view. He then refutes their position/beliefs. The "burden of proof" that Buddhaghosa uses to refute or accept whether or not something is dhamma is this... It must be supported by the Suttas. He asks them to "recite a Sutta" to prove the validity of their point. If it can't be supported by a Sutta, their point is considered invalid. We'd have to look hard to find someone more "Abhidhamma friendly" than Buddhaghosa, yet it seems clear he does not consider the Abhidhamma the historic teachings of the Buddha and not credible enough to use as an absolute authority. This would seem to indicate (at least from Buddhaghosa's point of view) that Abhidhamma is based on Suttas and that the Suttas are not the "spoon feedings" from Abhidhamma. With this in mind, it might be good to consider whether or not the Buddha, in the Suttas, ever taught or recommended to see dhammas as -- ultimate realities with their own characteristics. I can't recall any such instance. TG 13256 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 13, 2002 9:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] RE: Dosa and Renunciation (Some Clarification) Dear Manji, --- manji wrote > > Nibbana is un-conditioned, therefore not dependent. Since it is not > dependent and un-conditioned it cannot rise and fall. ..... I agree with your neat statement and have enjoyed reading your other comments, including the recent ones on conditions. ..... Some time ago when you were discussing renunciation (nekkhama), you quoted the following and I particularly appreciated the reminder: "In the train to Bodhgaya Bhante Dhammadhara read to us the "Silavimamsa-Jãtaka" (no. 330). It is said that a hawk seized a piece of meat and was pecked at by other birds who also wanted it, until he let go of it. Then another bird seized it who was harassed in his turn until he let go of it, and then the same happened to other birds who seized that piece of meat. Whoever let go of it was left in peace. The Bodhisatta said: "These desires of ours are like pieces of meat. To those that grasp at them is sorrow, and to those that let go is peace. ========= You also gave some interesting quotes and reflections on nekkhama (renunciation) and reminded me of its true meaning and how it can only be developed with the wisdom which sees the unsatisfactory nature of the objects of clinging: From Manji’s earlier post: ***** M:Another from the text by Nina Van Gorkom, a quote from... ========= "...We read in the commentary to the Cariyapitaka [1] the following definition of renunciation: "Renunciation has the characteristic of departing from sense pleasures and existence; its function is to verify the unsatisfactoriness they involve; its manifestation is the withdrawal from them; a sense of spiritual urgency is its proximate cause. ========= >From Cula-sihanada Sutta: 9. "Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of clinging. What four? Clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self.” M:This process of liberation, there are the ten thousand joys and ten thousand sorrows, great moments of pleasant feeling and happiness may arise abundantly. Knowing these moments as they truly are. So perhaps there is "without attachment" not because there "is an abundance of pleasant feeling, so no need to go scrounging for pleasant feeling" and not because there "is an an absence of pleasant feeling, it is not worth suffering about", but because ultimately there is just "without attachment" and knowing of the dhamma. There is nekkhamma. ***** I understand you to be saying that as wisdom and nekkhama develop, there is more and more detachment from feelings and other realities. Hence, the meaning of nekkhamma (applying equally to laypeople as well as monks) as given in the Nyantiloka dictionary: ***** QUOTE nekkhamma: 'freedom from sensual lust', renunciation. Though apparently from nir + Ö kram, 'to go forth (into the homeless state of a monk)', this term is in the Páli texts nevertheless used as if it were derived from káma, lust, and always as an antonym to káma. It is one of the perfections (s. páramí). N. sankappa, thought free from lust, or thought of renunciation, is one of the 3 kinds of right thought (sammá-sankappa), the 2nd link of the Noble Eightfold Path (s. magga, 2), its antonym being kámasankappa, lustful thought. ***** I’d also like to add a (rather long)quote from ‘Cetasikas’ by Nina on nekkhama which youmay find helpful if you haven’t read it. Thanks for all your reminders, Manji. Sarah ====== QUOTE >We read in the "Discourse on the Twofold Thought" (Middle Length sayings I, 19) that the Buddha, while he was still a Bodhisatta, considered both akusala vitakka and kusala vitakka. We read that when the thought of sense-pleasures arose, he comprehended thus: ... "This thought of sense-pleasures has arisen in me. but it conduces to self-hurt and it conduces to the hurt of others and it conduces to the hurt of both, it is destructive of intuitive wisdom, associated with distress, not conducive to nibbana." But while I was reflecting, "It conduces to self-hurt", it subsided: and while I was reflecting, ''It conduces to the hurt of others", it subsided: and while I was reflecting. "It is destructive of intuitive wisdom, it is associated with distress, it is not conducive to nibbana", it subsided. So I, monks, kept on getting rid of the thought of sense-pleasures as it constantly arose, I kept on driving it out, I kept on making an end of it... " The same is said about the thought of malevolence and the thought of harming. We then read: ....Monks, according to whatever a monk ponders and reflects on much, his mind in consequence gets a bias that way. Monks, if a monk ponder and reflect much on thought of sense-pleasures he ejects thought of renunciation; if he makes much of the thought of sense-pleasures, his mind inclines to the thought of sense-pleasures. Monks, if a monk ponder and reflect much on the thought of malevolence... he ejects the thought of non-malevolence.., his mind inclines to the thought of malevolence. Monks, if a monk ponder and reflect much on the thought of harming, he ejects the thought of non-harming; if he makes much of the thought of harming, his mind inclines to the thought of harming... It is useful to know on what we reflect most of the time. We have a bias towards akusala, since we have accumulated so much akusala. We are more inclined to unwholesome thoughts and therefore it is difficult to have wholesome thoughts. When there is a pleasant object the thought of sense-pleasures arises almost immediately. When there is an unpleasant object there is bound to be a thought of annoyance or malice, or there can even be a thought of harming. when someone else receives praise and honour, we may be inclined to jealousy and then there is akusala vitakka accompanying the dosa-mula-citta with jealousy. It is difficult to cultivate kusala vitakka but the Buddha showed that it can be done. Further on in the sutta we read about three kinds of kusala vitakka which are the opposites of the three kinds of akusala vitakka. They are : the thought of renunciation (nekkhamma) the thought of non-malevolence (avyapada) the thought of non-harming (avihimsa) The bodhisatta realized that these lead neither to self-hurt, nor to the hurt of others, nor to the hurt of both, but that they are for "growth in intuitive wisdom", that they are "not associated with distress", "conducive to nibbana ". We read about kusala vitakka: ....Monks, if a monk ponder and reflect much on the thought of renunciation he ejects the thought of sense-pleasures: if he makes much of the thought of renunciation, his mind inclines to the thought of renunciation. Monks, if a monk ponder and reflect much on the thought of non-malevolence he ejects the thought of malevolence... Monks, if a monk ponder and reflect much on the thought of non-harming, he ejects the thought of harming; if he makes much of the thought of non-harming his mind inclines to the thought of non-harming... One may wonder whether nekkhamma, renunciation, is the same as retirement from worldly life and whether it therefore pertains in particular to monks. Although a monk's life should be a life of contentment with little, he may not be cultivating nekkhamma. Whoever has not eradicated attachment to sense objects has stiff conditions for "thought of sense-pleasures", no matter whether he is a monk or a layman, When a monk receives delicious almsfood, is attachment not likely to arise? There are many degrees of nekkhamma and not only monks should cultivate it, but laypeople as well. Actually, all kusala dhamma are nekkhamma (1 Vibhanga, Book of Analysis, 3, Analysis of the Elements, 182.), when we perform dana, observe sila or apply ourselves to mental development, we are at such moments not absorbed in sense-pleasures, there is renunciation. We can experience that when there is loving kindness or compassion we do not think of ourselves; thus, there is a degree of detachment. If we see the disadvantages of being selfish, of thinking of our own pleasure and comfort, there are more conditions for being attentive to others, Detachment from the concept of self is still a higher degree of renunciation which can be achieved through the development of right understanding of realities. Both monks and laypeople should cultivate this kind of renunciation, when the concept of self has been eradicated, stinginess has been eradicated as well, and thus, there are more conditions for generosity. Moreover, sila will be purer, there will be no more conditions for transgressing the five precepts. ************************************************************** 13257 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Mon May 13, 2002 10:52pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa's "Burden of Proof" Dear TG, Certainly there were wrong teachings that Buddhaghosa refuted based on sutta, but I haven't seen any of his writings that indicate that "he does not consider the Abhidhamma the historic teachings of the > Buddha". In the Atthasalini Buddhaghosa (expositor p16-17) it notes that the buddha in the 4th week after his enlightenment he contemplated the Dhammasangani (ist section of abhidhamma) "and while he contemplated the Dhammasangani his body did not emit rays; .. but when it came to the great book (the Patthana of the Abhidhamma) he began to contemplate the 24 conditions..his omniscience found its opportunity therein.." I have visted the site in Bodhgaya and it is marked by a marble tablet about 20 meters from the site where he sat under the Bodhi tree. Leaving aside whether the Buddha ever taught anything about paramattha dhammas such as the khandas (aggregates) the ayatanas and the dhatus (elements) is there now any experience of colour, an element, or sound? Is any feeling arising or are these elements imaginations like people and cars? best wishes robert - In dhammastudygroup@y..., TGrand458@a... wrote: > Hi Everybody > > In the Visuddhimagga, there are a few occasions when Buddhaghosa brings up > opinions of contemporary monks/scholars that don't accord with Dhamma from > his point of view. He then refutes their position/beliefs. The "burden of > proof" that Buddhaghosa uses to refute or accept whether or not something is > dhamma is this... It must be supported by the Suttas. He asks them to > "recite a Sutta" to prove the validity of their point. If it can't be > supported by a Sutta, their point is considered invalid. We'd have to look > hard to find someone more "Abhidhamma friendly" than Buddhaghosa, yet it > seems clear he does not consider the Abhidhamma the historic teachings of the > Buddha and not credible enough to use as an absolute authority. > > This would seem to indicate (at least from Buddhaghosa's point of view) that > Abhidhamma is based on Suttas and that the Suttas are not the "spoon > feedings" from Abhidhamma. > > With this in mind, it might be good to consider whether or not the Buddha, in > the Suttas, ever taught or recommended to see dhammas as -- ultimate > realities with their own characteristics. I can't recall any such instance. > > TG 13258 From: frank kuan Date: Tue May 14, 2002 4:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 8 (1) > Seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and receiving > impressions through the > body-sense do not arise without there being > conditions for their > arising; they are the result of kamma. Two questions: 1) for a non-arahant, isn't just about every volitional action kamma? 2) for an arahant, if they do not generate kamma, then what are the conditions for their sense impressions? > > The Buddha taught that everything which arises must > have conditions for > its arising. When we see something unpleasant there > must be a condition > for it: it is the result of akusala kamma. Everything that arises must have a condition, but it seems to be over reaching to say that akusala kamma is the cause of all unpleasant experience. Examples: 1) example 1: I used to not like the vegetable kale. Then I liked it. Sometimes, I still don't like it. Whether it is a pleasant or unpleasant experience seems to be more of a function of my body's need for those nutrients. When it needs those nutrients, the bitterness tastes good. When it doesn't, it tasts bad. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with kusala or akusala. 2) example 2: Growing up as a kid, Star Wars (the movie) was like a religious revelation, a highly pleasant experience. Now, depending on my frame of mind, I can react with: a) nostalgic appreciation of the child who can be amused and tricked by special effects and simple storyline based on mythological archetypes. b) indifference to the whole Star Wars empire/phenomenon c) revulsion and aversion towards George Lucas for defiling the sanctity of Star Wars with Phantom Menace and disillusioning all the (former) children who once cherished it. What type of unpleasant experience I have when exposed to Star Wars can vary so much it seems odd to simply attribute it to akusala kamma. -fk 13259 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 14, 2002 5:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhaghosa's "Burden of Proof" Dear TG, I’ll just add a few comments to the last past of your post in which you raise some good points: --- TGrand458@a... wrote: > > With this in mind, it might be good to consider whether or not the > Buddha, in > the Suttas, ever taught or recommended to see dhammas as -- ultimate > realities with their own characteristics. I can't recall any such > instance. ..... I would suggest that often supposedly simple phrases in suttas are overlooked and without the explanation of the commentaries or abhidhamma are simply misunderstood as we’ve often discussed here. I have the Mulapariyaya Sutta out, simply because I ‘ve been intending to use it to reply to another post for a few days. In the very first paragraph, we read the Buddha as saying “I will teach you, bhikkhus, the exposition of the root of all things.” (sabbadhammamuulapariyaaya) What do “all things” refer to? We read in the commentary, and sub-commentary notes provided by B.Bodhi about the various meanings of ‘all’ in the suttas. Here it refers to ‘the all of personality (sakkaayasabba)’, i.e. the 5 khandhas which are of course the paramattha dhammas. We read further about the various meanings of dhamma (here translated as ‘things’) in the suttas: “Cy. The word “dhamma” is found used in the following senses: the scriptures (pariyatti), the (Four Noble) Truths (sacca), concentration (samaadhi), wisdom (pa~n~na), nature (pakati), things endowed with a specific nature (sabhava), emptiness (su~n~nataa), merit (pu~n~na), a disciplinary offense (aapatti), the knowable (~neyya) etc.” The commentary continues with reference to this particular sutta and the use of “all things” (sabbadhamma) here: “here the word occurs in the sense of things endowed with a specific nature. This is the word-meaning: “They bear their own characteristics, thus they are dhammas” (attano lakkha.na”m dhaarentii ti dhammaa”. This commentary explanation is followed by the one I quoted very recently for Howard (requoted at end of post) which makes it clear that 1) all dhammas have characteristics, 2)these dhammas (i.e.5 khandhas) have sabhava, 3) dhammas are anatta, 4) concepts are not “real actualities” whereas those with sabhava are, 5) dhammas cannot be separated or distinguished from their characteristics (lakkhana), 6) they can only be known by ‘their specific nature” (yathaasabhaavato) or characteristics. I appreciate that some people prefer to exclude the commentary elaborations from their study of the Tipitaka. For myself, the extra details are invaluable and indeed have been recited with the Tipitaka, as I understand, by the arahants from very early times. Finally, with regard to the use of ‘ultimate realities’ in the suttas, I’d like to requote from a post of Robert Eddison’s sometime ago (before you joined DSG I think): QUOTE “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)” ***** Whether we say that ‘hardness has the characteristic / nature of impermanence’ or ‘hardness is impermanent’, ‘hardness has the characteristic of being experienced’, or ‘hardness is rupa’ and so on is not in itself of great importance, as I see It. What is important is the development of awareness and understanding which knows the hardness as it is when it appears. As Dan, Howard and others discussed on the ‘citta thread’, the words have some significance, but inevitably wrong views will interpret what is heard as signifying a self if so inclined. Hence, as Christine pointed out, even the group of Bhikkhus listening to the Buddha, himself, reciting the Mulapariyaya Sutta, were unable to fully appreciate its meaning. "But those bhikkhus did not delight in the word of the Exalted One". As the extra commentary notes make clear, this was due to their accumulation of mana (conceit). It’s really a wonderful reminder for me of the danger of mana and how this and the other kilesa (defilements) can make it so very hard for us to listen sometimes to the Teachings, even-- as Christine again reminded us-- if intellectually they are heard and understood. ..... Let me finish with a quote from the Sutta which goes to the heart of the Teachings (if rightly understood): “ A bhikkhu who is a learner, bhikkhus, who has not attained his heart’s ideal but is still yearning for the supreme security from bondage - he directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, let him not conceive (himself as) earth; let him not conceive (himself) in earth; let him not conceive (himself apart) from earth; let him not conceive ‘earth is mine’; let him not delight in earth. What is the reason ? In order that he may fully understand it, I declare. He directly knows water as water ........” and so on . ***** I hope there is something useful here and I’ll be glad to hear any further comments. Sarah ===== Quote from Sub Cy to Mulapariyaya Sutta, B.Bodhi p32: ***** “They bear their own characteristics”: although there are no dhammas devoid of their own characteristics , this is still said for the purpose of showing that these are mere dhammas endowed with their specific natures devoid of such attributions as that of a “being” etc. Whereas such entities as self, beauty, pleasureableness, and permanence, etc, or nature (pakati), substance (dabba), soul (jiva), body etc, which are mere misconstructions (parikappitaakaaramatta) due to craving and views, or such entities as “sky-flowers” etc which are mere expressions of conventional discourse (lokavohaaramatta), cannot be discovered as ultimately real actualities (saccika.t.thaparamatthato), these dhammas (i.e. those endowed with a specific nature) can. Tthese dhammas are discovered as ultimately real actualities. And though there is no real distinction (between these dhammas and their characteristics), still, in order to facilitate understanding, the exposition makes a distinction as a mere metaphorical device (upacaaramatta). Or else they are borne, they are discerned, known, according to their specific nature, thus they are dhammas (dhaariiyanti vaa yathaasabhaavato avadhaariyanti ~naayantii ti dhammaa). ***** 13260 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 14, 2002 6:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] giving protection, abhaya dana Dear Nina and Stigan (alias Bodhi 2500), Thank you very much for the references and comments and also for your daily life examples, Nina. I found the connection between the 'giving of fearlessness', forgiveness and dana very interesting and helpful. >This is a way of generosity higher than the giving of > material > things, åmisa dåna. This is a very useful reminder for me as there are many opportunities in a day when we hold small or petty grudges. I look forward to reading your translation of K.Sujin' s 'Perfections'. > perfections should consider the gift of fearlessness, or forgiving, > abhayadåna. If someone does not know that this is a perfection he will > not > forgive someone else who has done him wrong. We should reflect on the > gift > of fearlessness: if we do not forgive others how can we attain > enlightenment > and eradicate defilements? Thank you both, Sarah ===== 13261 From: Date: Tue May 14, 2002 2:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory Hi, Dan - In a message dated 5/13/02 2:35:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dalthorp@o... writes: > Sounds like you are back to thinking about Zeno! > > ======================= Interestingly (maybe to some! ;-), I have seen at least one article relating Zeno to Nagarjuna. 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) 13262 From: Date: Tue May 14, 2002 3:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory Hi, Manji - I agree that the theory is invalid. It only has the appearance of validity, I believe, due to our error in thinking about paramattha dhammas as entities. There is only one point of your reply below that I want to question. You write: ****************************************************************** "...it is independent in the sense that those conditions which came together resulting in the arising of this dhamma..." - Independent? These conditions are still causing/supporting its arising (s. dependent origination). Dhamma comes from "that which supports". Like the ridgepole. The house supported by the ridgepole. Without the ridgepole the house would fall. This is house is "bound" by that which serves the function of the "ridgepole". "... have previously ceased, and no longer exist." If this were so, then since the supports would be nonexistent ("dhr" meaning that which supports), that which is supported by those supports would cease, desist, fall away, dry up. However, if this dhamma is arising/arisen/supported, it most certainly is supported (s. citta/cetasika and dependent origination). There is a ridgepole there. Those "which have previously ceased" have not ceased, at list in this case. ********************************************************** Actually, I believe that it *is* so that the conditions which led to the arising of a paramattha dhamma have already ceased by the time that paramattha dhamma has arisen. It is just a matter of simple phenomena, uncompounded conditions, arising and passing away, and in the process, serving as condition for the lawful arising of another paramattha dhamma. The notion that dhammas continue, perhaps in some latent form, exhibiting "causal power", was a Sarvastivadin notion, a substantialist one, and one which is not, so far as I know, accepted by Theravada. With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/13/02 4:56:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, manji@s... writes: > > I pay homage to and take refuge in Buddha... Dhamma... Sangha. > > It seems this was written in reference to the question "Who is the > builder of this house?" instead of "What supports this house?". > > === > > Dependent origination, this is quite different than "dependent > existence". > > "While it exists, or is in effect, it is independent in the sense that > those conditions which came together resulting in the arising of this > dhamma have previously ceased, and no longer exist." > > === > > "While it exists..." - this existence is arising or ceasing, subject to > dependent origination, and as such the characteristic (through sanna) is > anicca. Not permanent, and no intrinsic nature. > > "...it is independent in the sense that those conditions which came > together resulting in the arising of this dhamma..." - Independent? > These conditions are still causing/supporting its arising (s. dependent > origination). Dhamma comes from "that which supports". Like the > ridgepole. The house supported by the ridgepole. Without the ridgepole > the house would fall. This is house is "bound" by that which serves the > function of the "ridgepole". > > "... have previously ceased, and no longer exist." If this were so, then > since the supports would be nonexistent ("dhr" meaning that which > supports), that which is supported by those supports would cease, > desist, fall away, dry up. However, if this dhamma is > arising/arisen/supported, it most certainly is supported (s. > citta/cetasika and dependent origination). There is a ridgepole there. > Those "which have previously ceased" have not ceased, at list in this > case. > > === > > "Thus, while the dhamma exists, it does so alone and unconditionally." > > - again, the dhamma is arising, not existing independently. It's arising > is dependent on the conditions which support its arising (bubbles in a > stream). This house could not come to be without this ridgepole... > > "Why, then, does the dhamma then cease?" > > - The supports cease. (Sanna can be a large factor ;) ) It cannot be > arising any longer. > > "What changes condition its cessation..." > > - Again, the supports are removed, the ridgepole is broken. But it > should be noted that the process of the cessation is an observed quality > arising out of this dependent origination. This cessation that is a part > of anicca. Cessation isn't conditioned, only the arising is conditioned. > The process leading to cessation may be conditioned, but the cessation > is not conditioned. Conditioning is constructive, it gives birth. > > "... as at the time it exits, those conditions which caused it to arise > are *already* nonexistent." > > - This cannot be the case, because at the time it is arisen, with > support. Without it, it would cease, desist, fall away... > > "Moreover, given that the dhamma is a true existent, its cessation is > then a true annihilation!" > > - Again this dhamma is supported, and it may be supported right down to > "citta". So this dhamma is not eternal, not possessing an intrinsic > nature of its own, not permanent, subject to decay and loss. > > With regard to this cessation of dhamma it would mean that the supports > would also have ceased. > > " Thus we have both substantialism and annihilationism countenanced by > the very same theory!" > > There is no substance that is without support, there is no annihilation > without substance. > > This theory is thus unsupported. > > Panatti. > > -manji- > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13263 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue May 14, 2002 7:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? Rob E --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: ... > > An interesting observation -- 'ultimate reality', yet like a bubble or a lump of > > foam. > > Well, I suppose it's an example of looking at the same thing from different > > perspectives. > > They are 'ultimate' in the sense of being the underlying phenomena of what we > > take for > > people and things, yet they also have no intrinsic merit. > > > > Both aspects need to be understood. > > > > Jon > > Which makes Howard's and others' case that the word 'ultimate' is misleading and > incorrect. It constantly needs to be re-explained and qualified, because it > implies something other than what it means. Ultimate in common parlance means the > height of something much more than it means the final particle that cannot be > broken down. Actually, similar comments could be made about many other terms used in the dhamma, including no doubt some that you take for granted but that would be a problem for someone less familiar with the dhamma than yourself. Think of wholesome/skilful (for kusala), memory (for sanna), consciousness (for citta/vinnana), concentration (for samadhi), tranquillity (for samatha) mentality-materiality (for nama-rupa) and so on. None of these terms as used in the teachings bears a meaning even remotely close to its everyday meaning. > In math, which is Howard's area, I think there are terms that describe this kind > of thing more generically, numbers that can't be broken down any further, > equations that cannot be divided down to a lesser amount on either side. The > least common denominator which unites equivalent mathematical terms. > > For myself, I would propose 'primary realities' or even 'basic realities', but > primary accomplishes what you would want, it establishes them as indivisible and > 'first and foremost' without the baggage of 'ultimate'. And others have a real problem with 'realties'! Actually, this reminds me of a discussion on this very subject with Ken O not so long ago (during one of your lurk modes), where we came to a somewhat similar conclusion on the term 'basic'. I also like Rob K's 'fundamental'. But as a translation of the term used in the texts ('paramattha'), I don’t think any of these various terms is appropriate (that doesn’t mean I have any objection to their use). > Now I may be paranoid, but it does seem like the term 'paramatha', if it is indeed > 'ultimate' betrays a kind of idealization of these fleeting actualities, and > perhaps is a way in which the idea of entity creeps back into Abhidhamma. Terms > have a 'flavor' of meaning, and 'paramatha' seems to have precisely the wrong one. > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I recall the prefix 'para' as having a sense > of something like 'great'. Is this not so? The choice of the term 'paramattha' (from 'parama' + 'attha') to describe the fundamental dhammas, and its English translation as 'ultimate realities', is explained in A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, notes to Ch. I #2 as follows: "Ultimate realities are things that exist by reason of their own intrinsic nature (sabhaava). These are the dhammas: the final, irreducible components of existence, the ultimate entities which result from a correctly performed analysis of experience. Such existents admit of no further reduction, but are themselves the final terms of analysis, the true constituents of the complex manifold of experience. Hence the word ‘paramattha’ is applied to them, which is derived from ‘parama’ = ultimate, highest, final, and ‘attha’ = reality, thing." The fact that some particular terminology may seem to have connotations that we find unfortunate should not be allowed to detract us from the task of trying to understand the primary/basic/fundamental/ultimate realities/phenomena that are being referred to and which are capable of being the object of awareness and understanding of the level of satipatthana/vipassana. Otherwise we are in danger of missing the whole point! Jon 13264 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue May 14, 2002 10:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga, Larry, TG and Num. op 12-05-2002 02:42 schreef TGrand458@a... op TGrand458@a...: > In a message dated 5/11/2002 5:33:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > LBIDD@w... writes: > >> 'When >> he emerges from the defilements associated with agitation, and from the >> aggregates, his mental unification, non-distraction, concentration, has >> cessation as its domain. When he emerges from the defilements associated >> with ignorance and from the aggregates, his insight in the sense of TGrand: > > Someone can probably give you a better answer, but in short...the defilements > associated with agitation are any states that keep the mind from being > concentrated. The defilements associated with ignorance are any states that > keep the mind from attaining insight. Dear Larry, T G and Num, First of all Uddhacca, this can be translated as agitation, restlessness, excitement, it does not matter. So long as we understand that it keeps one from kusala. (See my Cetasikas). Now going to the Patisambidhamagga, English p. 291, using Larry's quote: -------------- At the time of developing the eight mundane attainments the serenity power is in excess, while at the time of developing the contemplations of impermanence, etc., the insight power is in excess. But at the noble path moment they occur coupled together in the sense that neither one exceeds the other. So there is coupling of the powers in the case of each one of these four kinds of knowledge, according as it is said 'When he emerges from the defilements associated with agitation, and from the aggregates, his mental unification, non-distraction, concentration, has cessation as its domain. When he emerges from the defilements associated with ignorance and from the aggregates, his insight in the sense of contemplation has cessation as its domain. So serenity and insight have a single nature in the sense of emergence, they are coupled together, and neither exceeds the other. Hence it was said: He develops serenity and insight coupled together in the sense of emergence' N: Vis quotes from the Yugana katha, about coupling. I have the Co in Thai which is very long, and I can only make a few notes. It is explained that cessation, nirodha, is nibbana. Thus here lokuttara citta is referred to. As to uddhacca, uddhacca dhammas are the defilements of vipassana in this context. These arise after the three beginning stages of insight have arisen: illumination, etc. See also in the text p. 295, the verse. Uddhacca is a hindrance and conditions tanha, mana and ditthi. The Co explains about the balancing of samatha and vipassana. If samatha exceeds vipassana, there would be laziness. If vipassana exceeds samatha one would be distracted. They should be balanced. Samatha and vipassana can be coupled at the moment of magga-citta because they are coupled in vipassana that is vutthana gamini, leading to emergence (meaning enlightenment. N.) More about uddhacca: when overcome by the defilements of vipassana, when he thinks of obhasa, illumination, he is distracted, does not realize impermanence, dukkha and anatta. I just chose a few passages. Num who is now packing and moving to Thailand, will study the Patisambiddha with A. Sujin, his aunt and others. It will be greatly appreciated if he can share with us what he learns, we can form a Patisambidha Magga corner, perhaps? I agree with T.G that some words can be substituted, but if we know the Pali we do not have to stumble over this. In the back, in the English list we also find the Pali. Idea: can be state or dhamma. Actuality: the four noble Truths. Choice: substitute patience, khanti. And so on. Best wishes, from Nina. 13265 From: Date: Tue May 14, 2002 7:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhaghosa's "Burden of Proof" Hi, TG - In a message dated 5/14/02 12:38:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > Hi Everybody > > In the Visuddhimagga, there are a few occasions when Buddhaghosa brings up > opinions of contemporary monks/scholars that don't accord with Dhamma from > his point of view. He then refutes their position/beliefs. The "burden of > > proof" that Buddhaghosa uses to refute or accept whether or not something > is > dhamma is this... It must be supported by the Suttas. He asks them to > "recite a Sutta" to prove the validity of their point. If it can't be > supported by a Sutta, their point is considered invalid. We'd have to look > > hard to find someone more "Abhidhamma friendly" than Buddhaghosa, yet it > seems clear he does not consider the Abhidhamma the historic teachings of > the > Buddha and not credible enough to use as an absolute authority. > > This would seem to indicate (at least from Buddhaghosa's point of view) > that > Abhidhamma is based on Suttas and that the Suttas are not the "spoon > feedings" from Abhidhamma. > > With this in mind, it might be good to consider whether or not the Buddha, > in > the Suttas, ever taught or recommended to see dhammas as -- ultimate > realities with their own characteristics. I can't recall any such > instance. > > TG > ========================= Well, of course, I am very "friendly" towards what is expressed here. I would just add a clarification (from my perspective). With regard to paramattha dhammas not bring "ultimate realities with their own characteristics", I agree, but would like to emphasize to following two points: (1) The term 'simple (or basic or fundamental) phenomena' (as opposed to mentally compounded ones) I see as preferable to that of 'ultimate realities', and (2) It is not that paramattha dhammas don't have characteristics - they do (conventionally speaking), but they should not be thought of as "their own". In fact, there is no entity to own the characteristics, there are just those characteristics, arising together, briefly, in dependence on other conditions. 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) 13266 From: manji Date: Tue May 14, 2002 2:21pm Subject: RE: [dsg] On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory With light, much like yellow being dependent on red and green. Red may arise, but without green there is no yellow. Red may arise again, but this time arise with green, so that yellow is arisen, dependently arisen on red and green. Again, red may arise, and green may arise, now yellow is arisen, dependently arisen on red and green. Now red may fall away, cease, and desist. Yellow, will too fall away, cease, and desist. It isn't that the dhammas continue, they arise again, this is what I mean by "still causing". Without the ridgepole, the house is broken. The ridge pole, however, can it be arisen without the house? So this can be understood in the same sense as the colors. Without this dependent origination, there can be no unbinding of it. There is no knot, no unbinding of it, without a rope. -manji- > -----Original Message----- > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 10:12 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory > > Hi, Manji - > > I agree that the theory is invalid. It only has the appearance of > validity, I believe, due to our error in thinking about paramattha dhammas > as > entities. There is only one point of your reply below that I want to > question. You write: > ****************************************************************** > "...it is independent in the sense that those conditions which came > together resulting in the arising of this dhamma..." - Independent? > These conditions are still causing/supporting its arising (s. dependent > origination). Dhamma comes from "that which supports". Like the > ridgepole. The house supported by the ridgepole. Without the ridgepole > the house would fall. This is house is "bound" by that which serves the > function of the "ridgepole". > > "... have previously ceased, and no longer exist." If this were so, then > since the supports would be nonexistent ("dhr" meaning that which > supports), that which is supported by those supports would cease, > desist, fall away, dry up. However, if this dhamma is > arising/arisen/supported, it most certainly is supported (s. > citta/cetasika and dependent origination). There is a ridgepole there. > Those "which have previously ceased" have not ceased, at list in this > case. > ********************************************************** > Actually, I believe that it *is* so that the conditions which led > to > the arising of a paramattha dhamma have already ceased by the time that > paramattha dhamma has arisen. It is just a matter of simple phenomena, > uncompounded conditions, arising and passing away, and in the process, > serving as condition for the lawful arising of another paramattha dhamma. > The > notion that dhammas continue, perhaps in some latent form, exhibiting > "causal > power", was a Sarvastivadin notion, a substantialist one, and one which is > not, so far as I know, accepted by Theravada. > > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 5/13/02 4:56:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > manji@s... writes: > > > > > > I pay homage to and take refuge in Buddha... Dhamma... Sangha. > > > > It seems this was written in reference to the question "Who is the > > builder of this house?" instead of "What supports this house?". > > > > === > > > > Dependent origination, this is quite different than "dependent > > existence". > > > > "While it exists, or is in effect, it is independent in the sense that > > those conditions which came together resulting in the arising of this > > dhamma have previously ceased, and no longer exist." > > > > === > > > > "While it exists..." - this existence is arising or ceasing, subject to > > dependent origination, and as such the characteristic (through sanna) is > > anicca. Not permanent, and no intrinsic nature. > > > > "...it is independent in the sense that those conditions which came > > together resulting in the arising of this dhamma..." - Independent? > > These conditions are still causing/supporting its arising (s. dependent > > origination). Dhamma comes from "that which supports". Like the > > ridgepole. The house supported by the ridgepole. Without the ridgepole > > the house would fall. This is house is "bound" by that which serves the > > function of the "ridgepole". > > > > "... have previously ceased, and no longer exist." If this were so, then > > since the supports would be nonexistent ("dhr" meaning that which > > supports), that which is supported by those supports would cease, > > desist, fall away, dry up. However, if this dhamma is > > arising/arisen/supported, it most certainly is supported (s. > > citta/cetasika and dependent origination). There is a ridgepole there. > > Those "which have previously ceased" have not ceased, at list in this > > case. > > > > === > > > > "Thus, while the dhamma exists, it does so alone and unconditionally." > > > > - again, the dhamma is arising, not existing independently. It's arising > > is dependent on the conditions which support its arising (bubbles in a > > stream). This house could not come to be without this ridgepole... > > > > "Why, then, does the dhamma then cease?" > > > > - The supports cease. (Sanna can be a large factor ;) ) It cannot be > > arising any longer. > > > > "What changes condition its cessation..." > > > > - Again, the supports are removed, the ridgepole is broken. But it > > should be noted that the process of the cessation is an observed quality > > arising out of this dependent origination. This cessation that is a part > > of anicca. Cessation isn't conditioned, only the arising is conditioned. > > The process leading to cessation may be conditioned, but the cessation > > is not conditioned. Conditioning is constructive, it gives birth. > > > > "... as at the time it exits, those conditions which caused it to arise > > are *already* nonexistent." > > > > - This cannot be the case, because at the time it is arisen, with > > support. Without it, it would cease, desist, fall away... > > > > "Moreover, given that the dhamma is a true existent, its cessation is > > then a true annihilation!" > > > > - Again this dhamma is supported, and it may be supported right down to > > "citta". So this dhamma is not eternal, not possessing an intrinsic > > nature of its own, not permanent, subject to decay and loss. > > > > With regard to this cessation of dhamma it would mean that the supports > > would also have ceased. > > > > " Thus we have both substantialism and annihilationism countenanced by > > the very same theory!" > > > > There is no substance that is without support, there is no annihilation > > without substance. > > > > This theory is thus unsupported. > > > > Panatti. > > > > -manji- 13267 From: manji Date: Tue May 14, 2002 3:17pm Subject: Nekkhamma (Was: RE: [dsg] RE: Dosa and Renunciation) Hi Sarah, > -----Original Message----- > From: Sarah [mailto:sarahdhhk@y...] > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 12:42 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] RE: Dosa and Renunciation (Some Clarification) < snip snip > > I understand you to be saying that as wisdom and nekkhama develop, there > is more and more detachment from feelings and other realities. Hence, the > meaning of nekkhamma (applying equally to laypeople as well as monks) as > given in the Nyantiloka dictionary: > ***** > QUOTE > nekkhamma: 'freedom from sensual lust', renunciation. Though apparently > from nir + Ö kram, 'to go forth (into the homeless state of a monk)', this > term is in the Páli texts nevertheless used as if it were derived from > káma, lust, and always as an antonym to káma. It is one of the perfections > (s. páramí). N. sankappa, thought free from lust, or thought of > renunciation, is one of the 3 kinds of right thought (sammá-sankappa), the > 2nd link of the Noble Eightfold Path (s. magga, 2), its antonym being > kámasankappa, lustful thought. > ***** There have been the equivalent of three replies to this thread (rather lengty to include suttas). None came to a fruition, except the present one. Currently reading the Mahadukkhakkhanda Sutta as well as the Latukikopama Sutta presently. There most certainly is that which serves the function of the process of which has arisen when conceptualizing the process of which you refer, however this mental object of process is merely a bubble in the stream, a mental fabrication from recollection, from sanna. Aren't all characteristics and mental formations, when viewed, nothing more than mental fabrications of sanna? Hehe, prajna paramita strikes again :) and with that, sanna too. ;) So in a nekkhamma sense, with reference to the Mahadukkhakkhanda Sutta: Without craving the gratification of sensual pleasures. Without craving the gratification of material objects. Without craving the gratification of feeling. And in a jhana sense... Without gratification of sensual pleasures. (first, second and third jhana) Without gratification of feeling. (fourth jhana) Majjhima Nikaya - Latukikopama Sutta: 66 (Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi transl.) 20. "Here, Udayin, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhana... With the stilling of applied and sustained thought, he enters upon and abides in the second jhana... With the fading away as well of rapture... he enters upon and abides in the third jhana... With the abandoning of pleasure and pain... he enters upon and abides in the fourth jhana... 21. "This is called the bliss of renunciation, the bliss of seclusion, the bliss of peace, the bliss of enlightenment. I say of this kind of pleasure that it should be persued, that it should be developed, that it should be cultivated, that it should not be feared. So on to 29. 29. "Here, Udayin, with the abandoning of pleasure and pain... a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the fourth jhana... That surmounts it. But that too, I say is not enough. Abandon it, I say; surmount it, I say. And what surmounts it? So on to the arupa-jhana. And such is the short lived life of this pannati. metta- manji 13268 From: onco111 Date: Tue May 14, 2002 4:15pm Subject: question for Howard, Erik, and Anders What does "Buddha nature" mean? 13269 From: Date: Tue May 14, 2002 4:34pm Subject: ADL ch. 8 (2) http://www.abhidhamma.org/abhid.html Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 8 (2) The ahetuka vipakacitta which sees an unpleasant or a pleasant object through the eyes is seeing-consciousness, in Pali: cakkhu-vinnana (cakkhu means eye). The ahetuka vipakacitta which hears an unpleasant or a pleasant object through the ears is hearing-consciousness, in Pali: sota-vinnana (sota means ear). The ahetuka vipakacitta which smells an unpleasant or a pleasant object through the nose is smelling-consciousness, in Pali: ghana-vinnana (ghana means nose). The ahetuka vipakacitta which experiences an unpleasant or a pleasant taste through the tongue is tasting-consciousness, in Pali: jivha-vinnana (jivha means tongue). The ahetuka vipakacitta which experiences an unpleasant or a pleasant object through the body-sense is body-consciousness, in Pali: kaya-vinnana (kaya means body) . There are two kinds of ahetuka vipaka experiencing an object through each of the five doors: one is akusala vipaka and one is kusala vipaka. Thus there are five pairs of ahetuka vipakacittas which arise depending on the five sense-doors. There are also other kinds of ahetuka vipakacitta which will be dealt with later on. The ten ahetuka vipakacittas which are the 'five pairs are called in Pali: dvi-panca-vinnana (two times five vinnana). They are: 1. Cakkhu-vinnana (seeing-consciousness): akusala vipaka, accompanied by upekkha (indifferent feeling); kusala vipaka, accompanied by upekkha 2. Sota-vinnana (hearing-consciousness): akusala vipaka, accompanied by upekkha; kusala vipaka, accompanied by upekkha 3. Ghana-vinnana (smelling-consciousness): akusala vipaka, accompanied by upekkha; kusala vipaka, accompanied by upekkha 4. Jivha-vinnana (tasting-consciousness): akusala vipaka, accompanied by upekkha; kusala vipaka, accompanied by upekkha 5. Kaya-vinnana (body-consciousness): akusala vipaka, accompanied by dukkha vedana (bodily painful feeling); kusala vipaka, accompanied by sukha vedana (bodily pleasant feeling) The ahetuka vipakacittas which see, hear, smell and taste are invariably accompanied by upekkha (indifferent feeling), no matter whether they are akusala vipaka or kusala vipaka. The citta which dislikes the object may arise afterwards. This citta is sahetuka (with hetus or roots) and it is accompanied by unpleasant feeling. Or the citta which likes the object may arise; this citta which is also sahetuka may be accompanied by pleasant feeling or by indifferent feeling. We are inclined to think that the dvi-panca-vinnanas can occur at the same time as like or dislike of the object, but this is not so. Different cittas arise at different moments and the feelings which accompany the cittas are different too; none of these realities should be taken for self. 13270 From: Date: Tue May 14, 2002 0:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] question for Howard, Erik, and Anders Hi, Dan - In a message dated 5/14/02 7:22:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dalthorp@o... writes: > What does "Buddha nature" mean? > > ======================== Better just ask the other guys, Dan! ;-)) I *think* it may just be the capacity/potentiality beings have for enlightenment. (It's an okay idea, I think, so long as one doesn't reify it into some sort of "power" or "potency", so long as it only means that should X and Y happen, so will Z happen (just a conditionality). 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) 13271 From: Date: Tue May 14, 2002 1:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] giving protection, abhaya dana Thank-you for your replies, they are very helpful. As well as forgiveness would abhayadaana also include "giving protection to beings when they have become frightened on account of fire,water,lions tigers and other wild beasts?" ie. In a bush fire where animals are being burnt, the "saving" them from the fire. Or when someone is being attacked by "wild animals" and you have the means to protect them? Would these cases be concidered Abhayadaana? I also look forward to reading the translation of K.Sujin' s 'Perfections' Metta S 13272 From: Date: Tue May 14, 2002 5:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] question for Howard, Erik, and Anders Dan wrote: What does "Buddha nature" mean? Hi Dan, I'll bite. I think this question could also be phrased "what does 'buddha' mean?" To me it means sati; more inscrutably, it could mean nibbana. Larry 13273 From: Date: Tue May 14, 2002 5:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga, Larry, TG and Num. Hi Nina, thanks for this interesting piece of research. I think the next book I get is going to be the Samyutta Nikaya but I would be very interested in any discussions you and Num and TG would have on Patisambhidamagga, particularly with input from A Sujin. When is Num going to be settled? I had a medical question that relates to rootless body feeling. Larry 13274 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Tue May 14, 2002 6:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 8 (1) --- Dear Frank, When we try to think about kamma and vipaka (result of kamma) it can get confusing. But by studying the actual paramattha dhammas - they are happening now- it becomes clearer. Nina van Gorkom writes in ADL: "Cittas can be classified by way of jati' (literally means 'birth' or 'nature'). There are four jatis: akusala, kusala, vipaka, kiriya. It is important to know which jati a citta is. We cannot develop wholesomeness in our life if we take akusala for kusala or if we take akusala for vipaka. For instance, when we hear unpleasant words, the moment of experiencing the sound (hearing-consciousness) is akusala vipaka, the result of an unwholesome deed we performed ourselves. But the aversion which may arise very shortly afterwards is not vipaka, but it arises with akusala citta."" In your examples below the aversion you felt was not vipaka - result of kamma - it was akusala jati, a different type of citta. Now you are in Hawaii, maybe the overall impression is pleasant, but only by studying the actual moments can there be any understanding into what is really happening. At the beach there may be many pleasant feelings through the bodysense, quickly followed by attachment of some level, but there may also be moments when it is just a little too hot and the feeling through the bodysense is unpleasant (vipaka-result of akusala kamma in this case). In the latter case you might not even notice it and any aversion in the javana phase might be so slight as to be unnoticeable. All thse different impressions and reactions are arising and falling away so fast; and if we continue to live in the world of concepts we can never know this truth, we may think about impermanence, and that can make us calmer but it cannot uproot our delusions. You might go swimming and cool off, the thinking may be with much pleasant feeling "how nice it is here" associated with lobha; but too, there might be brief moments when the water is too cold, or salt gets in your eyes,. Any aversion to these moments is not the result of kamma but the actual experience through the bodysense is. best wishes robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., frank kuan wrote: > > > Seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and receiving > > impressions through the > > body-sense do not arise without there being > > conditions for their > > arising; they are the result of kamma. > > Two questions: > 1) for a non-arahant, isn't just about every > volitional action kamma? > 2) for an arahant, if they do not generate kamma, then > what are the conditions for their sense impressions? > > > > > The Buddha taught that everything which arises must > > have conditions for > > its arising. When we see something unpleasant there > > must be a condition > > for it: it is the result of akusala kamma. > > Everything that arises must have a condition, but it > seems to be over reaching to say that akusala kamma is > the cause of all unpleasant experience. Examples: > > 1) example 1: I used to not like the vegetable kale. > Then I liked it. Sometimes, I still don't like it. > Whether it is a pleasant or unpleasant experience > seems to be more of a function of my body's need for > those nutrients. When it needs those nutrients, the > bitterness tastes good. When it doesn't, it tasts bad. > Doesn't seem to have anything to do with kusala or > akusala. > > 2) example 2: Growing up as a kid, Star Wars (the > movie) was like a religious revelation, a highly > pleasant experience. Now, depending on my frame of > mind, I can react with: > a) nostalgic appreciation of the child who can be > amused and tricked by special effects and simple > storyline based on mythological archetypes. > b) indifference to the whole Star Wars > empire/phenomenon > c) revulsion and aversion towards George Lucas for > defiling the sanctity of Star Wars with Phantom Menace > and disillusioning all the (former) children who once > cherished it. > > What type of unpleasant experience I have when exposed > to Star Wars can vary so much it seems odd to simply > attribute it to akusala kamma. > > -fk > > 13275 From: Date: Tue May 14, 2002 8:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 8 (2) Dear group, Just a note of clarification regarding akusala vipaka citta. This citta gets its name, 'akusala', based on its cause, an akusala citta rooted in lobha/dosa/moha. The vipaka itself is without any akusala/kusala quality. Hence its designation 'rootless' (ahetuka). Akusala citta rooted in lobha/dosa/moha (always?) causes a rootless citta. Rootless cittas cause nothing but may be a contributory condition for another citta rooted in lobha/dosa/moha or alobha/adosa/amoha, which, inturn, must (?) cause another vipaka. An akusala citta will only cause an akusala vipaka simply because that is how vipaka is named. Sight, sound, smell, taste vipaka will have a neutral feeling. Body sense vipaka will be pleasant or unpleasant feeling. It is impossible (?) for anyone but the Buddha to tell whether a vipaka citta is kusala or akusala. Both kusala and akusala _rootless_ vipaka cittas have the same qualities. There is also a class of kusala vipaka citta _with_ roots. This has kusala qualities but because it is vipaka, it cannot cause another citta. It can be seen very easily in satipatthana that whatever sight, sound, taste, smell, or body feeling may arise, it is value neutral. Like and dislike are lobha and dosa. They may arise in response to the vipaka and will, in turn, produce another vipaka. We can't really see this kamma process unfolding. We can recognize cause, and we can recognize effect. But we cannot put the two together. We have to take the Buddha's word for it. Unpleasant body feeling is not necessarily akusala vipaka. Kusala citta can cause unpleasant body feeling. Corrections joyously welcomed. yours in the way, Larry question: Is kamma unstopable once the cause has arisen? L. 13276 From: azita gill Date: Tue May 14, 2002 9:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 8 (2) --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Dear group, > Just a note of clarification regarding akusala > vipaka citta. This citta > gets its name, 'akusala', based on its cause, an > akusala citta rooted in > lobha/dosa/moha. The vipaka itself is without any > akusala/kusala > quality. Hence its designation 'rootless' (ahetuka). > Akusala citta > rooted in lobha/dosa/moha (always?) causes a > rootless citta. Rootless > cittas cause nothing but may be a contributory > condition for another > citta rooted in lobha/dosa/moha or > alobha/adosa/amoha, which, inturn, > must (?) cause another vipaka. > > An akusala citta will only cause an akusala vipaka > simply because that > is how vipaka is named. Sight, sound, smell, taste > vipaka will have a > neutral feeling. Body sense vipaka will be pleasant > or unpleasant > feeling. It is impossible (?) for anyone but the > Buddha to tell whether > a vipaka citta is kusala or akusala. Both kusala and > akusala _rootless_ > vipaka cittas have the same qualities. There is also > a class of kusala > vipaka citta _with_ roots. This has kusala qualities > but because it is > vipaka, it cannot cause another citta. > > It can be seen very easily in satipatthana that > whatever sight, sound, > taste, smell, or body feeling may arise, it is value > neutral. Like and > dislike are lobha and dosa. They may arise in > response to the vipaka and > will, in turn, produce another vipaka. We can't > really see this kamma > process unfolding. We can recognize cause, and we > can recognize effect. > But we cannot put the two together. We have to take > the Buddha's word > for it. > > Unpleasant body feeling is not necessarily akusala > vipaka. Kusala citta > can cause unpleasant body feeling. > > Corrections joyously welcomed. > > yours in the way, Larry > > question: Is kamma unstopable once the cause has > arisen? > > L. > > dear Larry, I query that last comment about "unpleasant body feeling ------cause unpleasant body feeling" . I can't see how kusala citta can cause something unpleasant. Can you elaborate please? > regarding your question about kamma - I think it is unstopable - unless you become an arahat - but you can't do this if the kamma is really heavy, such as killing mum or dad, harming a Buddha, etc. > Azita, > May all beings be happy, 13277 From: Date: Tue May 14, 2002 5:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhaghosa's "Burden of Proof" In a message dated 5/14/2002 11:45:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > (1) The term 'simple (or basic or fundamental) phenomena' (as opposed > to mentally compounded ones) I see as preferable to that of 'ultimate > realities', and (2) It is not that paramattha dhammas don't have > characteristics - they do (conventionally speaking), but they should not be > thought of as "their own". In fact, there is no entity to own the > characteristics, there are just those characteristics, arising together, > briefly, in dependence on other conditions. > > > With metta, > Howard > I agree completely Howard. The term I came up with previously was "primary states" but the term "fundamental phenomena" is pretty darn much the same thing. But your second point is even more important. And I'll add this... There are characteristics, but nothing has its own characteristic. Characteristics are not non-existent, nor are they existent. Characteristics are systematically and continuosly altering into something else. TG 13278 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue May 14, 2002 10:22pm Subject: RE: [dsg] giving protection, abhaya dana Dear Nina and Bodhi2500, > -----Original Message----- > From: Nina van Gorkom [mailto:nilo@e...] > > > (1)The perfection of giving,firstly,is to be > practised by benefitting beings > > in many ways-by relinquishing ones > happiness,belongings,body and life to > > others,by dispelling their fear and by > instructing them in the dhamma. > > > > (then we jump to the dispelling their fear section) > > > > The Giving of fearlessness is the giving of > protection to beings when they > > have become frightened on account of > > kings,thieves,fire,water,enemies,lions,tigers,other wild > > beasts,dragons,orges,demons,goblins etc. > > > Dear Bodhi 2500, (sorry, I do not know your > name), and all, > I am translating A. Sujin's book on the > perfections, and was just about to > type what you quoted. I consider these days > abhaya dana, the giving of > fearlessness, a lot. When there is this kind of > dana, we have no grudges, we > forgive wrongs and have goodwill for the person > who was unpleasant. A. Sujin > in her book stresses how all the perfections are > connected and come into > play. I find it inspiring to see forgiving as a > kind of dana. In Thai to > is to forgive. (Maybe Kom can say > more about this) > A. Sujin writes: > > Someone who develops the > perfections should consider the gift of > fearlessness, or forgiving, > abhayadåna. If someone does not know that this is > a perfection he will not > forgive someone else who has done him wrong. We > should reflect on the gift > of fearlessness: if we do not forgive others how > can we attain enlightenment > and eradicate defilements? This may be a > condition for the gift of > fearlessness. This is a way of generosity higher Bhaya in Thai means generally means danger (drawbacks, penalties, disadvantages), i.e., danger from kings, thieves, fire, water, enemies, lions, tigers, other wild beasts, dragons, orges, demons, goblins etc. Abhaya is its opposite, however, in the Thai language it is mostly used to mean forgiveness. Giving a person abhaya, in Thai, usually means forgiving the person: this doesn't have to be outward. The beautiful part is you can forgive a person without other people (including the subject) knowing that this "gift" has already occured. When I hear K. Sujin on tape, I understood that this means strictly forgiving. However, looking at the description now, it seems to be more than forgiving. When we help other people from dangers, be it through directly helping, or counseling, it also seems like it is also abhaya dana. The gift of the dhamma is obviously the most elavated type of abhaya dhamma. We help other people in reaching the true abhaya, nibbana. kom 13279 From: Date: Tue May 14, 2002 6:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] giving protection, abhaya dana Thank-you Nina,Sarah and Kom for your replies. Metta S In a message dated 15/05/02 15:26:30 E. Australia Standard Time, kom@a... writes: > Dear Nina and Bodhi2500, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nina van Gorkom [mailto:nilo@e...] > > > > > (1)The perfection of giving,firstly,is to be > > practised by benefitting beings > > > in many ways-by relinquishing ones > > happiness,belongings,body and life to > > > others,by dispelling their fear and by > > instructing them in the dhamma. > > > > > > (then we jump to the dispelling their fear section) > > > > > > The Giving of fearlessness is the giving of > > protection to beings when they > > > have become frightened on account of > > > kings,thieves,fire,water,enemies,lions,tigers,other wild > > > beasts,dragons,orges,demons,goblins etc. > > > > > Dear Bodhi 2500, (sorry, I do not know your > > name), and all, > > I am translating A. Sujin's book on the > > perfections, and was just about to > > type what you quoted. I consider these days > > abhaya dana, the giving of > > fearlessness, a lot. When there is this kind of > > dana, we have no grudges, we > > forgive wrongs and have goodwill for the person > > who was unpleasant. A. Sujin > > in her book stresses how all the perfections are > > connected and come into > > play. I find it inspiring to see forgiving as a > > kind of dana. In Thai to > > is to forgive. (Maybe Kom can say > > more about this) > > A. Sujin writes: > > > > > Someone who develops the > > perfections should consider the gift of > > fearlessness, or forgiving, > > abhayadåna. If someone does not know that this is > > a perfection he will not > > forgive someone else who has done him wrong. We > > should reflect on the gift > > of fearlessness: if we do not forgive others how > > can we attain enlightenment > > and eradicate defilements? This may be a > > condition for the gift of > > fearlessness. This is a way of generosity higher > > Bhaya in Thai means generally means danger (drawbacks, > penalties, disadvantages), i.e., danger from kings, thieves, > fire, water, enemies, lions, tigers, other wild beasts, > dragons, orges, demons, goblins etc. Abhaya is its > opposite, however, in the Thai language it is mostly used to > mean forgiveness. Giving a person abhaya, in Thai, usually > means forgiving the person: this doesn't have to be outward. > The beautiful part is you can forgive a person without other > people (including the subject) knowing that this "gift" has > already occured. > > When I hear K. Sujin on tape, I understood that this means > strictly forgiving. However, looking at the description > now, it seems to be more than forgiving. When we help other > people from dangers, be it through directly helping, or > counseling, it also seems like it is also abhaya dana. The > gift of the dhamma is obviously the most elavated type of > abhaya dhamma. We help other people in reaching the true > abhaya, nibbana. > > kom > 13280 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 15, 2002 0:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [reply to Frank] Dear Dan, Of course I’ve really enjoyed all your recent contributions and as I said before, it’s always a refreshing ‘shake-up’ when you and Erik are around with your distinct, eloquent and colourful styles. Many (read: most) will not agree with the ‘ritual’ posts --and that isn’t why they were written--. but I personally think you make some very helpful points and I particularly liked this final paragraph, which I read a few times. > How? Well, when sati arises, this moment is understood as seeing, > that moment as hearing, this mind with lobha, that mind with dosa, > this dosa arising from craving, etc. Sati does not arise from anyone > directing the mind to note any particular object or to look for any > particular thing, but when dhammas arise with right view and sati, > the characteristics are known and understood. They just arise and > pass away, without being anyone, without being directed by anyone, > without being conjured by anyone, without being owned by anyone. Mind > with panya simply knows about dhammas and what to do with them and > how to react to them without anyone needing to tell it about the > dhammas and what to do with them and how to react to them. ..... Of course some --but not me-- might object to the ‘mind and panya knows’ in the way others -- again not me-- object to ‘seeing (or citta) sees’;-)) Thank you and Erik also for sharing so much of your *own* experience with us too. Hope Lisa and the boys appreciate not having the timer going off every 5 minutes during meals, playtime, domestic chores or visits to restaurants. (Actually, as Frank may appreciate, we use 5 minute timers for 1st-thing-in-the-morning- yoga poses, so they have their uses;-) Sarah ====== 13281 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed May 15, 2002 0:23am Subject: RE: [dsg] attachment to concept Kom > I disagree with you on this point (until I change my mind, > obviously!). It is one of those things that I think we can > say the Buddha definitely said either (but not both): > 1) Concept can be an object of satipatthana > 2) Concept cannot be an object of satipatthana. > > I think the difference is so substantial that there would be > no ambiguity / different meanings in the 3 tipitakas. Also, > it would make sense to have an interpretation of the > teachings that are consistent across all the 3 tipitakas, > not just suttanta or abhidhamma, and as far as I know, the > position that a concept cannot be an object of satipatthana > is the most consistent explanation among the 3 tipitakas, > the commentaries, and Visuddhimagga. Of course, not knowing > all the texts (or even a good part of the text), I will read > on... k: In the first place, in the sutta, there is no mention that concepts can not be objects of satipatthana. the position that concepts cannot be objects of satipatthana is in Abhidhamma and not in Sutta. I have not seen in what Buddha said that only paramattha are objects of satipatthana. Hence where is the inconsistency. Does Abhidhamma rejects concepts as objects in Satipatthana and on what basis is the objection derive from? Is it just because concepts are not paramathas? Then we got to ask, where does objects derived from? > > Also, I think your point on the teaching being easiest (from > the beginning of satipatthana sutta) is not consistent with > what I know. Each person are pre-inclined to different sets > of dhammas. We hear in the commentaries that the Buddha: > k: I think I did not express myself clearly, I was saying that Satipatthana starts from the observable to the more subtle level. > > Another big issue abt control/no control > > recently, if we read the > > definition of right effort in the suttas, it > > indicates there is control. > > But we stick our concept of Abhidhamma then there > > is no control. There is > > control but the control does not mean there is a > > need to "cling" to a self > > for control. If there is no control, why would > > Buddha seek enlightment to > > get out of the birth-death cycle, isn't it this > > intention (to get out of > > the birth cycle) attached to a desire. Buddha > > knows that we need a goal > > to relieve ourselve, isn't the goal of Abhidhamma > > is enlightment. So isn't > > it fits into our mental image of going to nirvana > > that let us eventually > > condition us to practise satipatthana. These are > > my train of thought, may > > sound confusing though. > > Again, as far as I know, given the complexities of > conditions that cause the dhamma to arise, no control > (dhamma arises only because of conditions, and not a single > agent causing the dhamma to arise) is the best explanation > of the Buddha teachings. This theory doesn't support random > arising: if there are no (or not enough) conditions for a > dhamma to arise, then it cannot arise. If there is, then it > must arise. This is regardless of the intention of the > person (since intention is not the *only* dhamma that > conditions). k: I did not said that there is a self that controls. We all know there is no self that controls but there is a cetasikas (cetana) that control or you prefer the word condition our actions. This cetasikas is the controlling factor in our decisions, whether to perform a kusala or akusala actions. To say that is no control is extremist. Take for example, while we are driving, if we are able to brake to stop an accident from happening, are we going to brake or not (vice aside other factors like wet road). Definitely there is no self that is controlling but there is a cetasikas that controls our actions. If there is no control, we will not be reading suttas or Abhidhamma in the first place. k: For your kind comments please. kind regards Ken O 13282 From: onco111 Date: Wed May 15, 2002 1:08am Subject: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [reply to Frank] Thanks, Sarah. --> Dan: How? Well, when sati arises, this moment is understood as seeing, that moment as hearing, this mind with lobha, that mind with dosa, this dosa arising from craving, etc. Sati does not arise from anyone directing the mind to note any particular object or to look for any particular thing, but when dhammas arise with right view and sati, the characteristics are known and understood. They just arise and pass away, without being anyone, without being directed by anyone, without being conjured by anyone, without being owned by anyone. Mind with panya simply knows about dhammas and what to do with them and how to react to them without anyone needing to tell it about the dhammas and what to do with them and how to react to them. --> Sarah: Of course some --but not me-- might object to the `mind and panya knows' in the way others -- again not me-- object to `seeing (or citta) sees';-)) ** Touché! You caught me! Seriously, that metaphorical construction always gives me pause because it powerfully evokes a "thing" that is doing the doing. Equally powerfully it evokes the "no control" aspect of anatta, which is exactly why it is used in this context. The "no control" aspect is interesting and useful in some contexts, but it is not the same thing as anatta, and I don't think it's quite right. The similes about 'mind with panya knows' and such are merely metaphorical, such as using "I" and "we." However, they sound less metaphorical, and it's tempting to substitute them for doctrine in a technical context, and I do want to be on guard against that! Thanks again, Sarah. Dan 13283 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 15, 2002 2:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Deciding how best to act Dear Christine, I have both your posts to Kom and myself here which I’d like to insperse with a few more comments (but nothing new;-)). Apologies for making it a rather long post. --- christine_forsyth wrote: > I admit to having heavily researched 'other options'.:) > It seems that if I wished to find support for 'righteous anger' I > shouldn't be a Theravadan....I should be a follower of > Soka Gakkai International, as they are the only buddhists who don't > strongly warn against it and, in fact, value it. ..... I’m sure by now you have researched most Buddhist groups and I hope we don’t lose you to Soka Gakkai or any other ‘righteous anger’ group;-) ..... > http://www.baynet.net/~arcc/dhamma/divabid.html > and regarding 'righteous anger'... > "We should especially be on guard for the arising of "righteous" > anger. Remember that ill-will is a poison and that you are only > hurting yourself, karmically and spiritually, when you harbour a > grudge for an imagined, or even a real, wrong." ..... Thank you for this helpful quote. It’s a good reminder that from a dhamma point of view, it makes no difference whether the grudge is for an ‘imagined’ or ‘real’ wrong. In other words, the problem is the anger, the state of mind, rather than the supposed cause. At this time there is no forgiveness (abhaya dana) as Stigan and Nina were discussing. I’m sure the ideas of the giving of fearlessness, protection and forgiveness being connected in this way will be as novel to you as to me. ..... > I remember that recently 'elsewhere', we were talking about the > surprising last line of the "Mulapariyaya Sutta - The Root Sequence" > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn001.html > >>"That is what the Blessed One said. Displeased, the monks did not > delight in the Blessed One's words"<< > I certainly understand how they felt.... > It is hard to hear, and harder to accept, something that goes > against how a person believes the world is, that is so much a part of > a person, that they don't even know it is 'a belief', and not 'the > way things are'..... things like that to 'fight injustice and evil, > defend the poor and powerless' are always 'admirable' things to do. > Social Work at the hospital is not going to feel quite the same after > such a shaking up of certainty about motives.....it will be > interesting observing myself over the next week or two. :-) ..... Yes, the dhamma really goes against the stream or the conventional way of looking at the world. Like you said elsewhere, sometimes it makes plenty of logical sense, but there can still be plenty of resistance and clinging to deep-held beliefs. ..... >The real question for me, accepting > that 'our accumulation of dosa is the real cause that aversion arises > time and again,' is not blame or pointing the finger at a particular > individual. In actual everday hands-on living of our lives, and > while understanding that complex conditions bring about suffering - > are we to ignore people being wronged, whether it is ourselves, dear > ones, or even perfect strangers? Are we not to attempt to assist or > protect (in a non-violent way) those we feel are being treated > unfairly and suffering? Is there total moral neutrality? Should we > speak out about perceived injustices, or should we just say 'It's > their fruits of kamma' or 'Uh-huh hurt feelings.. shows lack of > advancement in the practice yet, too much dosa,mana, clinging, or not > enough ' ? Often, it is easier to preserve silence, > than speak out and attract retribution, or risk losing valued > friendships.... > Non-action, like action, is an intentional choice. And if I don't > act, when I could have acted, or if I choose one action instead of > another, the results of that action or non-action are my kama-vipaka > eventually? ..... Like Jon said, there isn’t any rule and how any of us will behave at any given time will depend on many different conditions. We’re used to judging the value of these by the particular action or outer appearance, but as we know, the Teachings are referring to the understanding of mental states which change rapidly. Of course we can speak out about perceived injustices with good intentions and wise speech, just as we can with the opposite. So it’s not a matter of not speaking out, if that is our inclination, but of developing more understanding while speaking out (or keeping silent). ..... > the importance of making a stand against wrong. Small daily > happenings are miniature reflections of what happens on a larger > scale nationally and internationally. When the harm being done (as > in the categories above) is to a person who is a little different to > the majority, or to whom the majority seem to be either opposed or > indifferent, how easy it is to magnify their faults and minimise (or > be unable to hear or see clearly) the role of those others doing > wrong. How easy to look for the approval of the majority(more like > us), and feel validated. ..... For me, having also been rather political in my youth and worked a lot in community and social work settings, I’d say it’s very easy to make a stand with plenty of feeling (mostly unwholesome) which it’s very easy indeed to justify. It rather scares me to think of the lack of kindness or forgiveness there often is for the so-called perpetrators who act out of their accumulated defilements too. The test, I believe, is not how the other acts but how much understanding and kindness there is when we ‘step in’ or perform our duties or do what we consider 'right' . ..... > So what is a Buddhist to do, to live in the world correctly and > unselfishly, with loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and > equanimity regarding others? Watch our own mind states, and be aware > when dosa arises. Is that all? Does this mean ignoring the suffering > of others when it could be ameliorated or prevented? Extending or > pervading metta, but taking no action? What do the Teachings say? ..... Firstly, I’d say that we have to be very realistic and honest with ourselves. Of course we’re not going to live like arahants and if we try to do so by imitation, it’s wrong and shows more clinging. Appreciating the suffering of others and doing what we can to help n any way with metta and compassion is always skilful and to be encouraged. The realism and honesty lies in not kidding ourselves that it’s all pure and noble when inevitably it isn’t and not to think that the particular action or non-action is the criterion of this. Btw, thanks for encouraging me to look more carefully at BB’s intro and the commentary notes to the Mulapariyaya sutta discussing why the monks were not pleased by the discourse: *** “Having heard this sutta taught for the purpose of shattering their conceit, those bhikkhus thought: “The theorist, he says, perceives earth. The learner, the arahat, and the Tathagata directly know it. What is this? How is this? previously we could quickly understand whatever the Exalted One said. But now we cannot make head or tail out of this ‘exposition of the root’. Oh, the Buddhas are immeasurable and unfathomable!” Thus they became humble, like snakes with drawn fangs, and went respectfully to attend upon the Buddha and listen to the Dhamma.” *** We also read about how the Bodhisattva had to help them to reduce their pride in a previous life. How many lives have we also ‘resisted’ hearing the truth because of mana and wrong views? “..humble like snakes with drawn fangs’....interesting;-) Any points you raise are always useful for me too, Chris metta, Sarah ===== 13284 From: onco111 Date: Wed May 15, 2002 3:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Deciding how best to act > > I remember that recently 'elsewhere', we were talking about the > > surprising last line of the "Mulapariyaya Sutta - The Root Sequence" > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn001.html > > >>"That is what the Blessed One said. Displeased, the monks did not > > delight in the Blessed One's words"<< I wonder if they "did not delight" because the whole sutta was about those bhikkhus who go astray delighting in various concepts. It would be strange to read a rousing account of how the bhikkhus listening then delighted in Buddha's words (concepts). 13285 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 15, 2002 5:14am Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana Rob E --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > I guess what this particular issue comes down to is whether the Buddha is saying > to contemplate these characteristics of realities, or whether to contemplate > specific namas and rupas in a given category, and just, as you say, indicating the > areas within which the specific instances can be found. I'm not quite clear on the distinction you are making here, Rob, so I'll just say that I take him to be indicating the contemplation of any presently arising phenomena. > I also agree, and think it is an important point, that concepts as such can be > pointing towards other concepts or be pointing towards realities, and that > concepts that point to realities have a very special usefulness, even though they > themselves do not have a real object. They are the only guide we have to direct > us towards real objects, other than direct discernment itself. > > If the Sutta says "...takes hold of the aggregate of...", it is reasonable to say > that the Buddha is saying to take an arising example of the aggregate as an object > of discernment and see it for what it is. I'm just not sure from the language of > the Sutta whether he is saying that or not. Here are some further passages from the sutta that it might be useful to consider in that light: "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands the consciousness with lust [or with hate or with ignorance], as with lust [or hate or ignorance]; the consciousness without lust [etc.], as without lust [etc.]; …" "Here, O bhikkhus, when sensuality [or any of the other of the 5 hindrances] is present, a bhikkhu knows with understanding: 'I have sensuality [or whichever of the 5 hindrances],' or when sensuality [etc.] is not present, he knows with understanding: 'I have no sensuality [etc.].'" The commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta explains 'present' in the passage just above as "existing by way of occurrence, practice or repeated happening", and 'not present' as "not existing, by way of non-occurrence or because of rejection from the mind by way of reflection or concentration". It then explains the terms "by way of occurrence" and "existing" as follows: "Since there is no state of yoking together of the good and the bad moral qualities similar to the yoking of two bulls to a cart, -- since the good and the bad do not exist together -- from the absence of sensuality at the time of seeing one's mind through knowledge it is said: 'by way of occurrence'. At the moment of seeing wisely the occurrence of sense-desire there is no sense-desire as good and bad states of mind cannot exist together "Existing means: When it is found in one's own mental flux." Some people really doubt whether there can be awareness of presently arising ('existing') akusala states. Here it clearly assumes there can be, and explains that the akusala state and the moment of wisely seeing it are in reality 2 separate mind moments. I hope you find something here to reflect on. Jon 13286 From: frank kuan Date: Wed May 15, 2002 5:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 8 (1) Hi Robert, --- "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: > For instance, when we hear > unpleasant words, the > moment of experiencing the sound > (hearing-consciousness) is akusala > vipaka, the result of an unwholesome deed we > performed ourselves. This still makes no sense to me. According to your explanation, my examples are not the result of akusala vipaka, but simply akusala cittas. How is it different in your example? Hearing concsiousness is merely hearing consciousness, and the experience of "unpleasant words" must necessarily be following akusala cittas then, and not the "hearing consciousness" that is akusala vipaka. At the beach there [...] there may also be > moments when it is > just a little too hot and the feeling through the > bodysense is > unpleasant (vipaka-result of akusala kamma in this > case). Again I am baffled by this explanation. I would tend to believe the cause of the hot feeling is sitting in the sun too long, not vipaka-result of akusala kamma. -fk 13287 From: frank kuan Date: Wed May 15, 2002 5:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] question for Howard, Erik, and Anders --- onco111 wrote: > What does "Buddha nature" mean? Hi Dan, What aspect or perspective are you trying to probe? I'm guessing you already know the standard definitions, and there's a specific angle you're looking for. -fk 13288 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Wed May 15, 2002 6:10am Subject: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [reply to Frank] --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" wrote: > > Seriously, that metaphorical construction always gives me pause > because it powerfully evokes a "thing" that is doing the doing. > Equally powerfully it evokes the "no control" aspect of anatta, which > is exactly why it is used in this context. The "no control" aspect is > interesting and useful in some contexts, but it is not the same thing > as anatta, and I don't think it's quite right. > > Dan ------------------- Dear Dan, Pleased to see you realise that one reason to write in this way is that it stresses on anatta - that there is no self doing anything but that different dhammas are performing whatever function is appropriate. It is like the Visuddhimagga says (xvii312)"The absence of interestedness on the part of ignorance, such as 'Formations [sankhara] must be made to occur by me, or on the part of formations, such as 'vinnana must be made to ocur by us'. One who sees this rightly abandons self view by understanding the absence of a maker". We are persistently fooled into thinking that there is a self who decides and directs. It helps us see that there is really no self when the commentaries further define any dhamma by means of lakkhana (characteristic), rasa (function), paccupatthana (the way it presents itself) and its padatthana (proximate cause). Bodhi in CMA (p. 29) gives the example of citta: "Its characteristic is the knowing of an object. Its function is to be a forerunner of the mental factors in that it presides over them, and is always accompanied by them.Its manisfestation is as a continuity of processes.Its proximate cause is nama and rupa because consciousness cannot arise in the absence of mental and material factors." Just as an aside on what 'knowing' means the visuddhimagga (xiv4 ) "consciousness knows the objects as blue or yellow, and it brings about penetration of its characteristics, but it cannot bring about, by endeavouring, the manisfestation of the path. Understanding (panna) knows the object in the way stated, and it brings about by endeavouring, the manifestation of the path." This perhaps ties up with your excellent series on silabataparamasa; as you indicated this is actually an aspect of wrong view, it is not the action per se that is the clinging to rule and ritual but the wrong view that feels one is somehow controlling and directing the various khandas. In the quote from the visuddhimagga we see that citta(without panna) can know the characteristic of dhammas, it can perceive subtle feelings colours, sounds, hardness, heat - but if panna is not present nothing is gained, one may be developing silabataparamasa. I was also interested in your comment that "The "no control" aspect is > interesting and useful in some contexts, but it is not the same thing > as anatta, and I don't think it's quite right"". I think everyone sees different aspects of the teaching so for me the no-control aspect seems a crucial aspect of anatta. "Those same five aggregates are anatta because of the words 'what is painful is no self' Why? Because there is no exercising power over them. The mode of insusceptibilty to having power exercised over them is the characteristic of anatta" Yam dukkham tam anatta"ti pana vacanato tadeva khandhapañcakam anatta. Kasma? Avasavattanato; avasavattanakaro anattalakkhanam (sammohavinodani p60( dispeller of delusion). it continues: "that is why the impermanent, the painful and the not-self are one thing and the characteristics of impermanence, pain and no-self are another . For that which consists of the five aggregates, the twevle bases, the eigthteen elements is all impermanent, painful and no- self; the modes of alteration of the kind aforesaid are the characteristics of impermanence, pain and no-self."" . best wishes robert 13289 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Wed May 15, 2002 6:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 8 (1) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., frank kuan wrote: > Hi Robert, > --- "robertkirkpatrick.rm" > wrote: > > For instance, when we hear > > unpleasant words, the > > moment of experiencing the sound > > (hearing-consciousness) is akusala > > vipaka, the result of an unwholesome deed we > > performed ourselves. > This still makes no sense to me. According to your > explanation, my examples are not the result of akusala > vipaka, but simply akusala cittas. How is it different > in your example? Hearing concsiousness is merely > hearing consciousness, and the experience of > "unpleasant words" must necessarily be following > akusala cittas then, and not the "hearing > consciousness" that is akusala vipaka. _____________ Dear Frank, By learning to study the different jatis it can be known whether akusala citta follows the vipaka. The moment of hearing the sound when someone is speaking angrily is very brief - and so quickly after that the javana process, seven moments, happens - but there is no rule that akusala citta must arise. There could instead be patience, or there could be direct insight into sound or hearing. The jatis are so different. > > At the beach there [...] there may also be > > moments when it is > > just a little too hot and the feeling through the > > bodysense is > > unpleasant (vipaka-result of akusala kamma in this > > case). > > Again I am baffled by this explanation. I would tend > to believe the cause of the hot feeling is sitting in > the sun too long, not vipaka-result of akusala kamma. > -------- Everyone is so different. In a group of people the temperature might be good for one, not for another. I like the aircon. on low but my friends like it on high. Vipaka citta is by definition caused by kamma; but, as I have mentioned in the past, no citta arises through only one condition and vipaka needs other conditions to act as support for the kamma to produce its result. best wishes robert > -fk > > 13290 From: Date: Wed May 15, 2002 3:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] question for Howard, Erik, and Anders Hi again, Dan - Just one further point about the Mahayana term 'Buddha nature' that I'd like to emphasize. I think it is a notion which, like 'paramattha dhamma' for the Theravadins, is like a snake that must be held properly lest it bite the holder. It is very easy, I believe, for this term to take on substantialist overtones resulting in wrong view. In fact, I believe that such statements as "We are already enlightened", which are seen from time to time in Zen, flow from an erroneous grasping of the notion of 'Buddha nature', though, not being a "Zen man", I may be missing the meaning for the words (as one "misses the forest for the trees"). With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/14/02 8:00:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Hi, Dan - > > In a message dated 5/14/02 7:22:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > dalthorp@o... writes: > > > > What does "Buddha nature" mean? > > > > > ======================== > Better just ask the other guys, Dan! ;-)) I *think* it may just be > the > capacity/potentiality beings have for enlightenment. (It's an okay idea, I > think, so long as one doesn't reify it into some sort of "power" or > "potency", so long as it only means that should X and Y happen, so will Z > happen (just a conditionality). > > 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) 13291 From: Date: Wed May 15, 2002 4:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhaghosa's "Burden of Proof" Hi, TG - In a message dated 5/15/02 12:30:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > > I agree completely Howard. The term I came up with previously was "primary > > states" but the term "fundamental phenomena" is pretty darn much the same > thing. > > But your second point is even more important. And I'll add this... > > There are characteristics, but nothing has its own characteristic. > Characteristics are not non-existent, nor are they existent. > Characteristics > are systematically and continuosly altering into something else. > > TG > ============================= Hmm. I do have some reservations about your final sentence. It's not clear to me exactly what you mean. I don't, for example, see hardness as "becoming" softness. What I see is that while there was hardness, now there is softness. Conditions cease and others arise, all being nothing in-and-of-themselves, merely empty phenomena rolling on. I think that while a discrete/momentary view of dhammas can be a form of substantialism ["momentary reality view"], so can a continuity/transformational view be ["continous reality view"]. 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) 13292 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Wed May 15, 2002 8:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhaghosa's "Burden of Proof" --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., TGrand458@a... wrote: > > There are characteristics, but nothing has its own characteristic. > Characteristics are not non-existent, nor are they existent. Characteristics > are systematically and continuosly altering into something else. > > TG > ____________ Dear TG, I don't think any dhamma can change into something else. This might be of interest: Visuddhimagga (xvii313) "the defining of the individual characteristics of ignorance etc. is called the method of diversity. One who sees this rightly abandons the eternity view by seeing the arising of each new state." best wishes robert 13293 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Wed May 15, 2002 9:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 8 (2) --- Dear Larry, a good summary for the most part. Related to azita's query: "It is impossible (?) for anyone but the > Buddha to tell whether > a vipaka citta is kusala or akusala" Most of the the time it is hard to know whether the sense door experience is from akusala or kusala. However, there are only 2 possibilties and so we can sometimes be fairly sure that say hearing is akusala vipaka (hearing someone speaking out of anger); or a painful experience through the bodysense (akusala vipaka); seeing a piece of shit (akusala vipaka); smelling a foul smell(akusala vipaka), tasting something rotten (akusala vipaka). What we definitely cannot know is the past kamma that conditioned those particular moments; that knowledge is the domain of the Buddha's. best wishes robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., azita gill wrote: > --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Dear group, > > Just a note of clarification regarding akusala > > vipaka citta. This citta > > gets its name, 'akusala', based on its cause, an > > akusala citta rooted in > > lobha/dosa/moha. The vipaka itself is without any > > akusala/kusala > > quality. Hence its designation 'rootless' (ahetuka). > > Akusala citta > > rooted in lobha/dosa/moha (always?) causes a > > rootless citta. Rootless > > cittas cause nothing but may be a contributory > > condition for another > > citta rooted in lobha/dosa/moha or > > alobha/adosa/amoha, which, inturn, > > must (?) cause another vipaka. > > > > An akusala citta will only cause an akusala vipaka > > simply because that > > is how vipaka is named. Sight, sound, smell, taste > > vipaka will have a > > neutral feeling. Body sense vipaka will be pleasant > > or unpleasant > > feeling. It is impossible (?) for anyone but the > > Buddha to tell whether > > a vipaka citta is kusala or akusala. Both kusala and > > akusala _rootless_ > > vipaka cittas have the same qualities. There is also > > a class of kusala > > vipaka citta _with_ roots. This has kusala qualities > > but because it is > > vipaka, it cannot cause another citta. > > > > It can be seen very easily in satipatthana that > > whatever sight, sound, > > taste, smell, or body feeling may arise, it is value > > neutral. Like and > > dislike are lobha and dosa. They may arise in > > response to the vipaka and > > will, in turn, produce another vipaka. We can't > > really see this kamma > > process unfolding. We can recognize cause, and we > > can recognize effect. > > But we cannot put the two together. We have to take > > the Buddha's word > > for it. > > > > Unpleasant body feeling is not necessarily akusala > > vipaka. Kusala citta > > can cause unpleasant body feeling. > > > > Corrections joyously welcomed. > > > > yours in the way, Larry > > > > question: Is kamma unstopable once the cause has > > arisen? > > > > L. > > > > dear Larry, I query that last comment about > "unpleasant body feeling ------cause unpleasant body > feeling" . I can't see how kusala citta can cause > something unpleasant. Can you elaborate please? > > > regarding your question about kamma - I think > it is unstopable - unless you become an arahat - but > you can't do this if the kamma is really heavy, such > as killing mum or dad, harming a Buddha, etc. > > Azita, > > May all beings be happy, > > > > > 13294 From: Date: Wed May 15, 2002 5:44am Subject: A Couple More Thoughts Re: [dsg] Buddhaghosa's "Burden of Proof" Hi again, TG (and Robert) - Let me add a couple more thoughts with regard to this momentariness - continuity dichotomy. It strikes me as a false choice. With regard to the momentariness view, it seems to me that when we assume that there is an instant at which a condition ceases, we are extrapolating from our ordinary macroscopic view of the world. If there were such an instant of cessation, we would have to ask which of the following is true at that instant: (1) The condition holds, (2) The condition does not hold, (3) The condition both holds and does not hold, and (4) The condition neither holds nor does not hold. An examination of these shows that they are all untenable. At the same time, the continuity (or transformational) view is, as discussed before, also faulty. So, what can be truly said? Merely, I think, that there is no evident "instant of cessation", nor is there a continuous deformation, but simply that a condition used to hold, but no longer holds, that being all that it means to say that it ceased. It simply did not remain. To say that a condition is anicca/impermanent is merely to say that it is not permanent, it is not lasting. 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) 13295 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed May 15, 2002 0:12pm Subject: RE: [dsg] attachment to concept Dear Ken O, > -----Original Message----- > From: Kenneth Ong [mailto:ashkenn@y...] > > > Kom > > k: In the first place, in the sutta, there is no mention that concepts > can not be objects of satipatthana. the position that concepts cannot be > objects of satipatthana is in Abhidhamma and not in Sutta. I have not > seen in what Buddha said that only paramattha are objects of satipatthana. > Hence where is the inconsistency. Does Abhidhamma rejects concepts as > objects in Satipatthana and on what basis is the objection derive from? > Is it just because concepts are not paramathas? Then we got to ask, where > does objects derived from? You are right to say that the sutta doesn't appear to explicitly say that concepts cannot be objects of satipatthana. I will give you a list of reasons why saying that only "paramatha" dhammas are objects of satipatthana *may* be a plausible explanation: 1) If something is not even there, then it cannot have impermanence or falling-away as its characteristics 2) Howard coined "concepts" as "mental constructs." Without the repetition of the mind door processes, mental constructs cannot be experienced. All paramatha characteristics are experienced relatively immediately after the brief existence of the object. There are definitely differences when we consider "feelings", as compared to "freedom": what's the difference? One has its conditioned characteristics that can be directly experienced, where the other we have to think a little to understand what it means. One may have a hard time explaining to a person from another culture the concept of freedom, but I am sure one has less problem explaining feelings. 3) A good portion of the teachings in the sutta mention the 5 kandhas, 12 ayatanas, and 18 dhatus, all explained in the commentaries and the abhidhamma as being paramatha realities. 4) There are 84,000 headings in the tipitakas. Over 40,000 are in the abhidhamma. Unless you don't believe in the authenticity of the abhidhamma, then you have to consider why even doubling the volume by extremely intricate and detailed explanation of the "realities" if about half is already enough to allow all beings to understand the essence of the teachings. 5) Of course, we shouldn't stick to book knowledge and our own belief of what the teachings mean. There are realities arising now. What are the differences between experiencing the 5 kandhas and concepts? > > Again, as far as I know, given the complexities of > > conditions that cause the dhamma to arise, no control > > (dhamma arises only because of conditions, and not a single > > agent causing the dhamma to arise) is the best explanation > > of the Buddha teachings. This theory doesn't support random > > arising: if there are no (or not enough) conditions for a > > dhamma to arise, then it cannot arise. If there is, then it > > must arise. This is regardless of the intention of the > > person (since intention is not the *only* dhamma that > > conditions). > > k: I did not said that there is a self that controls. We all know there > is no self that controls but there is a cetasikas (cetana) that control or > you prefer the word condition our actions. This cetasikas is the > controlling factor in our decisions, whether to perform a kusala or > akusala actions. To say that is no control is extremist. Take for > example, while we are driving, if we are able to brake to stop an accident > from happening, are we going to brake or not (vice aside other factors > like wet road). Definitely there is no self that is controlling but there > is a cetasikas that controls our actions. If there is no control, we will > not be reading suttas or Abhidhamma in the first place. > Can we will (or cetana) all the angers (that most people don't like) away? When you say "we all know" there is no self, I interpret this to be that we understand conceptually that there is no self. Despite this understanding, the wrong views of self/mine/me are extremely subtle. It is everywhere. Even when we think we understand, we are still yet searching for the self that we desperately hold on to. My view (conceptual) is that each of the dhamma in quetions are *all* conditioned. You wouldn't be reading or writing to me if the conditions are not perfect that this happens. Plenty of people subscribe, and then leave, DSG. Why did they leave? They don't have the will to persevere through this sort of discussion? Or is it just that they have no accumulations, both past and present, to endure this sort of discussion? By reading the above statments, "you" have already subtly changed due to new accumulations. The kamma that has caused the reading of this right/wrong explanation has already given its results (in seeing, etc.). The accumulations in the past are pushing you to continue reading instead of just hitting the delete key (or hitting the delete key instead of just reading!). The considerations of the dicussions (be in kusala/aksuala) are already being accumulated that surely will condition future similar dhamma to arise when the time comes. There are no single agent that directs. There is only dhamma that will cause vipaka (and other kind of dhammas) in the future (kusala/akusala), vipakas tha are results of the past, and all those functional cittas that are occuring, passing away, all without anyone noticing them. kom 13296 From: onco111 Date: Wed May 15, 2002 1:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] question for Howard, Erik, and Anders I don't know the standard, basic definitions. That's why I'm asking. A friend of mine recently went on a Rinzai retreat and came back with all sorts of words I don't understand at all. Just looking for some help on what the words mean and what kinds of contexts they are used in. Dan > > What does "Buddha nature" mean? > > Hi Dan, > What aspect or perspective are you trying to probe? > I'm guessing you already know the standard > definitions, and there's a specific angle you're > looking for. > > -fk > > 13297 From: onco111 Date: Wed May 15, 2002 2:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] question for Howard, Erik, and Anders Thanks, Howard. I'm trying to look at this without being bitten, i.e. without thinking, "Hmmm... It all sounds like substantialist heresy to me, ya' dang ignurnt infidel!" Should I try to concentrate on noting: "Thinking; thinking; dosa; dosa..." if the above line of thought takes root? WWMD (What Would Mahasi Do?) Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, Dan - > > Just one further point about the Mahayana term 'Buddha nature' that > I'd like to emphasize. I think it is a notion which, like 'paramattha dhamma' > for the Theravadins, is like a snake that must be held properly lest it bite > the holder. It is very easy, I believe, for this term to take on > substantialist overtones resulting in wrong view. In fact, I believe that > such statements as "We are already enlightened", which are seen from time to > time in Zen, flow from an erroneous grasping of the notion of 'Buddha > nature', though, not being a "Zen man", I may be missing the meaning for the > words (as one "misses the forest for the trees"). > > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 5/14/02 8:00:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... > writes: 13298 From: onco111 Date: Wed May 15, 2002 2:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] question for Howard, Erik, and Anders Thanks, Larry. Howard also mentioned that "Buddha nature" could be something like panya (which is somewhat like a suped up sati [Well, not exactly! Hmmm... come to think of it, not even close. But doesn't Rinzai teach us to try not to think? What's that all about anyway? Guess it could be related to the etymology of the word "Zen" (Japanese) < chan (Chinese) < dhyana (Sanskrit) = jhana (Pali)]. Is buddha nature the second jhana and beyond? Or is it the jhana that takes characteristics as object [paramattha dhammas] rather than "objects" as object [kasina]). You are right about "buddha nature" = "nibbana" as inscrutable -- leastwise to me anyway. Dan > Hi Dan, I'll bite. I think this question could also be phrased "what > does 'buddha' mean?" To me it means sati; more inscrutably, it could > mean nibbana. > > Larry 13299 From: Date: Wed May 15, 2002 4:14pm Subject: ADL ch. 8 (3) http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 8 (3) The feeling arising with the body-consciousness which experiences an impression through the body-sense cannot be indifferent; it arises either with bodily painful feeling or with bodily pleasant feeling. When an unpleasant bodily impression is experienced the feeling which accompanies the body-consciousness is dukkha-vedana (bodily painful feeling). When a pleasant bodily impression is experienced the feeling which accompanies the body-consciousness is sukha-vedana (bodily pleasant feeling). Bodily unpleasant feeling and bodily pleasant feeling are nama which can arise only with the body-consciousness which experiences an object through the body-sense. Both bodily feeling and mental feeling are nama, but they arise because of different conditions and at different moments. For example, we may have bodily pleasant feeling when we are in comfortable surroundings, but in spite of that, we may still be worried and also have moments of mental unpleasant feeling; these feelings arise at different moments. Bodily pleasant feeling is the result of kusala kamma. The mental unpleasant feeling which arises when we are unhappy is conditioned by our accumulation of dosa (aversion); it is akusala. The whole day there are impressions received through the body-sense, which is a kind of rupa. Bodily impressions can be received all over the body and thus the door of the body-sense can be at any place of the body. Whenever we touch hard or soft objects, when cold or heat contacts the body, and when we move, bend or stretch, there are unpleasant or pleasant impressions received through the body-sense. One may wonder whether at each moment there is a bodily impression, bodily pleasant or bodily unpleasant feeling arises. One may notice the coarse bodily feelings, but not the subtle bodily feelings. For example, when something is a little too hard, too cold or too hot, there is dukkha-vedana (bodily painful feeling) arising with the body consciousness which experiences the object through the body-sense. One may not notice the subtle bodily feelings if one has not learned to be aware of realities. The arahat, when he experiences an unpleasant impression or a pleasant impression through the body-sense, only has bodily unpleasant feeling or bodily pleasant feeling arising with the body-consciousness. He has no akusala cittas or kusala cittas after the vipakacitta; he has kiriyacittas ('inoperative' cittas). The deeds which the arahat performs are neither kusala nor akusala. So he will not be born again. We read in the 'Kindred Sayings' (IV, Salayatana-vagga, Kindred Sayings about Feeling, Book I, par.6) that the Buddha said to the monks: 'The untaught manyfolk, monks, feels feeling that is pleasant, feeling that is painful and feeling that is neutral. The well-taught Ariyan disciple, monks, feels the same three feelings. ' Now herein, monks, what is the distinction, what is the specific feature, what is the difference between the well-taught Ariyan disciple and the untaught manyfolk?' 'For us, lord, things are rooted in the Exalted One....' 'The untaught manyfolk, monks, being touched by feeling that is painful, weeps and wails, cries aloud, knocks the breast, falls into utter bewilderment. For he feels a twofold feeling, bodily and mental ... Touched by that painful feeling he feels repugnance for it. Feeling that repugnance for the painful feeling, the lurking tendency to repugnance fastens on him. Touched by the painful feeling, he delights in pleasant feeling. Why so? The untaught manyfolk, monks, knows of no refuge from painful feeling save sensual pleasure. Delighting in that sensual pleasure, the lurking tendency to sensual pleasure fastens on him....' Is this not real life? Touched by painful feeling, we delight in pleasant feeling; we believe that pleasant feeling is real happiness. we do not see life as it really is: dukkha. We wish to close our eyes to sickness, old age and death, to 'lamentation and despair', to the impermanence of all conditioned realities. We expect happiness in life and when we have to suffer we think that pleasant feeling might cure us of suffering and we cling to it. In the Buddha's teaching of the 'Dependent Origination' it is said that feeling conditions craving. Not only pleasant feeling and indifferent feeling condition craving, also painful feeling conditions craving, since one wishes to be liberated from painful feeling. Furthermore we read in the sutta: '....If he feels feeling that is pleasant, he feels it as one in bondage. If he feels feeling that is painful, he feels it as one in bondage. If he feels feeling that is neutral, he feels it as one in bondage. This untaught manyfolk, monks, is called 'in bondage to birth, death, sorrow and grief, woe, lamentation and despair. He is in bondage to dukkha. So I declare. But, monks, the well-taught Ariyan disciple, when touched by painful feeling, weeps not, wails not, cries not aloud, knocks not the breast, falls not into utter bewilderment. He feels but one feeling, the bodily, not the mental... If he feels a feeling that is pleasant, he feels it as one freed from bondage. If he feels a feeling that is painful, he feels it as one that is freed from bondage. If he feels a neutral feeling, he feels it as one that is freed from bondage. This well-taught Ariyan disciple, monks, is called 'freed from the bondage of birth, old age, from sorrow and grief, from woe, lamentation and despair, freed from the bondage of dukkha.' So I declare....' 13300 From: Date: Wed May 15, 2002 1:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhaghosa's "Burden of Proof" In a message dated 05/15/2002 8:41:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: << Hmm. I do have some reservations about your final sentence. It's not clear to me exactly what you mean. I don't, for example, see hardness as "becoming" softness. What I see is that while there was hardness, now there is softness. Conditions cease and others arise, all being nothing in-and-of-themselves, merely empty phenomena rolling on. I think that while a discrete/momentary view of dhammas can be a form of substantialism ["momentary reality view"], so can a continuity/transformational view be ["continous reality view"]. With metta, Howard >> Interesting points Robert and Howard. I will continue to think about it. However, my current understanding is that phenomena are "positionally moved/altered" by contact with other phenomena. This positional movement/alteration is impermanence. <> There was hardness, now there is softness? Why? There must be a cause. <> This first part of this statement will not accord to the law of dependent origination as I understand it... This being, that is With the arising of this, that arises This not being, that is not With the ceasing of this, that ceases. <> I do believe primary states are real. However, due to Dependent Arising, they are impermanent, sorrowful (to become attached to), and no-self. I do see it as a chain of causal alteration. So If the last part of this statement infers that "continuity/transformational view" is akin to "self view", I'd be on the opposite end of that opinion. But its all good stuff to think about. Take care. TG 13301 From: Date: Wed May 15, 2002 1:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhaghosa's "Burden of Proof" In a message dated 05/15/2002 8:51:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: << -- In dhammastudygroup@y..., TGrand458@a... wrote: > > There are characteristics, but nothing has its own characteristic. > Characteristics are not non-existent, nor are they existent. Characteristics > are systematically and continuosly altering into something else. > > TG > ____________ Dear TG, I don't think any dhamma can change into something else. This might be of interest: Visuddhimagga (xvii313) "the defining of the individual characteristics of ignorance etc. is called the method of diversity. One who sees this rightly abandons the eternity view by seeing the arising of each new state." best wishes robert >> Hi Robert The key phrase here I think is "...systematically and continuously altering into something else." They change because they are part of a "system" of dependent arising. States do not arise or cease by themselves. They are conditioned by the "conglomeration of forces impacting them." They arise and cease due to forces. The states "themselves" are the forces and the common denominator might be considered the Four Great Elements. The Four Great Elements is the dynamic engine that propells conditionality along IMO. The Four Great Elements are completely selfless and dependent (on each other) as well. I'm afraid I haven't heard the last of this. LOL TG 13302 From: Date: Wed May 15, 2002 6:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 8 (2) Dear Azita, You are correct. Painful body vipaka citta is akusala vipaka and pleasant body feeling vipaka is kusala vipaka. I just assumed that body was the same as eye, ear, nose and tongue regardless of the pleasant/unpleasant feeling. There is no difference between kusala and akusala vipaka eye, ear, nose, and tongue. It should also be pointed out that painful body vipaka is rootless, as is pleasant body vipaka. This rootless quality is what I would call a neutral value, i.e., neither kusala nor akusala, even though there is kusala or akusala cause. So the painful or pleasant body feeling is neither wholesome nor unwholesome. Basically it doesn't matter what the cause was. I guess there are no evil consequences to evil cittas. This is a very surprising way to regard kamma. So I don't quite know what to make of it. I think I'll have to put this one on the shelf and let it sit for awhile. Below is a quote from "A Comprehensive Manual Of Abhidhamma" that bears on this issue. Larry CMA ch. 1, guide to #8 Unwholesome-resultant conscousness (akusalavipakacittani): The first category of rootless consciousness comprises the seven types of consciousness that result from unwholesome kamma. These types of consciousness are not themselves unwholesome but kammically indeterminate (abyakata). The word "unwholesome" (akusala) here means that they are resultants produced by unwholesome kamma; the word qualifies, not these states of consciousness themselves, but the kamma from which they are born. 13303 From: Date: Wed May 15, 2002 6:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 8 (2) Hi Robert, I think we need more info on how kamma works. I don't see how kamma leads to dukkha. Paticcasamupadda is not kamma. Correct? Larry 13304 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Wed May 15, 2002 7:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 8 (2) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Robert, > > I think we need more info on how kamma works. I don't see how kamma > leads to dukkha. Paticcasamupadda is not kamma. Correct? > > Larry _____ Dear Larry, The paticcasamuppada includes kamma(cause) and vipaka(result): An aspect of the Paticcasamuppada is the three rounds : kamma-vatta(action), vipaka-vatta(result) and kilesa-vatta (defilements ). These three cover all 12 links of the Paticcasamuppada. Kilesa vatta consists of avijja(ignorance), tanha(desire), and upadana (grasping). Kamma vatta consists of sankhara (formations)and kamma-bhava. Vipaka vatta connsists of vinnana (consciousness), nama-rupa, salayatana (six bases), phassa (contact), vedana(feeling), jati (birth), upapatti-bhava, jara-marana (decay and death). The actual moments of experience through the doorways (seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling) are vipaka (result) but because of defilement(kilesa) arises kamma. These rounds are all spinning now, continually, as they always have in samsara. The three rounds are all conditioned and closely related. Someone sees an expensive car: that is the concept. What actually happens is visible object conditions seeing consciousness (vipaka). Because kilesa (avijja and lobha)the root cause are not eliminated they may condition kamma (such as working extra hard to get money - or maybe even stealing the car). In the future that kamma will bring a suitable result (vipaka vatta)... and so the round goes on and on...But no self anywhere. Of course the example above is just to give a broad idea. In fact kilesa vatta and kamma vatta can be considered to be occuring also in the same moment - it depends in what ways we are considering it. That is why paticcasamupadda is so deep and hard to understand. Your comments in an earlier post - where you thought that there was no evil result- are not quite right. Every vipaka citta is result of kamma. And that result is because of kusala or akusala kamma done in the near or distant past. Akusala kamma by its nature can only condition vipaka which is anittham, amanapam, akanatum (unpleasant, undesired, disagreeable) and kusala kamma can only produce result (vipaka) which is the agreeable. This letter has some more info: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m8010.html best wishes robert 13305 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Wed May 15, 2002 7:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhaghosa's "Burden of Proof" --- >>- In dhammastudygroup@y..., TGrand458@a... wrote: > > There are characteristics, but nothing has its own > characteristic. > > Characteristics are not non-existent, nor are they existent. > Characteristics > > are systematically and continuosly altering into something else. > > TG ____________ > Dear TG, > I don't think any dhamma can change into something else. This might > be of interest: Visuddhimagga (xvii313) "the defining of the > individual characteristics of ignorance etc. is called the method of > diversity. One who sees this rightly abandons the eternity view by > seeing the arising of each new state." > robert > >> >________________ > Hi Robert > The key phrase here I think is "...systematically and continuously altering > into something else." They change because they are part of a "system" of > dependent arising. States do not arise or cease by themselves. They are > conditioned by the "conglomeration of forces impacting them." They arise and > cease due to forces. The states "themselves" are the forces and the common > denominator might be considered the Four Great Elements. The Four Great > Elements is the dynamic engine that propells conditionality along IMO. The > Four Great Elements are completely selfless and dependent (on each other) as > well. > I'm afraid I haven't heard the last of this. LOL TG _____ Dear TG, No, I'm afraid you haven't ;). The four great elements are rupa and are not at all the powerhouse of paticcasamuppada. They do condition each other and nama -but in limited ways (see Conditions, Nina van Gokom). The dynamic engine of paticcasamuppada is avijja and tanha (ignorance and craving)and these are nama (mentality) not rupa. You might be interested in this earlier conversation with Howard that relates to Paticcasamuppada. , > robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: >> I think it is hard to accept -but nevertheless true - that there is > > nothing at all in this samsara that does not vanish . What is more it > > vanishes as soon as it appears, faster than we could imagine. > > However, because phenomena including 'knowing' (citta,vinnnana, mano > > consciousness)are immediately replaced with no gap between it seems > > that the knowing does not fall away. Citta is the chief in knowing . > > > > > ========================= > Howard: Just one point: Under the assumption that there are, indeed, no gaps, > there is a *sense* in which it could be validly said that the function of > consciousness is continuous - changing, but continuous. For what would > 'continuous' mean other than there being no gaps? (Just a point.) > > With metta, > Howard ________> Ha ha. Yes in that sense consciousness is continuous. But it is always a different consciousness, formed by different , although sometimes similar, conditions. The Buddha compared consciousness to fire: the fire that burned dependent on sticks, the one that burned dependent on dried dung, the one that burned dependent on oil,.. Different fires but still having the same characteristic of fire; in the same way he said seeing-consciousness is different from hearing consciosness is different from smelling .....But still all having the same charactersitic of knowing. It is because of continuity and because the different consciousness's have the same general nature that we take it as lasting and 'mine'. The Visuddhimagga(XV3) "The characteristic of impermanence does not become apparent because when rise and fall are not given attention it is concealed by continuity"..However when continuity is disrupted by discerning rise and fall the characterisitic of impermanence becomes apparent in its true nature" kind regards robert 13306 From: manji Date: Wed May 15, 2002 7:27pm Subject: RE: [dsg] question for Howard, Erik, and Anders Dan, Being in the Japanese and Chinese martial arts, and as Buddhist, Ch'an (Zen) is considered a transmission outside of orthodox methods. Penetrating dhamma with meditative calm and lightening quick lightness, pliancy, wieldiness and proficiency of dhamma. All arising with wisdom, so on to non-delusion. Sound familiar? Sobhana Cetasika :) Some background information on the very beginning of Ch'an/Zen, from /The Gateless Gate/. ( http://www.ibiblio.org/zen/cgi-bin/koan-index.pl ) ====================== Buddha Twirls a Flower When Buddha was in Grdhrakuta mountain he turned a flower in his fingers and held in before his listeners. Every one was silent. Only Maha-Kashapa smiled at this revelation, although he tried to control the lines of his face. Buddha said: `I have the eye of the true teaching, the heart of Nirvana, the true aspect of non-form, and the ineffable stride of Dharma. It is not expressed by words, but especially transmitted beyond teaching. This teaching I have given to Maha-Kashapa.' Mumon's Comment: Golden-faced Guatama thought he could cheat anyone. He made the good listeners as bad, and sold dog meat under the sign of mutton. And he himself thought it was wonderful. What if all the audience had laughed together? How could he have transmitted the teaching? And again, if Maha-Kashapa had not smiled, how could he have transmitted the teaching? If he says that realization can be transmitted, he is like the city slicker that cheats the country dub, and if he says it cannot be transmitted, why does he approve of Maha-Kashapa? /At the turning of a flower/ /His diguise was exposed./ /No one is heaven or earth can surpass/ /Maha-Kashapa's wrinkled face./ ===================== A common test and practice of students in zen is a koan, a case in which the mind is readily engaged, much like that of any daily living event. Koans come from a root word which refers to a signpost that was located in a center of a town that had a rule or law posted. Therefore koans, are much the same, a universal rule or law is presented, but in actuality it is merely a case of concepts which link up to the dhammas which they represent. The mind, when taking this image, is conditioned to relive the dhammas in the image. Basically concepts, much like abhi-dhamma, point to the realities. There is such intense concentration developed that that sanna/chanda bring up the real dhamma from a mere concept, this is abhi-dhamma power also. The words are "right-up-to" the dhamma. "Like a finger pointing to the moon." This mere linking up with the dhamma is not enough; sati must arise at every moment. This then results in wisdom arising, and thus like lightening there is penetrating the essence of the koan. Remember I said koans can be a test, the teacher may receive a response to the koan from the student. This response can be tied up and bound in kamma, doubt, and much akusala or the response can be mostly vipaka. So the student may have a spontaneous answer, but there is one more test, does the response arise with wisdom. To penetrate a koan, there must both be spontaneity and wisdom arising with a response. It seems, from experience that ch'an/zen transmission carries direct perception of dhammas. At the beginning, perhaps not for what they really are, but it sets the seas into motion, like a stone thrown into still water, instead of getting bogged down and freezing the dhamma (into concepts) with ignorance, attachment and aversion. Then after experiencing this directly, there can a solid foundation from which the eightfold path arises. This might ring of esoteric branches of Buddhism, in Japan, these schools are considered Mikkyo. Where there is emphasis on tantra and wisdom of kamma, and specifically the process of "thought - word - deed". Well, perhaps this helped, You wouldn't stand and sit at the road sign that said "Chicago 35 miles". You'd keep moving. No freezing dhamma. ;) So this leads to Dzogchen, hehehe. Bye bye. -manji- > -----Original Message----- > From: onco111 [mailto:dalthorp@o...] > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:47 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] question for Howard, Erik, and Anders > > I don't know the standard, basic definitions. That's why I'm asking. A > friend of mine recently went on a Rinzai retreat and came back with > all sorts of words I don't understand at all. Just looking for some > help on what the words mean and what kinds of contexts they are used > in. > > Dan > > > > What does "Buddha nature" mean? > > > > Hi Dan, > > What aspect or perspective are you trying to probe? > > I'm guessing you already know the standard > > definitions, and there's a specific angle you're > > looking for. > > > > -fk 13307 From: Date: Wed May 15, 2002 3:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhaghosa's "Burden of Proof" In a message dated 5/15/2002 7:23:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > Dear TG, > No, I'm afraid you haven't ;). > The four great elements are rupa and are not at all the powerhouse of > paticcasamuppada. They do condition each other and nama -but in > limited ways (see Conditions, Nina van Gokom). > The dynamic engine of paticcasamuppada is avijja and tanha (ignorance > and craving)and these are nama (mentality) not rupa. > 13308 From: Date: Wed May 15, 2002 3:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhaghosa's "Burden of Proof" Ignore that last LOL Pulled the trigger to fast. ;) 13309 From: Date: Wed May 15, 2002 4:48pm Subject: 4 Great Elements and Dependent Arising In a message dated 5/15/2002 7:23:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > Dear TG, > No, I'm afraid you haven't ;). > The four great elements are rupa and are not at all the powerhouse of > paticcasamuppada. They do condition each other and nama -but in > limited ways (see Conditions, Nina van Gokom). > The dynamic engine of paticcasamuppada is avijja and tanha (ignorance > and craving)and these are nama (mentality) not rupa. > You might be interested in this earlier conversation with Howard that > relates to Paticcasamuppada. Hi Robert. Yes, this is the 12 fold chain of Dependent Arising that explains the arising and ceasing of sentient beings. However, the "principle" of Dependent Arising applies to all conditioned things, animate or inanimate. And that's what I was referring to previously. The "principle" being... This being, that is With the arising of this, that arises This not being, that is not With the ceasing of this, that ceases. This will probabIy provoke more controversy but I believe mentality is an outgrowth of the 4 Great Elements...certainly a unique and complex outgrowth, yet I believe it is physical laws and positional movement that result in the energies we call mentality. Just as when the 4 Great Elements come together to generate nuclear fusion (a star)...and although the vast majority of space is not filled with stars, yet when the right conditions arise, a star arises: so too, under the appropriate causal conditions, mentality will arise. The "star system"generates electromagnetic radiation, the "mind system" generates mental states. Both are illuminating in "their own" unique way due to the causal forces that lead to those outgrowths. (Of course mind and body are interrelated/inter-generating but I'm not trying to get that technical.) The 4 Great Elements are dynamic forces that diversify into various formations due to the "principle" of Dependent Arising. I think its important to spend a good deal of time considering what the 4 Great Elements really do. I think there is a tendency to think they are relatively easy to understand. They may be one of the hardest things to understand. Anyway, something to think about unless its summarily rejected. ;-) Take care and keep happy. TG 13310 From: Date: Wed May 15, 2002 5:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Great Elements and Dependent Arising Hi, TG - In a message dated 5/15/02 11:51:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > > In a message dated 5/15/2002 7:23:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > > > > Dear TG, > > No, I'm afraid you haven't ;). > > The four great elements are rupa and are not at all the powerhouse of > > paticcasamuppada. They do condition each other and nama -but in > > limited ways (see Conditions, Nina van Gokom). > > The dynamic engine of paticcasamuppada is avijja and tanha (ignorance > > and craving)and these are nama (mentality) not rupa. > > You might be interested in this earlier conversation with Howard that > > relates to Paticcasamuppada. > > > Hi Robert. > Yes, this is the 12 fold chain of Dependent Arising that explains the > arising > and ceasing of sentient beings. However, the "principle" of Dependent > Arising applies to all conditioned things, animate or inanimate. And > that's > what I was referring to previously. The "principle" being... > > This being, that is > With the arising of this, that arises > This not being, that is not > With the ceasing of this, that ceases. > > This will probabIy provoke more controversy but I believe mentality is an > outgrowth of the 4 Great Elements...certainly a unique and complex > outgrowth, > yet I believe it is physical laws and positional movement that result in > the > energies we call mentality. Just as when the 4 Great Elements come > together > to generate nuclear fusion (a star)...and although the vast majority of > space > is not filled with stars, yet when the right conditions arise, a star > arises: > so too, under the appropriate causal conditions, mentality will arise. The > > "star system"generates electromagnetic radiation, the "mind system" > generates > mental states. Both are illuminating in "their own" unique way due to the > causal forces that lead to those outgrowths. (Of course mind and body are > interrelated/inter-generating but I'm not trying to get that technical.) > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I don't know about controversy, but, just for the record, since we do agree on much, let me just mention that this is not one of them! ;-)) --------------------------------------------------------- > > The 4 Great Elements are dynamic forces that diversify into various > formations due to the "principle" of Dependent Arising. I think its > important to spend a good deal of time considering what the 4 Great > Elements > really do. I think there is a tendency to think they are relatively easy > to > understand. They may be one of the hardest things to understand. > > Anyway, something to think about unless its summarily rejected. ;-) > > Take care and keep happy. TG > > ============================ 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) 13311 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 15, 2002 10:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga, Larry, TG and Num. Hi Larry, I would certainly encourage anyone to put SN on top of the list (I like BB's translation best, esp, as it has some extra commentary notes at the back and the Wisdom pub. I have, is beautifully presented. I'll be interested to join the PSM (patisambhidamagga) corner too.If anyone wishes to get a copy, it is published by PTS as 'The Path of Discrimination'. It's a good idea Nina and TG gave to add a few notes at the back with the help at the glossary (a kind of reverse engineering) so as to u'stand what some of the translations are referring to. I hope Howard joins in too, just to make sure we don't get too 'cosy';-) Num moves to Bkk in early June after a few days with Kom and the Bay Area discussion group....(Kom or Num, pls give us a report!). He suggests Nina has 'divine eyes' as she knows rightly he's packing and I suggest Num and Kom have a few special powers as they seem to have already read PSM, Survey and Cetasikas by a telephone fast scan method;-) I expect he may get back to you on the medical rootless bodily feeling after the removal co have been at the w'end and he only has his suitcase to worry about. Anyway, I have to get ready myself for class and then the w'end in Bkk (Wesak in HK) leaving early tomorrow. Meanwhile I also hear SE QLD DSG is having its first informal meeting;-) (hope to hear about it, Azita and Chris) Sarah ====== --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Nina, thanks for this interesting piece of research. I think the next > book I get is going to be the Samyutta Nikaya >but I would be very > interested in any discussions you and Num and TG would have on > Patisambhidamagga, particularly with input from A Sujin. When is Num > going to be settled? I had a medical question that relates to rootless > body feeling. > > Larry 13312 From: Jaran Jainhuknan Date: Thu May 16, 2002 2:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Digest Number 918 Hi Sarah: What is SE QLD? Thanks, jaran > Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 13:59:55 +0800 (CST) > From: Sarah > Subject: Re: Patisambhidamagga, Larry, TG and Num. > > Anyway, I have to get ready myself for class and then the w'end in Bkk > (Wesak in HK) leaving early tomorrow. Meanwhile I also hear SE QLD DSG is > having its first informal meeting;-) (hope to hear about it, Azita and > Chris) > > Sarah 13313 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu May 16, 2002 2:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Digest Number 918 Hi Jaran, SE QLD means 'South East Queensland'. Azita is down from Cairns on holiday in Maleny - a couple of hours drive north of Brisbane. She and I (plus SarahF) are meeting for Dhamma discussions overlunch on Sunday, which I am very much looking forward to. :-) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Jaran Jainhuknan" wrote: > Hi Sarah: > > What is SE QLD? > > Thanks, > jaran > > Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 13:59:55 +0800 (CST) > > From: Sarah > > Subject: Re: Patisambhidamagga, Larry, TG and Num. > > > > Anyway, I have to get ready myself for class and then the w'end > in Bkk > > (Wesak in HK) leaving early tomorrow. Meanwhile I also hear SE > QLD DSG is > > having its first informal meeting;-) (hope to hear about it, > Azita and > > Chris) > > > > Sarah 13314 From: onco111 Date: Thu May 16, 2002 3:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] question for Howard, Erik, and Anders Thanks, Manji. ...definitely something to chew on. Thanks. This is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. More comments later... Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "manji" wrote: > Dan, > > Being in the Japanese and Chinese martial arts, and as Buddhist, Ch'an > (Zen) is considered a transmission outside of orthodox methods. > Penetrating dhamma with meditative calm and lightening quick lightness, > pliancy, wieldiness and proficiency of dhamma. All arising with wisdom, > so on to non-delusion. Sound familiar? Sobhana Cetasika :) > > Some background information on the very beginning of Ch'an/Zen, from > /The Gateless Gate/. ( http://www.ibiblio.org/zen/cgi-bin/koan- index.pl > ) > > ====================== > Buddha Twirls a Flower > > When Buddha was in Grdhrakuta mountain he turned a flower in his fingers > and held in before his listeners. Every one was silent. Only > Maha-Kashapa smiled at this revelation, although he tried to control the > lines of his face. > Buddha said: `I have the eye of the true teaching, the heart of Nirvana, > the true aspect of non-form, and the ineffable stride of Dharma. It is > not expressed by words, but especially transmitted beyond teaching. This > teaching I have given to Maha-Kashapa.' > > Mumon's Comment: Golden-faced Guatama thought he could cheat anyone. He > made the good listeners as bad, and sold dog meat under the sign of > mutton. And he himself thought it was wonderful. What if all the > audience had laughed together? How could he have transmitted the > teaching? And again, if Maha-Kashapa had not smiled, how could he have > transmitted the teaching? If he says that realization can be > transmitted, he is like the city slicker that cheats the country dub, > and if he says it cannot be transmitted, why does he approve of > Maha-Kashapa? > > /At the turning of a flower/ > /His diguise was exposed./ > /No one is heaven or earth can surpass/ > /Maha-Kashapa's wrinkled face./ > ===================== > > A common test and practice of students in zen is a koan, a case in which > the mind is readily engaged, much like that of any daily living event. > Koans come from a root word which refers to a signpost that was located > in a center of a town that had a rule or law posted. > > Therefore koans, are much the same, a universal rule or law is > presented, but in actuality it is merely a case of concepts which link > up to the dhammas which they represent. > > The mind, when taking this image, is conditioned to relive the dhammas > in the image. Basically concepts, much like abhi-dhamma, point to the > realities. There is such intense concentration developed that that > sanna/chanda bring up the real dhamma from a mere concept, this is > abhi-dhamma power also. The words are "right-up-to" the dhamma. > > "Like a finger pointing to the moon." > > This mere linking up with the dhamma is not enough; sati must arise at > every moment. This then results in wisdom arising, and thus like > lightening there is penetrating the essence of the koan. > > Remember I said koans can be a test, the teacher may receive a response > to the koan from the student. This response can be tied up and bound in > kamma, doubt, and much akusala or the response can be mostly vipaka. So > the student may have a spontaneous answer, but there is one more test, > does the response arise with wisdom. To penetrate a koan, there must > both be spontaneity and wisdom arising with a response. > > It seems, from experience that ch'an/zen transmission carries direct > perception of dhammas. At the beginning, perhaps not for what they > really are, but it sets the seas into motion, like a stone thrown into > still water, instead of getting bogged down and freezing the dhamma > (into concepts) with ignorance, attachment and aversion. Then after > experiencing this directly, there can a solid foundation from which the > eightfold path arises. > > This might ring of esoteric branches of Buddhism, in Japan, these > schools are considered Mikkyo. Where there is emphasis on tantra and > wisdom of kamma, and specifically the process of "thought - word - > deed". > > Well, perhaps this helped, > You wouldn't stand and sit at the road sign that said "Chicago 35 > miles". You'd keep moving. No freezing dhamma. ;) So this leads to > Dzogchen, hehehe. > > Bye bye. > > -manji- > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: onco111 [mailto:dalthorp@o...] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:47 PM > > To: dhammastudygroup@y... > > Subject: Re: [dsg] question for Howard, Erik, and Anders > > > > I don't know the standard, basic definitions. That's why I'm asking. A > > friend of mine recently went on a Rinzai retreat and came back with > > all sorts of words I don't understand at all. Just looking for some > > help on what the words mean and what kinds of contexts they are used > > in. > > > > Dan > > > > > > What does "Buddha nature" mean? > > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > What aspect or perspective are you trying to probe? > > > I'm guessing you already know the standard > > > definitions, and there's a specific angle you're > > > looking for. > > > > > > -fk 13315 From: Date: Wed May 15, 2002 11:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga, Larry, TG and Num. Hi, Sarah (and Larry, TG, num, and all) - I would also be very interested in joining an extended online study of the PSM, provided that we take it slowly, step by step, and with gentle explanation of Pali terms introduced in the discussion (for Pali-challenged folks such as me). With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/16/02 2:01:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Hi Larry, > > I would certainly encourage anyone to put SN on top of the list (I like > BB's translation best, esp, as it has some extra commentary notes at the > back and the Wisdom pub. I have, is beautifully presented. > > I'll be interested to join the PSM (patisambhidamagga) corner too.If > anyone wishes to get a copy, it is published by PTS as 'The Path of > Discrimination'. It's a good idea Nina and TG gave to add a few notes at > the back with the help at the glossary (a kind of reverse engineering) so > as to u'stand what some of the translations are referring to. I hope > Howard joins in too, just to make sure we don't get too 'cosy';-) > > Num moves to Bkk in early June after a few days with Kom and the Bay Area > discussion group....(Kom or Num, pls give us a report!). He suggests Nina > has 'divine eyes' as she knows rightly he's packing and I suggest Num and > Kom have a few special powers as they seem to have already read PSM, > Survey and Cetasikas by a telephone fast scan method;-) > > I expect he may get back to you on the medical rootless bodily feeling > after the removal co have been at the w'end and he only has his suitcase > to worry about. > > Anyway, I have to get ready myself for class and then the w'end in Bkk > (Wesak in HK) leaving early tomorrow. Meanwhile I also hear SE QLD DSG is > having its first informal meeting;-) (hope to hear about it, Azita and > Chris) > > Sarah > ====== > > --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Nina, thanks for this interesting piece > of research. I think the next > > book I get is going to be the Samyutta Nikaya > >but I would be very > > interested in any discussions you and Num and TG would have on > > Patisambhidamagga, particularly with input from A Sujin. When is Num > > going to be settled? I had a medical question that relates to rootless > > body feeling. > > > > Larry /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13316 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Thu May 16, 2002 5:22am Subject: Re: 4 Great Elements and Dependent Arising --- Dear TG, Glad you brought up these ideas as a discussion forum should be a place where we show our thinking and help each other understand further aspects. Your views seem somewhat materialistic and possibly influenced by scientific ideas about nature and the world. This is fine, of course, but not, I believe, what the Buddha taught. I don't think we can really apply Paticcasamuppada to inanimate objects. Consider the twelve links: avijja(ignorance), tanha (desire), upadana (grasping)sankhara (formations) kamma-bhava. vinnana (consciousness), nama-rupa, salayatana (six bases), phassa (contact), vedana(feeling), jati (birth), upapatti-bhava, jara-marana (decay and death). Inanimate objects are void of any avijja(ignorance), tanha(desire), upadana (grasping)sankhara (formations) kamma-bhava. vinnana (consciousness), phassa (contact), vedana(feeling). best wishes robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., TGrand458@a... wrote: > In a message dated 5/15/2002 7:23:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > > > > Dear TG, > > No, I'm afraid you haven't ;). > > The four great elements are rupa and are not at all the powerhouse of > > paticcasamuppada. They do condition each other and nama -but in > > limited ways (see Conditions, Nina van Gokom). > > The dynamic engine of paticcasamuppada is avijja and tanha (ignorance > > and craving)and these are nama (mentality) not rupa. > > You might be interested in this earlier conversation with Howard that > > relates to Paticcasamuppada. > > > Hi Robert. > Yes, this is the 12 fold chain of Dependent Arising that explains the arising > and ceasing of sentient beings. However, the "principle" of Dependent > Arising applies to all conditioned things, animate or inanimate. And that's > what I was referring to previously. The "principle" being... > > This being, that is > With the arising of this, that arises > This not being, that is not > With the ceasing of this, that ceases. > > This will probabIy provoke more controversy but I believe mentality is an > outgrowth of the 4 Great Elements...certainly a unique and complex outgrowth, > yet I believe it is physical laws and positional movement that result in the > energies we call mentality. Just as when the 4 Great Elements come together > to generate nuclear fusion (a star)...and although the vast majority of space > is not filled with stars, yet when the right conditions arise, a star arises: > so too, under the appropriate causal conditions, mentality will arise. The > "star system"generates electromagnetic radiation, the "mind system" generates > mental states. Both are illuminating in "their own" unique way due to the > causal forces that lead to those outgrowths. (Of course mind and body are > interrelated/inter-generating but I'm not trying to get that technical.) > > The 4 Great Elements are dynamic forces that diversify into various > formations due to the "principle" of Dependent Arising. I think its > important to spend a good deal of time considering what the 4 Great Elements > really do. I think there is a tendency to think they are relatively easy to > understand. They may be one of the hardest things to understand. > > Anyway, something to think about unless its summarily rejected. ;- ) > > Take care and keep happy. TG 13317 From: Date: Thu May 16, 2002 2:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 4 Great Elements and Dependent Arising Hi, Robert (and TG) - In a message dated 5/16/02 8:23:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > I don't think we can really apply Paticcasamuppada to inanimate > objects. Consider the twelve links: avijja(ignorance), tanha > (desire), upadana (grasping)sankhara (formations) kamma-bhava. > vinnana (consciousness), nama-rupa, > salayatana (six bases), phassa (contact), vedana(feeling), jati > (birth), upapatti-bhava, jara-marana (decay and death). > Inanimate objects are void of any avijja(ignorance), > tanha(desire), upadana (grasping)sankhara (formations) kamma-bhava. > vinnana (consciousness), phassa (contact), vedana(feeling). > =========================== I think that TG wasn't referring to the 12-linked, specific application of dependent arising pertaining to the arising of suffering, but rather to the general formulation of conditionality somewhat along the lines of "When this is, that is; when this arises, that arises". I do agree, however, that TG's formulation appears to be materialistic, whereas my view of the Dhamma considers it to be an instance of the genus "phenomenalism", being experientially oriented, with rupas not being independent material entities and events, but rather existing/occurring *as* elements of sentient experience of the material sort. So, for example, from this perspective, there is no hardness other than as a possible element of experience. Thus, when we say that "The table is hard", all that this actually means, from this phenomenalist perspective, is that should that complex pattern of experiential events that we usually describe as "touching the table" occur, then there will arise the experience of hardness. So, I'm talking here about conditionality as regards the arising of "experiential events of rupic type", rather than as regards allegedly existing external material objects. Phenomenalism in general, except in its most radical form, the form to which I actually subscribe ;-), doesn't presume that there is no realm of independent physicality underlying material experience, but only that such a realm is, in principle, at best inferable, and not directly knowable (since all that we can actually know is experience, itself), and hence, pragmatically, can be ignored. With regard to this, I provide the following quotation: ********************************** The central idea of phenomenalism is well put in this passage from Poincare (with a dash of positivism) (1914, p. 14):[A] reality completely independent of the mind which conceives it, sees or feels it, is an impossibility. A world as exterior as that, even if it existed, would for us be forever inaccessible. But what we call objective reality is, in the last analysis, what is common to many thinking beings, and could be common to us all; this common part, we shall see, can only be the harmony expressed by mathematical laws. It is this harmony then which is the sole objective reality, the only truth we can obtain. Poincare, H. (1914) The value of science. New York: Dover, 1958. **************************** 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) 13318 From: manji Date: Thu May 16, 2002 6:44am Subject: RE: [dsg] 4 Great Elements and Dependent Arising TG, I would suggest /Abhidhamma in Daily life/, pgs. 13-14, along with /Concepts and Realities/. ========== There is "Dependent Origination" as a concept/principle, "Dependent Origination" as experienced. In the first case, as a concept, there is "Dependent Origination of Suffering". Perhaps this will clarify what it applies to. The 12 Links of Dependent Origination generally are taken for the Dependent Origination of Suffering, thus presenting the wheel of life, and of samsara. The four great elements may be taken as concept/principle or the four great elements may be taken as experienced. When taking them as experienced (as any dhamma) there may be sana recollecting this "rupa" as "earth". This gives rise to mental formations. The mind may immediately advert its concentration and consciousness onto this mental formation, and thus it is easy to take this recollection as real "earth", which is not the case. This recollection may not be a word, it could be any mental formation arising from experiencing "hardness". An important note on the meaning of this whole mess: these /characteristics/ of the four great elements are thus labled "earth", thus labled "water", thus labled "fire" and thus labled "wind". This labeling is done by nothing more than sanna (marking/recollection). With regard to "dependent origination", you may see that the mental formations of the four great elements are dependently originated. ... therefore, experiencing the characteristics of the four great elements, conditions a solid understanding of what the four great elements actually are, experiencing hardness there is recollection - "this is earth", experiencing cohesion there is recollection - this is "water" etc. Then after much experiencing this dhamma sanna arising with wisdom recollects... this is "not-self" anatta. Again though, mental formations. Stay steadfast without taking concepts for what is real, sanna will mark realities and recollections will occur, but do not take these recollections as reality. Keep steadfast on the dhamma. Take care, manji > -----Original Message----- > From: TGrand458@a... [mailto:TGrand458@a...] > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 11:49 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] 4 Great Elements and Dependent Arising > > In a message dated 5/15/2002 7:23:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > > > > Dear TG, > > No, I'm afraid you haven't ;). > > The four great elements are rupa and are not at all the powerhouse of > > paticcasamuppada. They do condition each other and nama -but in > > limited ways (see Conditions, Nina van Gokom). > > The dynamic engine of paticcasamuppada is avijja and tanha (ignorance > > and craving)and these are nama (mentality) not rupa. > > You might be interested in this earlier conversation with Howard that > > relates to Paticcasamuppada. > > > Hi Robert. > Yes, this is the 12 fold chain of Dependent Arising that explains the > arising > and ceasing of sentient beings. However, the "principle" of Dependent > Arising applies to all conditioned things, animate or inanimate. And > that's > what I was referring to previously. The "principle" being... > > This being, that is > With the arising of this, that arises > This not being, that is not > With the ceasing of this, that ceases. > > This will probabIy provoke more controversy but I believe mentality is an > outgrowth of the 4 Great Elements...certainly a unique and complex > outgrowth, > yet I believe it is physical laws and positional movement that result in > the > energies we call mentality. Just as when the 4 Great Elements come > together > to generate nuclear fusion (a star)...and although the vast majority of > space > is not filled with stars, yet when the right conditions arise, a star > arises: > so too, under the appropriate causal conditions, mentality will arise. > The > "star system"generates electromagnetic radiation, the "mind system" > generates > mental states. Both are illuminating in "their own" unique way due to the > causal forces that lead to those outgrowths. (Of course mind and body are > interrelated/inter-generating but I'm not trying to get that technical.) > > The 4 Great Elements are dynamic forces that diversify into various > formations due to the "principle" of Dependent Arising. I think its > important to spend a good deal of time considering what the 4 Great > Elements > really do. I think there is a tendency to think they are relatively easy > to > understand. They may be one of the hardest things to understand. > > Anyway, something to think about unless its summarily rejected. ;-) > > Take care and keep happy. TG 13319 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu May 16, 2002 10:00am Subject: Rite and rituals Dear Dan, I really liked your account of your personal experiences with regard to meditation. Very sincere. I could not help laughing when I read the dialogue with Sarah about citta with panna which knows, knows. Cittas perform different functions, kicca. Seeing-consciousness performs the function of seeing, receiving-consciousness performs the function of receiving the object. They all perform different functions, but just for a moment, and then they fall away. When insight has not been developed to different stages, of course, no matter what we read about citta, we may cling to a self. A self who controls. But it is helpful to realize this. Best wishes, Nina. 13320 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu May 16, 2002 10:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] giving protection, abhaya dana op 15-05-2002 07:22 schreef Kom Tukovinit op kom@a...: > > Bhaya in Thai means generally means danger (drawbacks, > penalties, disadvantages), i.e., danger from kings, thieves, > fire, water, enemies, lions, tigers, other wild beasts, > dragons, orges, demons, goblins etc. Abhaya is its > opposite, however, in the Thai language it is mostly used to > mean forgiveness. Giving a person abhaya, in Thai, usually > means forgiving the person: this doesn't have to be outward. > The beautiful part is you can forgive a person without other > people (including the subject) knowing that this "gift" has > already occured. > > When I hear K. Sujin on tape, I understood that this means > strictly forgiving. However, looking at the description > now, it seems to be more than forgiving. When we help other > people from dangers, be it through directly helping, or > counseling, it also seems like it is also abhaya dana. The > gift of the dhamma is obviously the most elavated type of > abhaya dhamma. We help other people in reaching the true > abhaya, nibbana. Dear Kom and Stigan, I like Kom's post, especially the end. I looked up bhaya in the Pali dict, it can mean fear and the objects that cause fear. The abstaining from akusala kamma is included in Maha-dana and this can help us to see the aspect of giving freedom from danger or fear. See Gradual Sayings, Book of the Eights, Ch IV, § 9 (transl by Ven. Nyanaponika, Wheel 238-240: Outcomes of Merit) : The same is said about the abstaining from the other akusala kamma patha. Thus, compassion and metta can also be considered as giving. I listened to the tape and it was said that when we are angry, we give hate, we may even harm others. But when we forgive we do not think about someone else's wrongs anymore, we give him freedom from harm, goodwill. Nina. 13321 From: yuzhonghao Date: Thu May 16, 2002 2:20pm Subject: Re: Rite and rituals --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Dan, I really liked your account of your personal experiences with > regard to meditation. Very sincere. I could not help laughing when I read > the dialogue with Sarah about citta with panna which knows, knows. > Cittas perform different functions, kicca. Seeing-consciousness performs the > function of seeing, receiving-consciousness performs the function of > receiving the object. They all perform different functions, but just for a > moment, and then they fall away. When insight has not been developed to > different stages, of course, no matter what we read about citta, we may > cling to a self. A self who controls. But it is helpful to realize this. > Best wishes, Nina. Nina and all, It is not self that one clings to. If one clings, it is the aggregate, which is not self, that one clings to. I would also like to share this link with the group. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-052.html Regards, Victor 13322 From: manji Date: Thu May 16, 2002 2:29pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Rite and rituals :) Who is clinging? ;) -manji- > -----Original Message----- > From: yuzhonghao [mailto:victoryu@s...] > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 5:21 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: Rite and rituals > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Dan, I really liked your account of your personal experiences > with > > regard to meditation. Very sincere. I could not help laughing when > I read > > the dialogue with Sarah about citta with panna which knows, > knows. > > Cittas perform different functions, kicca. Seeing-consciousness > performs the > > function of seeing, receiving-consciousness performs the function of > > receiving the object. They all perform different functions, but > just for a > > moment, and then they fall away. When insight has not been > developed to > > different stages, of course, no matter what we read about citta, we > may > > cling to a self. A self who controls. But it is helpful to realize > this. > > Best wishes, Nina. > > Nina and all, > > It is not self that one clings to. If one clings, it is the > aggregate, which is not self, that one clings to. > > I would also like to share this link with the group. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-052.html > > Regards, > Victor 13323 From: yuzhonghao Date: Thu May 16, 2002 3:30pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Rite and rituals :) Manji, Thanks for the question. I should be more careful using "one clings." Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "manji" wrote: > Who is clinging? ;) > > -manji- > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: yuzhonghao [mailto:victoryu@s...] > > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 5:21 PM > > To: dhammastudygroup@y... > > Subject: [dsg] Re: Rite and rituals > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > Dear Dan, I really liked your account of your personal experiences > > with > > > regard to meditation. Very sincere. I could not help laughing when > > I read > > > the dialogue with Sarah about citta with panna which knows, > > knows. > > > Cittas perform different functions, kicca. Seeing-consciousness > > performs the > > > function of seeing, receiving-consciousness performs the function of > > > receiving the object. They all perform different functions, but > > just for a > > > moment, and then they fall away. When insight has not been > > developed to > > > different stages, of course, no matter what we read about citta, we > > may > > > cling to a self. A self who controls. But it is helpful to realize > > this. > > > Best wishes, Nina. > > > > Nina and all, > > > > It is not self that one clings to. If one clings, it is the > > aggregate, which is not self, that one clings to. > > > > I would also like to share this link with the group. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-052.html > > > > Regards, > > Victor 13324 From: Date: Thu May 16, 2002 4:27pm Subject: ADL ch. 8 (4) http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 8 (4) Feelings arise because of conditions and fall away again. They are impermanent and they should not be taken for self. We read in the 'Kindred Savings' (lV Salayatana-vagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Third Fifty, par. 130, Haliddaka): Once the venerable Kaccana the Great was staying among the folk of Avanti, at Osprey's Haunt, on a sheer mountain crag. Then the housefather Haliddakani came to the venerable Kaccana the Great. Seated at one side he said this: 'lt has been said by the Exalted One, sir, "Owing to diversity in elements arises diversity of contact. Owing to diversity of contact arises diversity of feeling." Pray, sir, how far is this so?' 'Herein, housefather, seeing a pleasant object with the eye, a monk, at the thought "This is such and such," comes to know of eye-consciousness that is pleasant to experience. Owing to contact that is pleasant to experience arises pleasant feeling. When with the eye he sees an object that is displeasing, a monk, at the thought "This is such and such," comes to know of eye-consciousness that is unpleasant to experience. Owing to contact that is unpleasant to experience arises unpleasant feeling. When with the eye he sees an object that is of indifferent effect, a monk, at the thought "This is such and such," comes to know of consciousness that is neutral. Owing to contact that is neutral to experience arises feeling that is neutral. So also, housefather, hearing a sound with the ear, smelling a scent with the nose, tasting a savour with the tongue, contacting a tangible with the body, cognizing a pleasing mind-state with the mind... a mind-state that is displeasing... a mind-state that is indifferent in effect.... Thus, housefather, owing to diversity in elements arises diversity of contact. Owing to diversity of contact arises diversity of feeling.' If we are mindful of realities which appear through the different doorways we will know from experience many different namas and rupas; we will know different types of citta and different kinds of feeling. We will know that all these realities are only conditioned elements and not self. We will know from experience that there are not only cittas accompanied by lobha, dosa and moha, and cittas accompanied by wholesome roots, but also cittas which are ahetuka, cittas without roots. One may not find it interesting to know more about seeing, hearing and the other realities appearing through the different doorways. However, in order to see things as they are, it is essential to know that the citta which, for example, experiences sound, has a characteristic which is different from the citta which likes or dislikes the sound and that these cittas arise because of different conditions. What the Buddha taught can be proved by being mindful of realities. Questions 1. Which are the six hetus (roots)? 2. When there is seeing it may be kusala vipaka or akusala vipaka. Are there hetus accompanying seeing-consciousness? 13326 From: Date: Thu May 16, 2002 4:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] make friends with other nudists That's "BUDDHIST", not "NUDIST"!!! In a message dated 5/16/02 10:35:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, billvety@y... writes: > > Hi, there, > > I have a great website to recommend for nudists only. Over there you > can > make friends with fellow nudists in your area or around the world. It > is > free and no porn. Check it out. > > http://www.nudistfriendfinder.com > > Gene > 13327 From: Date: Thu May 16, 2002 5:43pm Subject: Mentality derived from the 4 Great Elements Enjoying your comments, thanks... The Patisambhidamagga states that "...the eye..., ear..., nose..., tongue..., body..., and mind are derived from the 4 Great Elements." Chapter 15 -- Defining Internally (The Path of Discrimination pg. 76 -- 77) I would like to also note that the Four Great Nikayas are loaded with "material examples" that illustrate various principles and often mental principles. I'm sure most of you are familiar with the various "agriculture analogies" of soil, water, earth; that represent fields of experience and mental interactions. Or the rubbing together of two sticks to generate heat and the separation of those sticks, which leads to cooling; to illustrate causality... "Just as if from the adjusted friction of two sticks, heat is born, a spark is brought forth, but from the separation and withdrawing of just those two sticks, the heat which was consequent [on friction], that ceases, that is quenched…" Samyutta Nikaya (PTS, Kindred Sayings, vol. 2, pg. 67) The Buddha said that... "delight and lust should be seen as like the water element." Samyutta Nikaya... (Connected Discourses of the Buddha, vol. 1, pg. 891) What does the water element do? In general it holds/pulls things together and intensifies phenomena. So delight and lust (or craving) should be seen operating like this apparently. If this is a materialistic view of the dhamma...I'm guilty. :-) TG 13328 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu May 16, 2002 11:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 8 (2)Larry/Azita Hi Larry and Azita, Relating to Larry's question "Is kamma unstopable once the cause has arisen?" You may be interested in a part of an article I am reading called "Anattanisamsa - A concise Description of the Advantages Arising Out of The Realisation of Anatta by The Venerable Mahahthera Ledi Sayaday, Agga Maha Pandita, D. Litt. http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/ledi002.htm Interesting about kusala kamma... metta, Christine "How Past Kammas Become Inoperative." "How the infinite numbers of past kammas became inoperative the moment sakkaya ditthi is extinguished may be illustrated as follows: In a string of beads where an infinite number of beads are strung together by a strong silk thread, if one bead is pulled all the other beads follow or accompany the one that is pulled. But if the silk thread is removed, pulling one of the beads does not disturb the other beads because there is no longer any attachment between them. A being who possesses sakkaya ditthi harbours a strong attachment for the series of khandhas during past existences and past world-cycles by transforming them into "I". Thinking "In past existences and in past world-cycles I have been on many occasions a human being, a deva or a brahma." he acquires the thread that is sakkaya ditthi. It is thus that the infinite number of past akusala kammas committed in past existences and past world-cycles, and which have not as yet produced resultants, accompany that being wherever he may be reborn. These past akusala kammas resemble beads that are strung and bound together by a strong thread. Beings who clearly perceive the anatta characteristic, however, and who have rid themselves of sakkaya ditthi. perceive that the rupa and namakkhandhas which arise and disappear even in the short course of one sitting as separate phenomena and not as a bonded continuum. The concept of "my atta" which is like the thread, is no longer present. Their khandhas appear to them like the string of beads from which the thread has been removed. They clearly perceive that the akusala kammas which they had committed in the past are not 'persons', or 'beings' or 'I', or 'my kammas', and that they are which arise and disappear in an instant. That is why these past akusala kammas disappear entirely as soon as sakkaya ditthi disappears. Here, it is to be observed that only the akusala kammas disappear. Past kusala kammas do not disappear through the mere disappearance of sakkaya ditthi. It is only when the stage of the arahatta magga is reached, and when tanha is completely eradicated, do kusala kammas also totally disappear." --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., azita gill wrote: > --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Dear group, > > Just a note of clarification regarding akusala > > vipaka citta. This citta > > gets its name, 'akusala', based on its cause, an > > akusala citta rooted in > > lobha/dosa/moha. The vipaka itself is without any > > akusala/kusala > > quality. Hence its designation 'rootless' (ahetuka). > > Akusala citta > > rooted in lobha/dosa/moha (always?) causes a > > rootless citta. Rootless > > cittas cause nothing but may be a contributory > > condition for another > > citta rooted in lobha/dosa/moha or > > alobha/adosa/amoha, which, inturn, > > must (?) cause another vipaka. > > > > An akusala citta will only cause an akusala vipaka > > simply because that > > is how vipaka is named. Sight, sound, smell, taste > > vipaka will have a > > neutral feeling. Body sense vipaka will be pleasant > > or unpleasant > > feeling. It is impossible (?) for anyone but the > > Buddha to tell whether > > a vipaka citta is kusala or akusala. Both kusala and > > akusala _rootless_ > > vipaka cittas have the same qualities. There is also > > a class of kusala > > vipaka citta _with_ roots. This has kusala qualities > > but because it is > > vipaka, it cannot cause another citta. > > > > It can be seen very easily in satipatthana that > > whatever sight, sound, > > taste, smell, or body feeling may arise, it is value > > neutral. Like and > > dislike are lobha and dosa. They may arise in > > response to the vipaka and > > will, in turn, produce another vipaka. We can't > > really see this kamma > > process unfolding. We can recognize cause, and we > > can recognize effect. > > But we cannot put the two together. We have to take > > the Buddha's word > > for it. > > > > Unpleasant body feeling is not necessarily akusala > > vipaka. Kusala citta > > can cause unpleasant body feeling. > > > > Corrections joyously welcomed. > > > > yours in the way, Larry > > > > question: Is kamma unstopable once the cause has > > arisen? > > > > L. > > > > dear Larry, I query that last comment about > "unpleasant body feeling ------cause unpleasant body > feeling" . I can't see how kusala citta can cause > something unpleasant. Can you elaborate please? > > > regarding your question about kamma - I think > it is unstopable - unless you become an arahat - but > you can't do this if the kamma is really heavy, such > as killing mum or dad, harming a Buddha, etc. > > Azita, > > May all beings be happy, 13329 From: onco111 Date: Fri May 17, 2002 1:19am Subject: Re: Rite and rituals Dear Nina, I could not help laughing either. Sarah is really great, isn't she. Yes, craving for a "self" is a powerful drive. But, really, that self we crave is nothing more than a concept, not really existent at all. Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Dan, I really liked your account of your personal experiences with > regard to meditation. Very sincere. I could not help laughing when I read > the dialogue with Sarah about citta with panna which knows, knows. > Cittas perform different functions, kicca. Seeing-consciousness performs the > function of seeing, receiving-consciousness performs the function of > receiving the object. They all perform different functions, but just for a > moment, and then they fall away. When insight has not been developed to > different stages, of course, no matter what we read about citta, we may > cling to a self. A self who controls. But it is helpful to realize this. > Best wishes, Nina. 13330 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri May 17, 2002 2:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? - Jon and Nina --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob E > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > ... > > > An interesting observation -- 'ultimate reality', yet like a bubble or a > lump of > > > foam. > > > Well, I suppose it's an example of looking at the same thing from different > > > perspectives. > > > They are 'ultimate' in the sense of being the underlying phenomena of what > we > > > take for > > > people and things, yet they also have no intrinsic merit. > > > > > > Both aspects need to be understood. > > > > > > Jon > > > > Which makes Howard's and others' case that the word 'ultimate' is misleading > and > > incorrect. It constantly needs to be re-explained and qualified, because it > > implies something other than what it means. Ultimate in common parlance means > the > > height of something much more than it means the final particle that cannot be > > broken down. > > Actually, similar comments could be made about many other terms used in the > dhamma, > including no doubt some that you take for granted but that would be a problem > for > someone less familiar with the dhamma than yourself. Think of wholesome/skilful > (for kusala), memory (for sanna), consciousness (for citta/vinnana), > concentration > (for samadhi), tranquillity (for samatha) mentality-materiality (for nama-rupa) > and > so on. None of these terms as used in the teachings bears a meaning even > remotely > close to its everyday meaning. > > > In math, which is Howard's area, I think there are terms that describe this > kind > > of thing more generically, numbers that can't be broken down any further, > > equations that cannot be divided down to a lesser amount on either side. The > > least common denominator which unites equivalent mathematical terms. > > > > For myself, I would propose 'primary realities' or even 'basic realities', but > > primary accomplishes what you would want, it establishes them as indivisible > and > > 'first and foremost' without the baggage of 'ultimate'. > > And others have a real problem with 'realties'! > > Actually, this reminds me of a discussion on this very subject with Ken O not so > long ago (during one of your lurk modes), where we came to a somewhat similar > conclusion on the term 'basic'. I also like Rob K's 'fundamental'. > > But as a translation of the term used in the texts ('paramattha'), I don’t think > any > of these various terms is appropriate (that doesn’t mean I have any objection to > their use). > > > Now I may be paranoid, but it does seem like the term 'paramatha', if it is > indeed > > 'ultimate' betrays a kind of idealization of these fleeting actualities, and > > perhaps is a way in which the idea of entity creeps back into Abhidhamma. > Terms > > have a 'flavor' of meaning, and 'paramatha' seems to have precisely the wrong > one. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I recall the prefix 'para' as having a > sense > > of something like 'great'. Is this not so? > > The choice of the term 'paramattha' (from 'parama' + 'attha') to describe the > fundamental dhammas, and its English translation as 'ultimate realities', is > explained in A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, notes to Ch. I #2 as follows: > > "Ultimate realities are things that exist by reason of their own intrinsic > nature > (sabhaava). These are the dhammas: the final, irreducible components of > existence, > the ultimate entities which result from a correctly performed analysis of > experience. Such existents admit of no further reduction, but are themselves > the > final terms of analysis, the true constituents of the complex manifold of > experience. Hence the word ‘paramattha’ is applied to them, which is derived > from > ‘parama’ = ultimate, highest, final, and ‘attha’ = reality, thing." > > The fact that some particular terminology may seem to have connotations that we > find > unfortunate should not be allowed to detract us from the task of trying to > understand the primary/basic/fundamental/ultimate realities/phenomena that are > being > referred to and which are capable of being the object of awareness and > understanding > of the level of satipatthana/vipassana. Otherwise we are in danger of missing > the > whole point! > > Jon True, Jon, if something merely has a coincidental implication that has nothing to do with its material content, then it should be dismissed, and we should get back to the analysis of the reality it points to. However, if there is an inherent problem in the analysis itself, that should be looked into, not ignored. The quote from Abhidhamma in Daily Life troubles me, and not coincidentally. Since this is Nina's book, I invite Nina to comment, and I apologize in advance for taking a tough view towards this quote. I don't want to misinterpret what she says through ignorance, but this is what troubles me: "Ultimate realities are things that exist by reason of their own intrinsic > nature > (sabhaava). Buddha says to regard all things as dreamlike and unreal. How can anything in manifestation thus be regarded as self-existent? I see this as establishing a string of objective monads. Even if they are only in the moment, they are constantly and eternally being replaced by other monads, equally real and irreducible. To establish anything as real is to establish entities, the opposite of the universal anatta that Buddha teaches. Buddha didn't teach that some things were real entities and others have anatta. Anatta-ness is universal. There is nothing that can be established as ultimately self-existent, or this is broken, and there is something actual to cling to, in this case the string of momentary namas and rupas, which is made substantial via its 'ultimately real' constituent parts. This is again why the flavor of 'ultimate' bothers me, not because it has an accidental implication, but because it has a purposeful one, which is intrinsic to what it is signifying. This is also borne out by the next sentence in your quote. These are the dhammas: the final, irreducible components of > existence, Why should there be any components of existence that are final and irreducible? This again is a form of monadic thought. If all is empty of self and substantiality, constantly shifting and impossible to hold onto, wherefore do these 'real' components of 'reality' show up? They create an objective existence that can be successfully clung to. And the next phrase troubles me more. > the ultimate entities which result from a correctly performed analysis of > experience. ultimate entities! I thought the whole point of Buddhism is that are *no* entities, period. Instead, this analysis has reduced the idea of entity to a more fleeting level, but re-established it there. We all live and die. There is nothing unique in saying that there is a self or object that is impermanent. The idea in Buddhism as I understand it is to see that this impermanence and lack of entity is *radical*, that it destroys the notion that there is any core experience at which consciousness might rest. But this establishes a place for consciousness to abide. If consciousness can abide on a real object, it can constitute a real self, in my opinion. If there is a real object for consciousness that is objectively viable, then there is the possibility for consciousness to constitute a real self. Such existents admit of no further reduction, but are themselves > the > final terms of analysis, the true constituents of the complex manifold of > experience. Hence the word ‘paramattha’ is applied to them, which is derived > from > ‘parama’ = ultimate, highest, final, and ‘attha’ = reality, thing." My understanding of Buddha's message is that there is no ultimate reality to *anything* in experience. That is the only way in which clinging and self are dissolved as false concepts. Setting up a realm of experience that is ultimate and real, and in which actual entities are established takes the sting out of the emptiness of experience, since it is not total, and gives the false construct of self something to cling to, a 'real stream of experience' which is eternal and viable, not subject to anatta. I believe it defeats the the idea of thoroughly and completely disenfranchising consciousness from the notion that there is *anything* that may be salvaged in this life by a separate being, and that all concepts of self are false. Again, Nina, I apologize if I have mangled your words or intentions in the process of trying to sort this out. Best, Robert Ep. 13331 From: onco111 Date: Fri May 17, 2002 3:56am Subject: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K.] > Pleased to see you realise that one reason to write in this way is > that it stresses on anatta - that there is no self doing anything > but that different dhammas are performing whatever function is > appropriate. No, it stresses the "no control" anatta, which is an important aspect to be sure and one that Westerners have a particularly difficult time understanding and accepting. Others have taught "no control" as well, including Christians, fatalists, et al. What is unique to Buddhism is that it teaches not only "no control", but also anatta AND how the delusion of atta arises AND how the delusion of atta is rooted out. In the metaphorical "citta cognizes", the aspect of "no control" is clearly emphasized, but there is unquestionably a substantialist undertone. This is a good thing to think about. > We are persistently fooled into thinking that there is a self who > decides and directs. It helps us see that there is really no self > when the commentaries further define any dhamma by means of lakkhana > (characteristic), rasa (function), paccupatthana (the way it > presents itself) and its padatthana (proximate cause). Again, "function" is an odd word. In English it has both teleological and substantialist connotations, both of which are unwelcome. No word is perfect, but it is helpful to consider questions like this. More comments as time permits... Thanks, Robert. Dan 13332 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Supportive spiritual practices (was, what is extreme? ...) Rob Ep --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > For me personally, I tend to judge practices by their effects rather than by their > designation. I tend to see Buddhist thought as the clearest expression of the > true human condition, but do see other philosophies as having a place on the > continuum of the spiritual life of our species. I'm sure I've asked this before, but I don't recall having had a response. When you say you judge practices by their effects, does that mean effects in terms of the dhamma and, if so, what effects found in the teachings would you be referring to? I suppose my question could also be put in this way: to evaluate anything in tersm of the dhamma, don't we need to see if it conforms to the teachings? After all, a practice that does not conform to the teachings could not bring the same result as practice conforming to the teachings (or do we differ here). > As regards yoga, I think that it has positive effects, and that it is a practice > that can create conditions for the development of peacefulness, concentration, > perceptual clarity, the ability to observe thoughts and calm emotions. While I > appreciate the possibility you have mentioned several times that such practices > can give 'false readings' through suppressing akusala without eradicating it, or > create pleasant feelings with attachment that are not really kusala but seem to be > [see, I do pay attention at times], I think the overall effect of yoga is > positive. To say that the overall effect of yoga is positive doesn't mean much unless you aer saying that by doing yoga you are achieving something that can be achieved no other way. And I don't think you are saying that. Actually, I would think there are any number of other 'practices' that could be substituted for yoga in what you write here and which would bring (to one person or another) the same 'result'. This to me indicates that it is not the 'practice' itself but some other factor (eg, the person's approach to the practice) that is the operative factor. Just my thoughts Jon > To me, the overall state of the body and mind, including the condition of the > nervous system, and the psychic energy channels which correspond to what an > acupuncurist would talk about, all have an influence on how capable someone is to > view realities clearly as they arise, and distinguish thought from object, concept > from thought, etc., all the things that denote mindfulness and the development of > wisdom. > > I do not think that yoga by itself can take a person to an understanding of anatta > and anicca, but I do think that yoga has a lot to teach about the changing nature > of phenomena, control, dissatisfaction, all of which are confronted every time > someone works through a pose. In other words, I think it is a positive > conditioning agent and a powerful aid on the path. Like any corrolary medicine, > it can take one in the wrong direction if used incorrectly. > > When the friend/teacher I mentioned did his Vipassana retreats, he was used to > doing a little yoga inbetween sittings. This was generally discouraged at the > retreat center, but they decided in his case to approve it, because the way that > he used the yoga was to deal with his body in a way that promoted discernment. He > had some medical conditions that the yoga handled to some extent. > > Anyway, if one has Buddhist principles and path in mind, and uses yoga as a > corrolary agent, I think its preparation of the body and mind can be very helpful. > > Best, > Robert Ep. > > ========================== > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Rob E > > > > I note your impassioned (and articulate) arguments in favour of 'supportive > > spiritual practices' from outside the teachings (for example, yoga) in the > > development of the understanding that is the heart of the teachings. > > > > Just to clarify where you stand on this issue, would you say that the view > > that, 'There is no connection between the practice of yoga and the development > > of insight' is in accordance with, or is contrary to, the teachings as you > > understand them. > > > > I ask this not to be picky or anything like that, but to draw out a point ;-). > > > > Jon > > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > hi. > > > I am one of those strange people who think that supportive spiritual > > > practices do > > > increase one's spiritual state. That is one of the reasons I keep arguing in > > > favor of meditation, and I would also argue in favor of yoga. To me, the > > > path > > > involves understanding Dhamma, everyday discernment and skillful practices > > > that > > > increase one's Right Energy, Right View, etc. When the mind is cleared of > > > obscuring concepts in meditation, or the body made more relaxed and the > > > nerves > > > cleared out through yoga, to me these create conducive conditions for > > > understanding and insight. > > > > > > I have never been able to put the Dhamma in a box where there is one right > > > interpretation and one right practice. Has my knowledge of Hindu Advaita > > > Vedanta > > > or Zen or Tibetan Dzogchen been inconsequential to my understanding of > > > Dhamma? To > > > me, having a cross-reference of enlightened knowledge is a great asset which > > > serves as an underlying commentary to rightly understand teachings. > > > > > > The fact that the 'modern' father of Yoga, Patanjali, wrote of an Eight-fold > > > Path > > > [Ashtanga], does not seem totally coincidental to me with the Buddha's Noble > > > Eightfold Path. One who has a sense of history will see that there are often > > > more > > > than coincidences in these sorts of synchronies. Sometimes they mean > > > something, > > > sometimes they don't. But I don't personally find it helpful to see > > > Theravadan > > > Buddhism, or Abhidhamma in particular, or whatever one adopts as one's main > > > approach to Realization, as an isolated study, an island in the middle of a > > > sea of > > > inconsequential things that are all thoroughly 'other'. I personally like a > > > synergistic approach, as I believe that there is a dialectic in the history > > > of > > > thought, philosophy and even enlightenment, which comes up in different forms > > > throughout history. > > > > > > The idea that there is a fixed 'Buddhism' which is the only right one, and > > > that it > > > is not developed but either found as a whole or lost as a static whole, does > > > not > > > seem right to me. Rather, it seems to me that the principles of Buddhism are > > > the > > > core that doesn't change, but that the outer form does change, and not only > > > changed after the Buddha's parinibbana, but even during the Buddha's > > > lifetime, as > > > he spoke to different groups, and to my mind, probably became more skillful > > > and > > > precise at expressing the Dhamma throughout his long career. To see the > > > Buddha as > > > a static entity who was 'perfect' and thus fixed in stone from the moment of > > > his > > > Enlightenment, to me also turns the Buddha into a Godhead, and takes away the > > > practical skillful development which he himself always praised, and which all > > > Buddhist teachers have partaken of throughout their careers. > > > > > > So for me, the ultimate state of Realization may be a very definite > > > experience and > > > may not be variable, the principles of Buddhism may be unique, particularly > > > Buddha's teaching of Anatta, but the evolution of Buddhism and many of its > > > elements are not only shared by various forms of Buddhist practice, but even > > > have > > > elements in common with other traditions, and which may shed light on the > > > true > > > nature of the Dhamma. > > > > > > I know this is not a popular standpoint, but I thought I would take the > > > occasion > > > to speak my mind. Of course I will go back to the Dhamma, and attempt to be > > > in > > > the presence of its true meaning, but I will not erase my sense that the > > > world is > > > in a state of spiritual evolution, and that it is something that all of us > > > share > > > in various forms. > > > > > > If Frank *had* meant that his yoga had an influence on his spiritual opening > > > or > > > understanding of Buddhism, I personally would accept it as a good and > > > worthwhile > > > possibility. I don't want to be dogmatic about Buddhism, and assume that > > > anything > > > that isn't expressly from the official version of Buddhism as we imperfectly > > > understand it at this time, is the only area from which to draw valuable > > > experiences along the path. > > > > > > Take Care, > > > Robert Ep. 13333 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 17, 2002 5:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Concentration & FSM Christine You suggest finding out whether: > any of those who teach us to study the realities [have] NEVER done any > formal meditation? Putting aside the tricky question of what kind of formal meditation you are referring to, I think that any answer could only cover the limited span of a single lifetime and so would not really 'prove' anything! Jon --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Anders, Jon, Dan, Eric and All, > > As you say Eric, this topic has been discussed (or at least alluded > to) many times on this and other lists. One thing I don't recall > being discussed is whether the Formal Meditation and the Dhamma Study > could be a consecutive, but distinctly separate, occurrences in > someone's lifetime. That those who think FM is unnecessary, don't > realise that their previous involvment actually WAS necessary, and > they are getting by on a previously learned skill? > There are many people whom I admire and learn from. Some do Formal > Meditation (sitting, standing, walking, eating ), and go to Retreats > etc., some combine FM and Dhamma Study, some Study and practice > mindfullness. > Those who do FM feel that it is essential according to the > Teachings, and that Dhamma Study is not sufficient even with > mindfullness. Those who practice the latter seem to feel FM is > harmless, perhaps soothing, but not necessary, according to the > Teachings. It is very confusing when coming upon this difference of > opinion, especially when many of us gained our first introduction to > Buddhism during Dhamma talks after group meditation. > > I only have a vague knowledge of some list members involvment with FM > or Study, but wonder if there is anyone who has NEVER done FM in the > past, however long ago, and who obtains satisfying results from > Dhamma study and mindfulness only? (For instance, Sarah has told > us of her FM practice years ago, and that she doesn't find it a > necessary practice now.) Just an idle thought, - could it be that > one can get to a 'sufficient' level that is accessible for progress > on the Path.... just like riding a bike, you never lose the skill? > Have any of those who teach us to study the realities NEVER done any > formal meditation? > > metta, > Christine > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rikpa21" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" wrote: > > > Hi Anders, > > > Interesting exchange with Jon. I hope you don't mind my butting > in > > > briefly... > > > > > > Jon: Can you point to any instance in the texts of the Buddha > > > recommending such a practice, or any mention at all of 'sitting > > > vipassana meditation'. > > > > > > Anders: The Satipatthana 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 and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the > > > chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. " > > > > > > And all the other foundations too. > > > > > > ----------------- > > > Yes, I think we all agree that one case in which mindfulness can > > be > > > established is when a monk sits cross-legged under a tree with > > body > > > erect. But is this a recommendation of sitting in order to > > establish > > > mindfulness or is it just part of a list of activities in which > > > mindfulness can be established? > > > > Hi Dan & Anders (Anders, thank you for your recent spate of posts > > reminding us of the importance of discarding views). > > > > Dan, I think this topic's been covered in some detail before here, > > but that never means it isn't worth covering again. > > > > Just looking at my own experience, the entire message of what the > > Buddha was teaching would have been lost on me, because without > > sitting meditation none of the factors said to lead to the stated > > aim of the Dhamma have arisen without this most basic of practices, > > expounded in all versions of the Satipatthana Sutta as well as the > > Anapanasati Sutta. > <<<>>> > 13334 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 17, 2002 5:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma In Color: To Jon Suan Thanks very much for this. I have since tracked down a translation of the sutta by Vens Nanamoli and Bodhi in NDB (Numerical Discourses of the Buddha), where the same gloss from the commentary is made. Jon --- abhidhammika wrote: > > > Dear Jon > > How are you? > > You wrote: > > "I am guessing that the 4th kind of kamma refers to moments of > mundane or supramundane path consciousness (this being the only kind > of kamma that does not conduce to further rebirth in samsara)." > > Your guess was very close because Commentary on Samkhitta Suttam, on > which Vitthaara Suttam was an elaboration, settled on supramundane > path consciousness. > > Thank you for your interest in my new commentary on Vitthaara Suttam. > As soon as I finish writing it, I will post it to this list. Won't be > long. > > With regards, > > Suan > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > > > > > Suan > > > > Many thanks for your translation of this interesting sutta. > > > > I could be wrong, but I am guessing that the 4th kind of kamma > refers to moments of > > mundane or supramundane path consciousness (this being the only > kind of kamma that > > does not conduce to further rebirth in samsara). > > > > I look forward to reading your commentary in due course. > > > > Jon > > > > --- abhidhammika wrote: > > > > > > Vitthaara Suttam, from which the following translation was made, > can > > > be found in Section 233, Kammavaggo, Catukkanipaata, > Anguttaranikaayo > > > on Chatthasangayana CD-ROM version 3 produced by Vipassana > Research > > > Institute. Those who use Roman edition should see page 230 in > Volume > > > 2 of that edition. > > > > > > > > > VITTHAARA SUTTAM ON FOUR GROUPS OF KAMMA > > > > > > Vitthaara Suttam On Four Groups Of Kamma > > > > > > Translated By Suan Lu Zaw > > > > > > Monks, four actions have been declared by me by having personally > > > realized them with extraordinary wisdom. What are the four? > Monks, > > > there is dark action having dark result. Monks, there is white > action > > > having white result. Monks, there is dark and white action having > > > dark and white result. Minks, there is un-dark and un-white > action > > > having un-dark and un-white result, which takes place for > depletion > > > of actions. > > > > > > Monks, what is dark action having dark result? Here, monks, some > > > carry out physical action with anger, verbal action with anger, > and > > > mental action with anger. Having carried out physical action with > > > anger, having carried out verbal action with anger, and having > > > carried out mental action with anger, he is reborn in the harsh > > > world. Being reborn in the harsh world, harsh contacts touch him. > > > Being touched by harsh contacts, he experiences the really > miserable > > > harsh feelings like those beings in hell do. Monks, this is > called > > > dark action having dark result. > > > > > > Monks, what is white action having white result? Here, monks, > some > > > carry out physical action with dis-anger, verbal action with dis- > > > anger, and mental action with dis-anger. Having carried out > physical > > > action with dis-anger, having carried out verbal action with dis- > > > anger, and having carried out mental action with dis-anger, he is > > > reborn in the gentle world. Being reborn in the gentle world, > gentle > > > contacts touch him. Being touched by gentle contacts, he > experiences > > > the really pleasant gentle feelings like Subhakinha Brahma gods > do. > > > Monks, this is called white action having white result. > > > > > > Monks, what is dark and white action having dark and white > result? > > > Here, monks, some carry out physical action with anger as well as > > > with dis-anger, verbal action with anger as well as with dis- > anger, > > > and mental action with anger as well as with dis-anger. Having > > > carried out physical action with anger as well as with dis-anger, > > > having carried out verbal action with anger as well as with dis- > > > anger, and having carried out mental action with anger as well as > > > with dis-anger, he is reborn in the harsh and gentle world. Being > > > reborn in the harsh and gentle world, harsh as well as gentle > > > contacts touch him. Being touched by harsh as well as gentle > > > contacts, he experiences the mixed feelings of pleasure and > misery > > > like human beings, some sensuous gods and some mansion-owning > halfway > > > beings do. Monks, this is called dark and white action having > dark > > > and white result. > > > > > > Monks, what is un-dark and un-white action having un-dark and un- > > > white result, which takes place for depletion of actions? Here, > > > monks, such activation as to eradicate dark action having dark > > > result, such activation as to eradicate white action having white > > > result, and such activation as to eradicate dark and white action > > > having dark and white result, this activation is called un-dark > and > > > un-white action having un-dark and un-white result, which takes > place > > > for depletion of actions. Monks, these four actions have been > > > declared by me by having personally realized them with > extraordinary > > > wisdom. > > > > > > > > > NOTES ON KEY TERMS > > > > > > The phrase "with anger" is a translation of the Pali > > > compound "sabyaapajjam" which was defined as "sadosam" in the > Pali > > > commentary. Sadosam = sa + dosam. > > > Doso is defined as anger in Pali Text Society's Pali – English > > > Dictionary, see page 332. > > > > > > The phrase "with dis-anger" is a translation of the Pali > > > word "abyaapajjam". The opposite of the Pali term "doso" > is "adoso". > > > Dis-anger is the literal translation of "adoso". Abyaapajjo is > > > described as a synonym of adoso in Section 33, Dhammasanganii. > Hence, > > > I translated abyaapajjam as with dis-anger in order to contrast > it > > > with anger in Paragraph Two of the Vitthaara Suttam. > > > > > > In Section 397, Siilakkhandha Pali, Diighanikaayo, we > find "bhikkhu > > > averam abyaapajjam mettacittam bhaaveti. Without enmity, and with > dis- > > > anger, the monk develops the loving mind". > > > > > > Thus, dis-anger is a technical term to convey love or loving > kindness > > > as one of its meanings. It does not refer to the mere absence of > > > anger as when our minds are with greed. > > > > > > Un-dark is a translation of the word "akanha, not dark". Here, un- > > > darkness does not refer to other colors such as whiteness. It > means > > > counteracting the very color of darkness. Un-dark means anti- > dark. > > > > > > Thus, un-dark action would counteract the dark actions and their > dark > > > results. > > > > > > Un-white is a translation of the word "asukka, not white". Here, > too, > > > un-whiteness does not refer to darkness or other colors. It means > > > counteracting the very color of whiteness. Un-white means anti- > white. > > > > > > Thus, un-white action would counteract the white actions and > their > > > white results. 13335 From: Date: Fri May 17, 2002 1:42am Subject: Once More with Feeling (on Concepts) Re: [dsg] Re: Rite and rituals Hi, Dan (and Nina) - In a message dated 5/17/02 4:20:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dalthorp@o... writes: > Dear Nina, > I could not help laughing either. Sarah is really great, isn't she. > > Yes, craving for a "self" is a powerful drive. But, really, that self > we crave is nothing more than a concept, not really existent at all. > > Dan > ========================== In reading what you wrote here, Dan, it occurred to me how to clarify the presentation of my ideas on concepts. When you write "But, really, that self we crave is nothing more than a concept, not really existent at all.", I see this as perfectly good, clear, and correct conventional expression, just as you intended. But, to me, if it is taken *literally*, then it is off the mark. I think that when we say that something "is mere concept", what we actually mean is not that this alleged thing exists and is nothing more than being of the category "concept", but, rather, the following: (1) There is a concept, a mental construct, an idea mentally formed from elementary experiences (paramattha dhammas), but (2) There is no actually observable referent of this concept. So, when we say that the "self we crave is nothing more than a concept, not really existent at all", what we really mean is that, while the concept / idea of 'self' exists, there is no self, no *referent* of the concept of 'self'. For some concepts, there exist referents, but for others there are none. When a concept of 'X' has no referent we *say* that "X is mere concept", but this referring to an "X which is mere concept" is just a manner of speaking. There really is no X that is imagined, because there is no X at all! There *is* no such thing. Even when we say "It is just imagined", the use of the pronoun 'it' already *suggests* to our mind an existent - an "imagined" existent! ;-)) We fall victim to the very form of our speech! The very use of a name (noun phrase or pronomial phrase), suggests the existence of an object. Ironically, for example, the very use of the term 'Merely imagined self', for example, suggests the existence of some "thing" which *is* a merely imagined self. The very form of our language pushes reification on us! I hope this clarifies the point I have so poorly been trying to make for so long on the list. ;-)) 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) 13336 From: Jaran Jainhuknan Date: Fri May 17, 2002 5:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] SE QLD Chistine: Good to hear from you. Thanks for the explanation. Have fun. Looking forward to your account of the lunch-on. Good day, jaran Hi Jaran, SE QLD means 'South East Queensland'. Azita is down from Cairns on holiday in Maleny - a couple of hours drive north of Brisbane. She and I (plus SarahF) are meeting for Dhamma discussions overlunch on Sunday, which I am very much looking forward to. :-) metta, Christine 13337 From: onco111 Date: Fri May 17, 2002 8:49am Subject: Once More with Feeling (on Concepts) Re: [dsg] Re: Rite and rituals Hi Howard, Just a few quick comments: > mark. I think that when we say that something "is mere concept", what we > actually mean is not that this alleged thing exists and is nothing more than > being of the category "concept", but, rather, the following: > (1) There is a concept, a mental construct, an idea mentally formed > from elementary experiences (paramattha dhammas), but (2) There is no > actually observable referent of this concept. > So, when we say that the "self we crave is nothing more than a > concept, not really existent at all", what we really mean is that, while the > concept / idea of 'self' exists, there is no self, no *referent* of the > concept of 'self'. Aren't views of "self" just misinterpretations of the five aggregates? E.g. thinking some combination of the aggregates is a "self" and then mistakenly attributing "self"-ish characteristics (commonly "eternalist" notions) to that referent via concept. More as time allows... Thanks for the interesting comments. Dan 13338 From: frank kuan Date: Fri May 17, 2002 10:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [reply to Frank] On the topic of "progress" and "breakthroughs": Hi Dan, Thanks for sharing such a detailed account of your insights and meditation experience. Even what you call "standard" progress, I see that as dhamma progress, as a result of constant application of "right effort". I do agree that our notion of progress can be very deceiving, since what requires much conditioning can be deconditioned. However, I believe it is important to monitor our "progress" without clinging to it, so we can evaluate whether we're moving in the right direction. For example, my worldy interactions are a constant acid test of how well my dhamma understanding is progressing. How do I react to bad traffic ? Long lines at the grocery store? Pain of illness? Being unjustly accused by friends or non-friends? How much clinging to my self, my possessessions, my lifestyle? What do I eat, how much is due to satisfying need for nutrition versus delight? How much sensory stimulation I chase after, even things of educational nature like inter-religious study rationalized as education but also a clinging for mental stimulation? The list goes on and on. Everyday there are millions of moments that we can see if our dhamma practice is bearing favorable results or whether we need to adjust our practice accordingly. Is non-clinging increasing or decreasing? Anger...Lust... Increasing or Decreasing? -fk 13339 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri May 17, 2002 11:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Supportive spiritual practices (was, what is extreme? ...) --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > > For me personally, I tend to judge practices by their effects rather than by > their > > designation. I tend to see Buddhist thought as the clearest expression of the > > true human condition, but do see other philosophies as having a place on the > > continuum of the spiritual life of our species. > > I'm sure I've asked this before, but I don't recall having had a response. When > you > say you judge practices by their effects, does that mean effects in terms of the > dhamma and, if so, what effects found in the teachings would you be referring > to? Well, the preliminary problem in answering that is that 'in terms of the dhamma' is subject to the individual's evaluation. You can say that anything that creates kusala effects is in line with the dhamma, or you can say that only those things which are explicitly mentioned in the suttas are in line with the dhamma, or you could say that those things which lead us to the dhamma by hook or by crook are in line with the dhamma, because we all come to the dhamma by various combinations of conditions and actions. So I would agree with you, but I would not presuppose that one could say bluntly 'this is in line with the dhamma and this is not', although I'm sure in some cases one would think they could. But when you think about it, ultimately, you could say 'well if you murder someone that is definitely not in line with the dhamma, and that will lead you in the opposite direction'. But I suppose it is possible, like the woman who had two horrific deaths in her family and wandered into the Buddha's camp demented, and thereby reached arahat status, that someone could kill someone, suffer horrible remorse to the point that they realized that all things are empty, unsatisfying, etc., and turn to the Path. So in that sense it is hard to know what is in line with the dhamma, ultimately. In the case of yoga, I would say it leads towards flexibility, concentration, discernment, etc. These in themselves -- are they in line with the dhamma or not? I would say yes, but obviously if one just settles for those qualities and doesn't move forward into the eightfold path, then it would turn out to not be in line with the dhamma. So it depends on how these qualities are employed. I still think that in conjunction with Buddhist practice, yoga can be beneficial and helpful, at least for some people. Sarah, who practices yoga, says that she doesn't consider it part of her Buddhist orientation [correct me if I'm wrong, Sarah] but it is just 'something that she does' because she has the propensity for it and she likes it. I guess I could say the same, that I would do it even if it were not explicitly moving me forward, just because it seems pleasant and helpful to me. But I still think that the qualities it engenders are in the direction of the path. Again, to me, they are part of the necessary but not sufficient category. One can do something that is useful and helpful and in the right direction, and not go far enough. > I suppose my question could also be put in this way: to evaluate anything in > tersm > of the dhamma, don't we need to see if it conforms to the teachings? After all, > a > practice that does not conform to the teachings could not bring the same result > as > practice conforming to the teachings (or do we differ here). I think there is some difference of opinion as to what the teachings are, and yes, I think that something that will have the correct results of the teachings should be in line with the teachings. But again, do the practices have to be explicitly mentioned to be in line with the teachings? What if they are not forbidden and not encouraged? Can one decide for oneself, based on the principles of the teachings, whether something accords with them or not? For instance, we have some conflict here about whether Buddha's teachings are prescriptive or descriptive. It can't really be proven one way or the other, although i think most Theravadan practitioners would say they are prescriptive, and most Abhidhamma practitioners would say they are descriptive. Am I wrong that there is a difference of opinion here, which is not resolved by appealing directly to the suttas? > > As regards yoga, I think that it has positive effects, and that it is a > practice > > that can create conditions for the development of peacefulness, concentration, > > perceptual clarity, the ability to observe thoughts and calm emotions. While > I > > appreciate the possibility you have mentioned several times that such > practices > > can give 'false readings' through suppressing akusala without eradicating it, > or > > create pleasant feelings with attachment that are not really kusala but seem > to be > > [see, I do pay attention at times], I think the overall effect of yoga is > > positive. > > To say that the overall effect of yoga is positive doesn't mean much unless you > aer > saying that by doing yoga you are achieving something that can be achieved no > other > way. I disagree with this proposition. An apple and an orange both have nutrition and have some of the same vitamins, same health benefits. Does the fact that the orange has these qualities disqualify the beneficial effects of the apple? Why does something have to be exclusive to be beneficial? Yoga has beneficial effects. So do many other things. They are all good, and one can take their choice of what to do based on their predilection. Is yoga better or worse than tai chi? Apples and oranges, both good in their own way. And I don't think you are saying that. Actually, I would think there are > any > number of other 'practices' that could be substituted for yoga in what you write > here and which would bring (to one person or another) the same 'result'. This > to me > indicates that it is not the 'practice' itself but some other factor (eg, the > person's approach to the practice) that is the operative factor. The approach is important too, but practices, like all causes, have their beneficial or non-beneficial effects as well. Best, Robert Ep. =================== > Just my thoughts > > Jon > > > To me, the overall state of the body and mind, including the condition of the > > nervous system, and the psychic energy channels which correspond to what an > > acupuncurist would talk about, all have an influence on how capable someone is > to > > view realities clearly as they arise, and distinguish thought from object, > concept > > from thought, etc., all the things that denote mindfulness and the development > of > > wisdom. > > > > I do not think that yoga by itself can take a person to an understanding of > anatta > > and anicca, but I do think that yoga has a lot to teach about the changing > nature > > of phenomena, control, dissatisfaction, all of which are confronted every time > > someone works through a pose. In other words, I think it is a positive > > conditioning agent and a powerful aid on the path. Like any corrolary > medicine, > > it can take one in the wrong direction if used incorrectly. > > > > When the friend/teacher I mentioned did his Vipassana retreats, he was used to > > doing a little yoga inbetween sittings. This was generally discouraged at the > > retreat center, but they decided in his case to approve it, because the way > that > > he used the yoga was to deal with his body in a way that promoted discernment. > He > > had some medical conditions that the yoga handled to some extent. > > > > Anyway, if one has Buddhist principles and path in mind, and uses yoga as a > > corrolary agent, I think its preparation of the body and mind can be very > helpful. > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. > > > > ========================== > > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > Rob E > > > > > > I note your impassioned (and articulate) arguments in favour of 'supportive > > > spiritual practices' from outside the teachings (for example, yoga) in the > > > development of the understanding that is the heart of the teachings. > > > > > > Just to clarify where you stand on this issue, would you say that the view > > > that, 'There is no connection between the practice of yoga and the > development > > > of insight' is in accordance with, or is contrary to, the teachings as you > > > understand them. > > > > > > I ask this not to be picky or anything like that, but to draw out a point > ;-). > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > hi. 13340 From: Date: Fri May 17, 2002 8:02am Subject: Re: Once More with Feeling (on Concepts) Re: [dsg] Re: Rite and rituals Di, Dan - In a message dated 5/17/02 11:50:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dalthorp@o... writes: > > Hi Howard, > Just a few quick comments: > > mark. I think that when we say that something "is mere concept", > what we > > actually mean is not that this alleged thing exists and is nothing > more than > > being of the category "concept", but, rather, the following: > > (1) There is a concept, a mental construct, an idea mentally > formed > > from elementary experiences (paramattha dhammas), but (2) There is > no > > actually observable referent of this concept. > > So, when we say that the "self we crave is nothing more than > a > > concept, not really existent at all", what we really mean is that, > while the > > concept / idea of 'self' exists, there is no self, no *referent* of > the > > concept of 'self'. > > Aren't views of "self" just misinterpretations of the five aggregates? > E.g. thinking some combination of the aggregates is a "self" and > then mistakenly attributing "self"-ish characteristics (commonly > "eternalist" notions) to that referent via concept. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, for the most part. But also, there is the idea of something *other* than an of the khandas which allegedly underlies them, or is associated with them, or even is viewed as being a reality that is erroneously associated with them. The Hindu Atman/Brahman seems to be simultaneously all of these! --------------------------------------------------- > > More as time allows... > > Thanks for the interesting comments. > > Dan > ========================== 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) 13341 From: Date: Fri May 17, 2002 9:39am Subject: Re: Once More with Feeling (on Concepts) Re: [dsg] Re: Rite and rituals In a message dated 5/17/02 4:04:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Di, Dan - > ======================= Make that "Hi, Dan"!!! ;-)) 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) 13342 From: Date: Fri May 17, 2002 9:44am Subject: Re: Once More with Feeling (on Concepts) Re: [dsg] Re: Rite and rituals Hi again, Dan - In a message dated 5/17/02 4:04:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, for the most part. But also, there is the idea of something > *other* than an of the khandas which allegedly underlies them, or is > associated with them, or even is viewed as being a reality that is > erroneously associated with them. The Hindu Atman/Brahman seems to be > simultaneously all of these! > ======================= This was a *really* sloppily typed post of mine! To make sense of the above, please replace 'an' by 'any' in the 2nd sentence of the quoted material. 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) 13343 From: yuzhonghao Date: Fri May 17, 2002 1:50pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K.] Dan and Robert, Each and every aggregate is not self. It does not mean that there is no self doing anything. It does not mean that there is a self doing anything. It does not mean "no control." It simply means each and every aggregate 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." The characteristics of each and every aggregate being not self is not to be confused with the view "there is no self" or "no control." Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" wrote: > > Pleased to see you realise that one reason to write in this way is > > that it stresses on anatta - that there is no self doing anything > > but that different dhammas are performing whatever function is > > appropriate. > > No, it stresses the "no control" anatta, which is an important aspect > to be sure and one that Westerners have a particularly difficult time > understanding and accepting. Others have taught "no control" as well, > including Christians, fatalists, et al. What is unique to Buddhism is > that it teaches not only "no control", but also anatta AND how the > delusion of atta arises AND how the delusion of atta is rooted out. > > In the metaphorical "citta cognizes", the aspect of "no control" is > clearly emphasized, but there is unquestionably a substantialist > undertone. This is a good thing to think about. > > > We are persistently fooled into thinking that there is a self who > > decides and directs. It helps us see that there is really no self > > when the commentaries further define any dhamma by means of lakkhana > > (characteristic), rasa (function), paccupatthana (the way it > > presents itself) and its padatthana (proximate cause). > > Again, "function" is an odd word. In English it has both teleological > and substantialist connotations, both of which are unwelcome. No word > is perfect, but it is helpful to consider questions like this. > > More comments as time permits... > Thanks, Robert. > > Dan 13344 From: onco111 Date: Fri May 17, 2002 2:04pm Subject: Once More with Feeling (on Concepts) Re: [dsg] Re: Rite and rituals Howard, you wrote: > Yes, for the most part. But also, there is the idea of something > *other* than an of the khandas which allegedly underlies them, or is > associated with them, or even is viewed as being a reality that is > erroneously associated with them. The Hindu Atman/Brahman seems to be > simultaneously all of these! Yes. I forget that. Thanks. 13345 From: onco111 Date: Fri May 17, 2002 2:18pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K.] Hi Victor, The other day my 6 year old son Matt invented some creature that lived in his world. He told me that it might descend upon my head and suck out my soul. "But I don't have a soul," I said. "Yes you do. Everyone has a soul," he replied. "What is that 'soul'?" "It is the wanting things." "The 'wanting things'? What's that called?" "Craving." Then he changed the subject. The 'no control' aspect is doesn't really mean 'no control,' but, rather, that there is no one to do any controlling. Our normal way of thinking about 'control' is to have someone doing it. In fact, when we try to think about how to control, it is so very difficult to not have consciousness rooted in self-view that the 'no control' framework really does have utility, even though it does not fully strike the mark. Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > Dan and Robert, > > Each and every aggregate is not self. It does not mean that there is > no self doing anything. It does not mean that there is a self doing > anything. It does not mean "no control." It simply means each and > every aggregate 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." > > The characteristics of each and every aggregate being not self is not > to be confused with the view "there is no self" or "no control." > > Regards, > Victor > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" wrote: > > > Pleased to see you realise that one reason to write in this way > is > > > that it stresses on anatta - that there is no self doing anything > > > but that different dhammas are performing whatever function is > > > appropriate. > > > > No, it stresses the "no control" anatta, which is an important > aspect > > to be sure and one that Westerners have a particularly difficult > time > > understanding and accepting. Others have taught "no control" as > well, > > including Christians, fatalists, et al. What is unique to Buddhism > is > > that it teaches not only "no control", but also anatta AND how the > > delusion of atta arises AND how the delusion of atta is rooted out. > > > > In the metaphorical "citta cognizes", the aspect of "no control" is > > clearly emphasized, but there is unquestionably a substantialist > > undertone. This is a good thing to think about. > > > > > We are persistently fooled into thinking that there is a self > who > > > decides and directs. It helps us see that there is really no self > > > when the commentaries further define any dhamma by means of > lakkhana > > > (characteristic), rasa (function), paccupatthana (the way it > > > presents itself) and its padatthana (proximate cause). > > > > Again, "function" is an odd word. In English it has both > teleological > > and substantialist connotations, both of which are unwelcome. No > word > > is perfect, but it is helpful to consider questions like this. > > > > More comments as time permits... > > Thanks, Robert. > > > > Dan 13346 From: yuzhonghao Date: Fri May 17, 2002 3:00pm Subject: Once More with Feeling (on Concepts) Re: [dsg] Re: Rite and rituals Hi Howard and all, I would like to make some comments to your message.... > In reading what you wrote here, Dan, it occurred to me how to clarify > the presentation of my ideas on concepts. When you write "But, really, that > self we crave is nothing more than a concept, not really existent at all.", I > see this as perfectly good, clear, and correct conventional expression, just > as you intended. But, to me, if it is taken *literally*, then it is off the > mark. I think that when we say that something "is mere concept", what we > actually mean is not that this alleged thing exists and is nothing more than > being of the category "concept", but, rather, the following: > (1) There is a concept, a mental construct, an idea mentally formed > from elementary experiences (paramattha dhammas), but (2) There is no > actually observable referent of this concept. Howard, we are basically in agreement here: (1) Concepts are verbal fabrications, constructed, compounded. The concept of human being is a concept. It is not human being. The concept of tree is a concept. It is not tree. Any concept is impermanent(not because it rises and falls very fast), unsatisfactory, not self. > So, when we say that the "self we crave is nothing more than a > concept, not really existent at all", what we really mean is that, while the > concept / idea of 'self' exists, there is no self, no *referent* of the > concept of 'self'. The concept of self is a concept. It is not self. Regarding the statement "there is no self", see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html (The view "there is no self" is to be abandoned, given up, although it might not be easy.) Regards, Victor 13347 From: yuzhonghao Date: Fri May 17, 2002 3:31pm Subject: Re: "ritual" [Robert K.] Hi Dan, Please tell Matt that this "wanting thing" is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." I would also like to share this verse with you and the group: 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is self-control. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" wrote: > Hi Victor, > The other day my 6 year old son Matt invented some creature that lived > in his world. He told me that it might descend upon my head and suck > out my soul. > > "But I don't have a soul," I said. > "Yes you do. Everyone has a soul," he replied. > "What is that 'soul'?" > "It is the wanting things." > "The 'wanting things'? What's that called?" > "Craving." > Then he changed the subject. > > The 'no control' aspect is doesn't really mean 'no control,' but, > rather, that there is no one to do any controlling. Our normal way of > thinking about 'control' is to have someone doing it. In fact, when we > try to think about how to control, it is so very difficult to not have > consciousness rooted in self-view that the 'no control' framework > really does have utility, even though it does not fully strike the > mark. > > Dan > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" wrote: > > Dan and Robert, > > > > Each and every aggregate is not self. It does not mean that there > is > > no self doing anything. It does not mean that there is a self doing > > anything. It does not mean "no control." It simply means each and > > every aggregate 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." > > > > The characteristics of each and every aggregate being not self is > not > > to be confused with the view "there is no self" or "no control." > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" wrote: 13348 From: Date: Fri May 17, 2002 11:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K.] Hi, Dan - In a message dated 5/17/02 5:20:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dalthorp@o... writes: > Hi Victor, > The other day my 6 year old son Matt invented some creature that lived > in his world. He told me that it might descend upon my head and suck > out my soul. > > "But I don't have a soul," I said. > "Yes you do. Everyone has a soul," he replied. > "What is that 'soul'?" > "It is the wanting things." > "The 'wanting things'? What's that called?" > "Craving." > Then he changed the subject. > > The 'no control' aspect is doesn't really mean 'no control,' but, > rather, that there is no one to do any controlling. Our normal way of > thinking about 'control' is to have someone doing it. In fact, when we > try to think about how to control, it is so very difficult to not have > consciousness rooted in self-view that the 'no control' framework > really does have utility, even though it does not fully strike the > mark. > > Dan > ============================ Dan, you write some excellent posts. Are you sure your son isn't ghost-writing your material?!!! ;-)) Wow - he's something!! 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) 13349 From: Date: Fri May 17, 2002 11:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K.] Hi again, Dan - Talking about unusual things said by children, your writing what your brilliant six-year old said reminded of something my older son said to us when he was 3 to 4 years old. We were riding in the car, and he casually said "I used to be an Indian" (meaning a Native American). My wife and I smiled to each other (how cute we thought he was), and we played along, saying "Oh, yes? When were you an Indian?". "Before I was born" was the reply! With metta, Howard 13350 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri May 17, 2002 4:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Concentration & FSM Hi Jon, aarrghhh! Trumped by the old 'beginningless time' answer again! But you are quite right, of course. :-) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Christine > > You suggest finding out whether: > > > any of those who teach us to study the realities [have] NEVER done any > > formal meditation? > > Putting aside the tricky question of what kind of formal meditation you > are referring to, I think that any answer could only cover the limited > span of a single lifetime and so would not really 'prove' anything! > > Jon > > --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Anders, Jon, > Dan, Eric and All, > > > > As you say Eric, this topic has been discussed (or at least alluded > > to) many times on this and other lists. One thing I don't recall > > being discussed is whether the Formal Meditation and the Dhamma Study > > could be a consecutive, but distinctly separate, occurrences in > > someone's lifetime. That those who think FM is unnecessary, don't > > realise that their previous involvment actually WAS necessary, and > > they are getting by on a previously learned skill? > > There are many people whom I admire and learn from. Some do Formal > > Meditation (sitting, standing, walking, eating ), and go to Retreats > > etc., some combine FM and Dhamma Study, some Study and practice > > mindfullness. > > Those who do FM feel that it is essential according to the > > Teachings, and that Dhamma Study is not sufficient even with > > mindfullness. Those who practice the latter seem to feel FM is > > harmless, perhaps soothing, but not necessary, according to the > > Teachings. It is very confusing when coming upon this difference of > > opinion, especially when many of us gained our first introduction to > > Buddhism during Dhamma talks after group meditation. > > > > I only have a vague knowledge of some list members involvment with FM > > or Study, but wonder if there is anyone who has NEVER done FM in the > > past, however long ago, and who obtains satisfying results from > > Dhamma study and mindfulness only? (For instance, Sarah has told > > us of her FM practice years ago, and that she doesn't find it a > > necessary practice now.) Just an idle thought, - could it be that > > one can get to a 'sufficient' level that is accessible for progress > > on the Path.... just like riding a bike, you never lose the skill? > > Have any of those who teach us to study the realities NEVER done any > > formal meditation? > > > > metta, > > Christine 13351 From: Date: Fri May 17, 2002 1:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K.] In a message dated 5/17/2002 2:18:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, victoryu@s... writes: > Dan and Robert, > > Each and every aggregate is not self. It does not mean that there is > no self doing anything. It does not mean that there is a self doing > anything. It does not mean "no control." It simply means each and > every aggregate 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." > > The characteristics of each and every aggregate being not self is not > to be confused with the view "there is no self" or "no control." > > Regards, > Victor > There is no-self, and there is no control. Both Self and control are a delusion and both delusions are "self view." Things arise and cease due to conditions. We might think its "our" idea to study Buddhism. Not without the condition of the Buddha's teaching it isn't. We might think its "our" idea to take a trip to Paris. Not without the condition of the travel industry, not without the European continent, not without financial resources, or the job that provides them, or the people who created the job, or the ancestors of those people, or our ancestors, or with the heat from the sun, or without the gravity from mass, or without oxygen, or without the elements generated by supernova, or without a particular interest that makes Paris interesting, or without the conditions that contacted that interest, or without a government that allows that freedom, etc., etc., uncountable times over. There is pushing and pulling of causal forces, there is an illusion of self control, but ultimately there is no self control. How then can an effort be made to practice dhamma? Because of the causality of education. Plus uncountable supporting (conditional) phenomena. TG 13352 From: Date: Fri May 17, 2002 9:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 8 (2)Larry/Azita Hi Christine, interesting article. I am far from understanding how kamma works, but I think anatta can be partially glimpsed just by finding rootless cittas. It seems obvious that akusala roots are at the heart of all self grasping. That is to say, akusala roots are what is most commonly taken as 'self'. And this 'self' appropriates vipaka as soon as it arises, so the vipaka becomes the attribute of the akusala citta. Seeing vipaka for what it is (rootless) is to see that it is not self. Somehow this translates into seeing that the sahetuka citta is also not self. It's sort of infectious. The main thing is to identify the object of one's feelings. See that the object is itself without feeling. See that the feeling is lobha, dosa, or moha. Voila! What was self is no longer self. Abhidhamma for the untaught manyfolk :-) Larry 13353 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 18, 2002 4:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sitting and mindfulness [Anders] Victor --- yuzhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, Anders and all, > > I would like to share some thoughts regarding the practice of > satipatthana. ... > The teaching in Satipatthana Sutta describes how satipatthana is > practiced; thus whether the teaching recommends sitting as a means to > the development of mindfulness is subject to speculation. > > Having read that the Buddha said: > > "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. " > > the unnamed monk the Buddha mentioned in the discourse is a model > that I would emulate. And this is how I learn how to establish > mindfulness from reading the Satipatthana Sutta: following the > examples in the discourse and emulate them. It is a process > of "learning by doing" and takes repetitive practice. I'm not sure about the approach of 'emulating' the monks mentioned in the discourses. Is it not better to seek to understand the essence of the Buddha's words? In any event, it is surely not possible to emulate the wisdom of another (many of those monks were ready for enlightenment on hearing the Buddha's teaching). How about "learning by understanding and applying"? Just my thoughts. Jon 13354 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 18, 2002 4:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is kamma unstoppable? (was, ADL ch. 8 (2)Larry/Azita) Christine It is I think well established that kamma can become 'inoperative' )ahosi) under certain circumstances, but I would like to question something in the explanation given below. The statement that: > ... past akusala kammas > disappear entirely as soon as sakkaya ditthi disappears. is not supported by the texts as far as I am aware. I believe there are numerous instances in the suttas of arahants (including the Buddha) receiving the fruits of akusala kamma. On the subject of kamma generally, see the useful entry in Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary'. I have pasted below 2 extracts relevant to this thread (ahosi-kamma and destructive/supplanting kamma) Jon A. Ahosi-kamma "With regard to the time of the taking place of the karma-result (vipáka), one distinguishes, as mentioned above, 3 kinds of karma: 1. karma ripening during the life-time; 2. karma ripening in the next birth; 3. karma ripening in later births. The first two kinds of karma may be without karma-result (vipáka), if the circumstances required for the taking place of the karma-result are missing, or if, through the preponderance of counteractive karma and their being too weak, they are unable to produce any result. *In this case they are called ahosi-kamma, lit. 'karma that has been', in other words, ineffectual karma*. The third type of karma, however, which bears fruit in later lives, will, whenever and wherever there is an opportunity, be productive of karma-result. Before its result has ripened, it will never become ineffective as long as the life-process is kept going by craving and ignorance. B. Destructive/supplanting kamma With regard to their functions one distinguishes: 1. regenerative (or productive) karma, 2. supportive (or consolidating) karma, 3. counteractive (suppressive or frustrating) karma, 4. destructive (or supplanting) karma. (1) produces the 5 groups of existence (corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness) at rebirth as well as during life-continuity. (2) does not produce karma-results but is only able to maintain the already produced karma-results. (3) counteracts or suppresses the karma-results. (4) *destroys the influence of a weaker karma* and effects only its own result. --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hi Larry and Azita, > > Relating to Larry's question "Is kamma unstopable once the cause has > arisen?" > You may be interested in a part of an article I am reading > called "Anattanisamsa - A concise Description of the Advantages > Arising Out of The Realisation of Anatta by The Venerable Mahahthera > Ledi Sayaday, Agga Maha Pandita, D. Litt. > http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/ledi002.htm > > Interesting about kusala kamma... > > metta, > Christine > > "How Past Kammas Become Inoperative." > > "How the infinite numbers of past kammas became inoperative the > moment sakkaya ditthi is extinguished may be illustrated as follows: > > In a string of beads where an infinite number of beads are strung > together by a strong silk thread, if one bead is pulled all the other > beads follow or accompany the one that is pulled. But if the silk > thread is removed, pulling one of the beads does not disturb the > other beads because there is no longer any attachment between them. > > A being who possesses sakkaya ditthi harbours a strong attachment for > the series of khandhas during past existences and past world-cycles > by transforming them into "I". Thinking "In past existences and in > past world-cycles I have been on many occasions a human being, a deva > or a brahma." he acquires the thread that is sakkaya ditthi. It is > thus that the infinite number of past akusala kammas committed in > past existences and past world-cycles, and which have not as yet > produced resultants, accompany that being wherever he may be reborn. > These past akusala kammas resemble beads that are strung and bound > together by a strong thread. > > Beings who clearly perceive the anatta characteristic, however, and > who have rid themselves of sakkaya ditthi. perceive that the rupa and > namakkhandhas which arise and disappear even in the short course of > one sitting as separate phenomena and not as a bonded continuum. The > concept of "my atta" which is like the thread, is no longer present. > Their khandhas appear to them like the string of beads from which the > thread has been removed. They clearly perceive that the akusala > kammas which they had committed in the past are not 'persons', > or 'beings' or 'I', or 'my kammas', and that they are which arise and > disappear in an instant. That is why these past akusala kammas > disappear entirely as soon as sakkaya ditthi disappears. > > Here, it is to be observed that only the akusala kammas disappear. > Past kusala kammas do not disappear through the mere disappearance of > sakkaya ditthi. It is only when the stage of the arahatta magga is > reached, and when tanha is completely eradicated, do kusala kammas > also totally disappear." > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., azita gill wrote: > > --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Dear group, 13355 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 18, 2002 5:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? - Jon and Nina Rob Ep Just a very quick note to say that the extracts in my earlier post are not from Nina's ADL but from CMA, the translatin of the Abhidhamattha Sangaha. More later, as i am out of time on this hotel computer. Jon --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > The quote from Abhidhamma in Daily Life troubles me, and not > coincidentally. > Since this is Nina's book, I invite Nina to comment, and I apologize in > advance > for taking a tough view towards this quote. I don't want to > misinterpret what she > says through ignorance, but this is what troubles me: > > "Ultimate realities are things that exist by reason of their own > intrinsic > > nature > > (sabhaava). > 13356 From: yuzhonghao Date: Sat May 18, 2002 5:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sitting and mindfulness [Anders] Jon, Regarding "learning by understanding and applying", what about it? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > --- yuzhonghao wrote: > > Hi Jon, Anders and all, > > > > I would like to share some thoughts regarding the practice of > > satipatthana. > ... > > The teaching in Satipatthana Sutta describes how satipatthana is > > practiced; thus whether the teaching recommends sitting as a means to > > the development of mindfulness is subject to speculation. > > > > Having read that the Buddha said: > > > > "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. " > > > > the unnamed monk the Buddha mentioned in the discourse is a model > > that I would emulate. And this is how I learn how to establish > > mindfulness from reading the Satipatthana Sutta: following the > > examples in the discourse and emulate them. It is a process > > of "learning by doing" and takes repetitive practice. > > I'm not sure about the approach of 'emulating' the monks mentioned in the > discourses. Is it not better to seek to understand the essence of the > Buddha's words? In any event, it is surely not possible to emulate the > wisdom of another (many of those monks were ready for enlightenment on > hearing the Buddha's teaching). > > How about "learning by understanding and applying"? > > Just my thoughts. > > Jon 13357 From: yuzhonghao Date: Sat May 18, 2002 5:54am Subject: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K.] TG, For the statement "there is no self", see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html For the statement "there is no control", I would like to share this verse with you: 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is self-control. See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., TGrand458@a... wrote: > In a message dated 5/17/2002 2:18:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > victoryu@s... writes: > > > > Dan and Robert, > > > > Each and every aggregate is not self. It does not mean that there is > > no self doing anything. It does not mean that there is a self doing > > anything. It does not mean "no control." It simply means each and > > every aggregate 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." > > > > The characteristics of each and every aggregate being not self is not > > to be confused with the view "there is no self" or "no control." > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > > > There is no-self, and there is no control. Both Self and control are a > delusion and both delusions are "self view." > > Things arise and cease due to conditions. We might think its "our" idea to > study Buddhism. Not without the condition of the Buddha's teaching it isn't. > We might think its "our" idea to take a trip to Paris. Not without the > condition of the travel industry, not without the European continent, not > without financial resources, or the job that provides them, or the people who > created the job, or the ancestors of those people, or our ancestors, or with > the heat from the sun, or without the gravity from mass, or without oxygen, > or without the elements generated by supernova, or without a particular > interest that makes Paris interesting, or without the conditions that > contacted that interest, or without a government that allows that freedom, > etc., etc., uncountable times over. > > There is pushing and pulling of causal forces, there is an illusion of self > control, but ultimately there is no self control. > > How then can an effort be made to practice dhamma? Because of the causality > of education. Plus uncountable supporting (conditional) phenomena. > > TG 13358 From: Date: Sat May 18, 2002 3:23am Subject: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Re: [dsg] Sitting and mindfulness [Anders] Hi, Jon (and all) - In a message dated 5/18/02 7:23:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Victor > > --- yuzhonghao wrote: > > Hi Jon, Anders and all, > > > > I would like to share some thoughts regarding the practice of > > satipatthana. > ... > > The teaching in Satipatthana Sutta describes how satipatthana is > > practiced; thus whether the teaching recommends sitting as a means to > > the development of mindfulness is subject to speculation. > > > > Having read that the Buddha said: > > > > "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. " > > > > the unnamed monk the Buddha mentioned in the discourse is a model > > that I would emulate. And this is how I learn how to establish > > mindfulness from reading the Satipatthana Sutta: following the > > examples in the discourse and emulate them. It is a process > > of "learning by doing" and takes repetitive practice. > > I'm not sure about the approach of 'emulating' the monks mentioned in the > discourses. Is it not better to seek to understand the essence of the > Buddha's words? In any event, it is surely not possible to emulate the > wisdom of another (many of those monks were ready for enlightenment on > hearing the Buddha's teaching). > > How about "learning by understanding and applying"? > > Just my thoughts. > > Jon > ==================================== I found a not-too-long sutta which I think is interesting in a couple ways. The sutta is the following: *********************** Samyutta Nikaya XLVII.40 Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Analysis of the Frames of Reference Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. For free distribution only. "I will teach you the frames of reference, their development, and the path of practice leading to their development. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak. "Now, what are the frames of reference? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. "This is called the frames of reference. "And what is the development of the frames of reference? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, remains focused on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, remains focused on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the body -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. "He remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to feelings, remains focused on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to feelings, remains focused on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to feelings -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. "He remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the mind, remains focused on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the mind, remains focused on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the mind -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. "He remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to mental qualities, remains focused on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to mental qualities, remains focused on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to mental qualities -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. "This is called the development of the frames of reference. "And what is the path of practice to the development of the frames of reference? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called the path of practice to the development of the frames of reference." Revised: Mon 10 September 2001 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn47-040.html ******************************* The first section after the three introductory sentences defines what "the frames of reference" (often called "the setting up of mindfulness") is, namely the case where the practitioner remains directly focussed on the various elements of experience "ardent, alert, & mindul - putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world." We might note here that the activity has two aspects: (1) the ardent, alert, and mindful focussing, and (2) the putting aside of (what the translator gives as) "greed & distress with reference to the world," this latter suggesting a state of equanimity. The second section deals with the (further?) development of this, consisting of focussing on the aspects of origination and of cessation of these phenomena. This would engender the clear seeing of anicca and anatta, leading to disenchantment. Most interesting to me is the final section which defines "the path of practice to the development of the frames of reference," as specifically the noble eightfold path. The straightforward reading of this takes satipatthana more as something which "comes later", penultimate to liberation, rather than as a technique to be practiced "all along". It would seem, on this reading, that the entire eight-factored path is the path of practice culminating in satipatthana (and then in awakening and liberation). With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13359 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat May 18, 2002 7:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. op 17-05-2002 11:03 schreef Robert Epstein op epsteinrob@Y...: >> The choice of the term 'paramattha' (from 'parama' + 'attha') to describe the >> fundamental dhammas, and its English translation as 'ultimate realities', is >> explained in A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, notes to Ch. I #2 as >> follows: Hallo Rob Ep, I always enjoy it to hear from you. You did not mangle my words, because you mistook Jon's quotes of the notes to the Manual of Abh, which is the Abhidhammatta Sangaha, for my book Abhidhamma in Daily Life. Now what is quoted there is the explanation, as far as I understand, by Ven. Bodhi himself, and I find that he uses terms that are complicated to me personally, although he formulates very well. Am I glad I do not have to explain all those terms :-). But I see you are somewhat struggling with the term ultimate realities, paramattha dhammas. Now I am going to repeat what others and I said before: it is not so important what term we use so long as we understand the difference between concepts and realities, we can also call dhammas, and that by considering this just now. When someone talks to you, are there not different moments: hearing just sound, and thinking of words and their meaning? Touching hardness and knowing there is a table? If we try to reason too much we really get lost, I believe. You may like A. Sujin's book on line (Robert K's web) Realities and Concepts. I wonder if it could be helpful if I quote something from my Preserving the Teachings although you may have seen this before: Monday I am off for a three day hike, best wishes from Nina. 13360 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat May 18, 2002 11:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. Hi Nina, Thank you so much for your answer and quote, and for your clarification that I had my books mixed up! Now I can debate freely and only worry about whether I am misapprehending the Dharma. I think you are right that whether we talk about paramatha dhammas or just dhammas, the important thing is what is actually occurring in the moment, free from concepts. But my problem with calling the momentary manifestations of the khandas 'realities' is greater than that, because my question is: Are these momentary manifestations actually 'real'? What is their status? Is it correct to think of them as 'real'? Howard in his signature and others at other times have quoted Buddha saying that we should regard this life as an illusion, a fleeting dream, not substantial, but a kind of trick of the mind. Do we call the events that arise in a dream 'realities'? It seems contradictory to me. If the purpose of the path is to awaken from the dream of samsara, the illusion that we are separate individuated beings with internal entities, and that what we perceive is filtered through the operations of the mind, I would agree that it is a highly important thing to be able to distinguish between what we are really experiencing in the moment, and to be able to tell whether it is a concept or a perceived reality. But to stop there and to say that the experience of 'hardness', 'sadness', or other momentary experiences are 'real', and that they are the final reality, seems to me to rob us of the understanding that these too are *unreal*, that they are momentary manifestations of perception or thought, dependent on human consciousness for their appearance. There seems to be an empiricist idea in calling dhammas 'realities', that things exist in the world apart from human apprehension. The fact that we perceive 'hardness' or 'sadness' does not mean that they are real, it only proves that these things occur in the mind, without which we perceive nothing. I believe Buddha asked us to suspend any judgment about whether there is a 'real world' outside of us or not, and to regard our experience as the experience of the kandhas. Are the kandhas actual structures that exist in a real world? I think that to draw the conclusion that they are is to say that we live in an objective universe which is actual and substantial. And this would then be a substantialist view which leads to real object and entity. It is hard for me to imagine the sensation of 'hardness' being real, without it somehow implying a 'real object' that is hard. 'Hardness' cannot float about or exist by itself, there is no 'hardness' that stands on its own and makes an impression on a person. Hardness is a quality of something that is hard. The point in seeing 'hardness' as more real than 'wood' and 'wood' as a concept is to demonstrate that we do not experience things except through their qualities. But it does not take away from the presumption that underlies 'hardness' as a reality, that there is indeed something that is hard, even though we can only perceive it one quality at a time. If we say the 'hardness' is 'real', rather than merely an experience of the perceiving organ, then we assert by implication that the 'wood' is also real, and that that which is made of wood is also real, even though we admit that we cannot perceive it all at once, but only one rupa at a time. So that leaves me with the question, are objects real according to Buddha? Do we live in an empirically objective universe, apprehended imperfectly by us as perceiving subjects? Can we ever assume that there is a world of 'realities' either within or beyond our own mental and perceptual functions, which are thoroughly caused by the interaction of the kandhas? The objects and thoughts that we perceive through the cittas are in every case productions of mental processes, through mental or sensory doors. To me it is very uncertain that anything that we apprehend in these ways can be called 'realities'. I would prefer to think of them as 'manfestations', 'arisings', or 'creations of perceptual/mental processes'. I just don't see how we can assume anything that is a 'reality' beyond the mind itself, from which all our experiences arise. I think it makes a difference which way we look at this, as to what there is to awaken from. Do we awaken to a world that is still intact with real objects to apprehend, which to me has a kind of security to it. After all, even when we awaken, the world will still be here, only seen more perfectly in each moment. Or, do we awaken to a world in which all our realities are seen as productions of mind, and that in fact none of it has final reality? In which our familiar objects as well as ourselves are seen to be illusory through and through, like the dream that Buddha refers to in several places? To me, this is a much more radical awakening, and one that truly threatens the sense of self. No-self, no permanent object, no security, nothing to hold onto. And no room for any kind of self or entity to reside. Best, Robert Ep. ======================================= --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > op 17-05-2002 11:03 schreef Robert Epstein op epsteinrob@Y...: > > >> The choice of the term 'paramattha' (from 'parama' + 'attha') to describe the > >> fundamental dhammas, and its English translation as 'ultimate realities', is > >> explained in A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, notes to Ch. I #2 as > >> follows: > > Hallo Rob Ep, I always enjoy it to hear from you. You did not mangle my > words, because you mistook Jon's quotes of the notes to the Manual of Abh, > which is the Abhidhammatta Sangaha, for my book Abhidhamma in Daily Life. > Now what is quoted there is the explanation, as far as I understand, by Ven. > Bodhi himself, and I find that he uses terms that are complicated to me > personally, although he formulates very well. Am I glad I do not have to > explain all those terms :-). > But I see you are somewhat struggling with the term ultimate realities, > paramattha dhammas. Now I am going to repeat what others and I said before: > it is not so important what term we use so long as we understand the > difference between concepts and realities, we can also call dhammas, and > that by considering this just now. When someone talks to you, are there not > different moments: hearing just sound, and thinking of words and their > meaning? Touching hardness and knowing there is a table? If we try to reason > too much we really get lost, I believe. You may like A. Sujin's book on line > (Robert K's web) Realities and Concepts. > > I wonder if it could be helpful if I quote something from my Preserving the > Teachings although you may have seen this before: > > Seeing has its own characteristic that cannot be changed, no matter how we > name it. We can call it by another name, but seeing is always seeing, its > characteristic cannot be changed. Seeing experiences what is visible, colour > or visible object. Visible object has its own characteristic and when it > appears it can be directly experienced without having to name it. Anger is a > type of nåma that has its own characteristic which cannot be changed. Anger > is always anger, no matter how we name it. Hardness is a kind of rúpa that > can be directly experienced through the bodysense, no matter how we name it. > When we touch a cup or a chair we know their different meanings in > conventional sense: we drink from a cup and we sit on a chair. However, when > we touch them hardness may appear. We can verify that hardness is only an > element, a kind of rúpa that has the characteristic of hardness, to be > experienced through the bodysense, no matter it is hardness of a cup, a > chair or a hand. We can directly experience it without thinking of it, > without naming it. It is important to learn the difference between > paramattha dhammas and concepts. Right understanding developed through > satipatthåna has as object paramattha dhammas, not concepts. Concepts are > not real in the ultimate or fundamental sense, they are objects of thinking. > When we see people walking, we cling immediately to shape and form, to a > conglomeration of things, to a concept of a whole. In reality seeing sees > just visible object, no people. Thinking thinks of the concept of people who > are walking; thinking is a paramattha dhamma, it is nåma, but the concept it > thinks of is not a paramattha dhamma. Thinking is conditioned by seeing. > Acharn Sujin asked us: ³Can there be people without visible object?² > When we are reading we are immediately absorbed in the story we read and we > have different feelings about it, we feel happy or sad. At such moments we > live in the world of concepts and ideas that are real merely in conventional > sense. When we are reading, different cittas experience different objects. > The citta that sees experiences only colour or visible object which impinges > on the eyesense. Other types of cittas think of the meaning of the letters > and of the whole story. Acharn Sujin reminded us that in real life we are > also as it were ³reading². We are looking at lines and shapes and we define > these as this or that person. > We should not try to avoid thinking of concepts of people and things, but we > can learn the difference between paramattha dhammas and concepts. ..... > .....Studying dhamma, reality, is studying with mindfulness of what appears > at this very moment. The purpose of our study should be understanding of our > life at this moment. > This is a new approach to life, to the world. We are used to being > infatuated with the world of people and all the things around us without > understanding what is really there: nåma and rúpa that arise because of > their appropriate conditions and then fall away immediately. When we > perceive people there are in reality different moments of citta: seeing is > different from thinking of the meaning of what we see. When we perceive a > person or a thing, we pay attention to a mental image of a whole, and we are > absorbed in all the details of what is seen. This happens during all our > activities in daily life when we, for example, add sugar and milk to our > coffee, use knife and fork when we are eating, when we are reading or > walking. A mental image of a whole is not a reality, a dhamma, it is a > concept, paññatti. The word concept, in Påli paññatti, has different > meanings: it is a name or term that conveys a meaning as well as the idea it > makes known. Thus, it makes known and also, it is what has been made known. > Names can denote persons or things that are not realities, or they can > denote realities, such as different nåmas and rúpas. When we have a notion > of a ³whole², such as a person or thing, we are thinking of an idea, a > concept, not a reality, not a nåma or rúpa.> > > Monday I am off for a three day hike, > best wishes from Nina. 13361 From: Howard Date: Sat May 18, 2002 10:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. Hi, Robert (and Nina) - The position you take here, Rob, seems to go a bit beyond mine. Something which is like a "star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream" has a mirage-like quality, but it is not absolutely nothing. Dhammas exist, but in a middle-way, dependent, and not self-supporting manner (despite the root mean ing of 'dhamma'). The question is exactly what does one mean by a "reality". I do NOT see hardness as having to be hardness of "something". There are just the characteristics and functionalities, but no "things" that possess them, except conventionally (that is: only in a manner of speaking). The characteristics are real in the sense of being elements of experience, but are unreal in the sense of not being self-existent. This is my take on the matter. My fear is that the constant reference to "realities" tends towards a substantialist perspective. With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/18/02 2:02:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert Ep writes: > Hi Nina, > Thank you so much for your answer and quote, and for your clarification > that I had > my books mixed up! Now I can debate freely and only worry about > whether I > am misapprehending the Dharma. > > I think you are right that whether we talk about paramatha dhammas or just > dhammas, the important thing is what is actually occurring in the moment, > free > from concepts. But my problem with calling the momentary manifestations of > the > khandas 'realities' is greater than that, because my question is: Are > these > momentary manifestations actually 'real'? What is their status? Is it > correct to > think of them as 'real'? Howard in his signature and others at other times > have > quoted Buddha saying that we should regard this life as an illusion, a > fleeting > dream, not substantial, but a kind of trick of the mind. Do we call the > events > that arise in a dream 'realities'? It seems contradictory to me. If the > purpose > of the path is to awaken from the dream of samsara, the illusion that we > are > separate individuated beings with internal entities, and that what we > perceive is > filtered through the operations of the mind, I would agree that it is a > highly > important thing to be able to distinguish between what we are really > experiencing > in the moment, and to be able to tell whether it is a concept or a > perceived > reality. > > But to stop there and to say that the experience of 'hardness', 'sadness', > or > other momentary experiences are 'real', and that they are the final > reality, seems > to me to rob us of the understanding that these too are *unreal*, that they > are > momentary manifestations of perception or thought, dependent on human > consciousness for their appearance. There seems to be an empiricist idea > in > calling dhammas 'realities', that things exist in the world apart from > human > apprehension. The fact that we perceive 'hardness' or 'sadness' does not > mean > that they are real, it only proves that these things occur in the mind, > without > which we perceive nothing. > > I believe Buddha asked us to suspend any judgment about whether there is a > 'real > world' outside of us or not, and to regard our experience as the experience > of the > kandhas. Are the kandhas actual structures that exist in a real world? I > think > that to draw the conclusion that they are is to say that we live in an > objective > universe which is actual and substantial. And this would then be a > substantialist > view which leads to real object and entity. > > It is hard for me to imagine the sensation of 'hardness' being real, > without it > somehow implying a 'real object' that is hard. 'Hardness' cannot float > about or > exist by itself, there is no 'hardness' that stands on its own and makes an > impression on a person. Hardness is a quality of something that is hard. > The > point in seeing 'hardness' as more real than 'wood' and 'wood' as a concept > is to > demonstrate that we do not experience things except through their > qualities. But > it does not take away from the presumption that underlies 'hardness' as a > reality, > that there is indeed something that is hard, even though we can only > perceive it > one quality at a time. If we say the 'hardness' is 'real', rather than > merely an > experience of the perceiving organ, then we assert by implication that the > 'wood' > is also real, and that that which is made of wood is also real, even though > we > admit that we cannot perceive it all at once, but only one rupa at a time. > > So that leaves me with the question, are objects real according to Buddha? > Do we > live in an empirically objective universe, apprehended imperfectly by us as > perceiving subjects? Can we ever assume that there is a world of > 'realities' > either within or beyond our own mental and perceptual functions, which are > thoroughly caused by the interaction of the kandhas? > > The objects and thoughts that we perceive through the cittas are in every > case > productions of mental processes, through mental or sensory doors. To me it > is > very uncertain that anything that we apprehend in these ways can be called > 'realities'. I would prefer to think of them as 'manfestations', > 'arisings', or > 'creations of perceptual/mental processes'. I just don't see how we can > assume > anything that is a 'reality' beyond the mind itself, from which all our > experiences arise. > > I think it makes a difference which way we look at this, as to what there > is to > awaken from. Do we awaken to a world that is still intact with real > objects to > apprehend, which to me has a kind of security to it. After all, even when > we > awaken, the world will still be here, only seen more perfectly in each > moment. > > Or, do we awaken to a world in which all our realities are seen as > productions of > mind, and that in fact none of it has final reality? In which our familiar > objects as well as ourselves are seen to be illusory through and through, > like the > dream that Buddha refers to in several places? To me, this is a much more > radical > awakening, and one that truly threatens the sense of self. No-self, no > permanent > object, no security, nothing to hold onto. And no room for any kind of > self or > entity to reside. > > Best, > Robert Ep. > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13362 From: TG Date: Sun May 19, 2002 1:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K.] In a message dated 5/18/2002 5:54:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Victor writes: > TG, > > For the statement "there is no self", > see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html > > For the statement "there is no control", I would like to share this > verse with you: > > 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train > others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is > self-control. > > See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html > > Regards, > Victor > Hi Victor Here I believe is the "conventional view" of self control. Someone still encumbered with self view can still benefit from not acting in unskilful ways, i.e., killing, stealing, lying, etc. By understanding that the "self-control" referred to in the above quote is simply described 5 conditioned aggregates and conditional volitional responses; the advice can be considered education (teaching) that is forging the CONDITIONS so that a mind can understand that certain acts (conditions) lead to suffering, while other acts (conditions) lead to non-suffering. Its all a matter of cause and effect. The 5 aggregates of clinging cannot usurp power over mere cause and effect with a "self" that does not exist. TG 13365 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun May 19, 2002 11:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. Hi Howard, Thanks for your note! I basically agree, and am equally worried about the substantialist potentiality of 'realities'. However, I think we have to confront these sayings of the Buddha in order to understand whether the world is be realized or awakened from. yes, a dream has an actual existence as dream, just as concept does actually exist as concept. Both have in common that their referents do not actually exist outside the dream or concept. So the question which I am trying to face, and bring out is: do the 'realities' of 'hardness' which comes through a sense-door or a 'thought' which comes through a 'mind-door' have any substantial existence outside of the mind which apprehends them? This does not mean they do not take place, it is asking where and on what basis they take place. If Buddha says that this life is like a dream and should be regarded as an illusion, a magic trick, or whatever, all of these metaphors point in the same direction: that our reality is seeming, not substantial. To say that there is a world of 'actual realities' hiding behind our delusions is indeed substantialist. I don't see how to avoid it. When we are dreaming the details of such dream can be clearly felt and reacted to, just as in our own lives. I think Buddha was helping us not just to discern, but by discerning, to awaken. When we awake from a dream, we can still go over many of the details, but we know they are not substantial, even though they did indeed occur, as you assert. But we shouldn't cling to them, either in their present or their 'authentic' state when seen as dreamlike occurrences in the mind. When Buddhaghosa states that the namas and rupas are the 'irreduceible final entities' of experience, that seems pretty far in the other direction to me. How about you? best, Robert Ep. ========================== --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert (and Nina) - > > The position you take here, Rob, seems to go a bit beyond mine. > Something which is like a "star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of > lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream" has a > mirage-like quality, but it is not absolutely nothing. Dhammas exist, but in > a middle-way, dependent, and not self-supporting manner (despite the root mean > ing of 'dhamma'). The question is exactly what does one mean by a "reality". > I do NOT see hardness as having to be hardness of "something". There are just > the characteristics and functionalities, but no "things" that possess them, > except conventionally (that is: only in a manner of speaking). The > characteristics are real in the sense of being elements of experience, but > are unreal in the sense of not being self-existent. This is my take on the > matter. My fear is that the constant reference to "realities" tends towards a > substantialist perspective. > > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 5/18/02 2:02:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert Ep writes: > > > > Hi Nina, > > Thank you so much for your answer and quote, and for your clarification > > that I had > > my books mixed up! Now I can debate freely and only worry about > > whether I > > am misapprehending the Dharma. > > > > I think you are right that whether we talk about paramatha dhammas or just > > dhammas, the important thing is what is actually occurring in the moment, > > free > > from concepts. But my problem with calling the momentary manifestations of > > the > > khandas 'realities' is greater than that, because my question is: Are > > these > > momentary manifestations actually 'real'? What is their status? Is it > > correct to > > think of them as 'real'? Howard in his signature and others at other times > > have > > quoted Buddha saying that we should regard this life as an illusion, a > > fleeting > > dream, not substantial, but a kind of trick of the mind. Do we call the > > events > > that arise in a dream 'realities'? It seems contradictory to me. If the > > purpose > > of the path is to awaken from the dream of samsara, the illusion that we > > are > > separate individuated beings with internal entities, and that what we > > perceive is > > filtered through the operations of the mind, I would agree that it is a > > highly > > important thing to be able to distinguish between what we are really > > experiencing > > in the moment, and to be able to tell whether it is a concept or a > > perceived > > reality. > > > > But to stop there and to say that the experience of 'hardness', 'sadness', > > or > > other momentary experiences are 'real', and that they are the final > > reality, seems > > to me to rob us of the understanding that these too are *unreal*, that they > > are > > momentary manifestations of perception or thought, dependent on human > > consciousness for their appearance. There seems to be an empiricist idea > > in > > calling dhammas 'realities', that things exist in the world apart from > > human > > apprehension. The fact that we perceive 'hardness' or 'sadness' does not > > mean > > that they are real, it only proves that these things occur in the mind, > > without > > which we perceive nothing. > > > > I believe Buddha asked us to suspend any judgment about whether there is a > > 'real > > world' outside of us or not, and to regard our experience as the experience > > of the > > kandhas. Are the kandhas actual structures that exist in a real world? I > > think > > that to draw the conclusion that they are is to say that we live in an > > objective > > universe which is actual and substantial. And this would then be a > > substantialist > > view which leads to real object and entity. > > > > It is hard for me to imagine the sensation of 'hardness' being real, > > without it > > somehow implying a 'real object' that is hard. 'Hardness' cannot float > > about or > > exist by itself, there is no 'hardness' that stands on its own and makes an > > impression on a person. Hardness is a quality of something that is hard. > > The > > point in seeing 'hardness' as more real than 'wood' and 'wood' as a concept > > is to > > demonstrate that we do not experience things except through their > > qualities. But > > it does not take away from the presumption that underlies 'hardness' as a > > reality, > > that there is indeed something that is hard, even though we can only > > perceive it > > one quality at a time. If we say the 'hardness' is 'real', rather than > > merely an > > experience of the perceiving organ, then we assert by implication that the > > 'wood' > > is also real, and that that which is made of wood is also real, even though > > we > > admit that we cannot perceive it all at once, but only one rupa at a time. > > > > So that leaves me with the question, are objects real according to Buddha? > > Do we > > live in an empirically objective universe, apprehended imperfectly by us as > > perceiving subjects? Can we ever assume that there is a world of > > 'realities' > > either within or beyond our own mental and perceptual functions, which are > > thoroughly caused by the interaction of the kandhas? > > > > The objects and thoughts that we perceive through the cittas are in every > > case > > productions of mental processes, through mental or sensory doors. To me it > > is > > very uncertain that anything that we apprehend in these ways can be called > > 'realities'. I would prefer to think of them as 'manfestations', > > 'arisings', or > > 'creations of perceptual/mental processes'. I just don't see how we can > > assume > > anything that is a 'reality' beyond the mind itself, from which all our > > experiences arise. > > > > I think it makes a difference which way we look at this, as to what there > > is to > > awaken from. Do we awaken to a world that is still intact with real > > objects to > > apprehend, which to me has a kind of security to it. After all, even when > > we > > awaken, the world will still be here, only seen more perfectly in each > > moment. > > > > Or, do we awaken to a world in which all our realities are seen as > > productions of > > mind, and that in fact none of it has final reality? In which our familiar > > objects as well as ourselves are seen to be illusory through and through, > > like the > > dream that Buddha refers to in several places? To me, this is a much more > > radical > > awakening, and one that truly threatens the sense of self. No-self, no > > permanent > > object, no security, nothing to hold onto. And no room for any kind of > > self or > > entity to reside. > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. 13366 From: Howard Date: Sun May 19, 2002 9:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. Hi, Robert - In a message dated 5/18/02 11:18:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert Ep writes: > > Hi Howard, > Thanks for your note! I basically agree, and am equally worried about the > substantialist potentiality of 'realities'. However, I think we have to > confront > these sayings of the Buddha in order to understand whether the world is be > realized or awakened from. yes, a dream has an actual existence as dream, > just as > concept does actually exist as concept. Both have in common that their > referents > do not actually exist outside the dream or concept. So the question which > I am > trying to face, and bring out is: do the 'realities' of 'hardness' which > comes > through a sense-door or a 'thought' which comes through a 'mind-door' have > any > substantial existence outside of the mind which apprehends them? This does > not > mean they do not take place, it is asking where and on what basis they take > place. > If Buddha says that this life is like a dream and should be regarded as an > illusion, a magic trick, or whatever, all of these metaphors point in the > same > direction: that our reality is seeming, not substantial. To say that there > is a > world of 'actual realities' hiding behind our delusions is indeed > substantialist. > I don't see how to avoid it. When we are dreaming the details of such > dream can > be clearly felt and reacted to, just as in our own lives. I think Buddha > was > helping us not just to discern, but by discerning, to awaken. When we > awake from > a dream, we can still go over many of the details, but we know they are not > substantial, even though they did indeed occur, as you assert. But we > shouldn't > cling to them, either in their present or their 'authentic' state when seen > as > dreamlike occurrences in the mind. > > When Buddhaghosa states that the namas and rupas are the 'irreduceible > final > entities' of experience, that seems pretty far in the other direction to > me. How > about you? > > best, > Robert Ep. > > ========================== We are in basic agreement on this Robert, but, actually, I think that Abidhamma is as well. As I understand it, the Buddhist perspective, and most explicitly so in Abhidhamma, is a phenomenalist one which doesn't countenance objects existing independently of experience. There is no hardness other than the experience of hardness, at least none that can be actually known. But there is more to not being a self-existing entity or object with "own being" than just not being a mind-independent "external object". Even "internal phenomena" including such experiential phenomena as sights, sounds, sensed odors and touches, thoughts, emotions, mind images etc, all direct elements of experience, fail to be self-existing entities, being mere dependent arisings, mere fleeting things-in-relation, each being nothing more than its characteristics, and each arising in dependence on other similarly empty, fleeting conditions. ========================== With metta, Howard > > --- Howard wrote: > > Hi, Robert (and Nina) - > > > > The position you take here, Rob, seems to go a bit beyond mine. > > Something which is like a "star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of > > > lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream" > has a > > mirage-like quality, but it is not absolutely nothing. Dhammas exist, but > in > > a middle-way, dependent, and not self-supporting manner (despite the root > mean > > ing of 'dhamma'). The question is exactly what does one mean by a > "reality". > > I do NOT see hardness as having to be hardness of "something". There are > just > > the characteristics and functionalities, but no "things" that possess > them, > > except conventionally (that is: only in a manner of speaking). The > > characteristics are real in the sense of being elements of experience, > but > > are unreal in the sense of not being self-existent. This is my take on > the > > matter. My fear is that the constant reference to "realities" tends > towards a > > substantialist perspective. > > > > With metta, > > Howard > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13367 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun May 19, 2002 2:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. Dear Howard, Well, I find your view on that reassuring, and if the resident expert Abhidhammists concur with you, that will even more reassuring re. the Abhidhamma view. If I stretch myself in that direction, I can see the possible utility of saying that we have a stream of 'fleeting *realities*' to discern, since this would be a gigantic advance in discrimination. One of the techniques for 'lucid dreaming', to draw a somewhat spurious parallel, is to focus intently on the details that arise within the dream, and to isolate them in order to see their inherent quality. By doing this, one is able to eventually align awareness with the explicit details and sharpen up one's perception of the dream-events, to the point where one becomes aware that they are taking place within a dream, and are not real. If the same holds true for our so-called waking state, which is mostly an exercise in conceptualizing everything we experience, then focussing on the 'momentary reality' of what is actually being experienced, and refraining from extrapolating via our conditioned views, would be an equivalent doorway to undestanding the mechanics of this 'waking dream'. In Mahayana texts as well, Buddha has been characterized as directing seekers to trace back their empirical experiences back to the source in mind, seeing how those experiences rise in dependence on mental and perceptual processes that emanate from the mind. To see the rupa in its relation to the citta and cetasikas and see how they dependently create our experiences from moment to moment would be an equivalently valuable process. If one wants to understand how a film is created, one would first have to see where the light is coming from that illuminates the film objects, then watch the way the film is cut from shot to shot instead of just taking the stream of occurrences for granted. Eventually one would come to understand an almost frame-by-frame analysis of how the visual forms were mechanically constituted. I think it would be fair to say that after such a process, one would no longer be drawn into the emotional and conceptual reactivity that the average filmgoer is prone to. In other words, one would start to stand outside the dream, the film, and watch its terms of production, rather than merely its resultant forms. I still worry about calling the 'bits' of experience paramatha dhammas, and of Buddhaghosa calling them 'final entities', a frightening choice of words to one who wants to hear 'anatta' not 'atta'. But for the time being I will take a valium and await other responses. Or perhaps a good dose of 'jhana' would do the trick, and calm me down.... Best, Robert Ep. ========================================== --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 5/18/02 11:18:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert Ep writes: > > > > > > Hi Howard, > > Thanks for your note! I basically agree, and am equally worried about the > > substantialist potentiality of 'realities'. However, I think we have to > > confront > > these sayings of the Buddha in order to understand whether the world is be > > realized or awakened from. yes, a dream has an actual existence as dream, > > just as > > concept does actually exist as concept. Both have in common that their > > referents > > do not actually exist outside the dream or concept. So the question which > > I am > > trying to face, and bring out is: do the 'realities' of 'hardness' which > > comes > > through a sense-door or a 'thought' which comes through a 'mind-door' have > > any > > substantial existence outside of the mind which apprehends them? This does > > not > > mean they do not take place, it is asking where and on what basis they take > > place. > > If Buddha says that this life is like a dream and should be regarded as an > > illusion, a magic trick, or whatever, all of these metaphors point in the > > same > > direction: that our reality is seeming, not substantial. To say that there > > is a > > world of 'actual realities' hiding behind our delusions is indeed > > substantialist. > > I don't see how to avoid it. When we are dreaming the details of such > > dream can > > be clearly felt and reacted to, just as in our own lives. I think Buddha > > was > > helping us not just to discern, but by discerning, to awaken. When we > > awake from > > a dream, we can still go over many of the details, but we know they are not > > substantial, even though they did indeed occur, as you assert. But we > > shouldn't > > cling to them, either in their present or their 'authentic' state when seen > > as > > dreamlike occurrences in the mind. > > > > When Buddhaghosa states that the namas and rupas are the 'irreduceible > > final > > entities' of experience, that seems pretty far in the other direction to > > me. How > > about you? > > > > best, > > Robert Ep. > > > > ========================== > We are in basic agreement on this Robert, but, actually, I think that > Abidhamma is as well. As I understand it, the Buddhist perspective, and most > explicitly so in Abhidhamma, is a phenomenalist one which doesn't countenance > objects existing independently of experience. There is no hardness other than > the experience of hardness, at least none that can be actually known. > But there is more to not being a self-existing entity or object with > "own being" than just not being a mind-independent "external object". Even > "internal phenomena" including such experiential phenomena as sights, sounds, > sensed odors and touches, thoughts, emotions, mind images etc, all direct > elements of experience, fail to be self-existing entities, being mere > dependent arisings, mere fleeting things-in-relation, each being nothing more > than its characteristics, and each arising in dependence on other similarly > empty, fleeting conditions. > ========================== > With metta, > Howard > > > > > --- Howard wrote: > > > Hi, Robert (and Nina) - > > > > > > The position you take here, Rob, seems to go a bit beyond mine. > > > Something which is like a "star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of > > > > > lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream" > > has a > > > mirage-like quality, but it is not absolutely nothing. Dhammas exist, but > > in > > > a middle-way, dependent, and not self-supporting manner (despite the root > > mean > > > ing of 'dhamma'). The question is exactly what does one mean by a > > "reality". > > > I do NOT see hardness as having to be hardness of "something". There are > > just > > > the characteristics and functionalities, but no "things" that possess > > them, > > > except conventionally (that is: only in a manner of speaking). The > > > characteristics are real in the sense of being elements of experience, > > but > > > are unreal in the sense of not being self-existent. This is my take on > > the > > > matter. My fear is that the constant reference to "realities" tends > > towards a > > > substantialist perspective. > > > > > > With metta, > > > Howard 13368 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun May 19, 2002 2:54pm Subject: Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Re: [dsg] Sitting and mindfulness [Anders] Dear Howard, Re. your nice breakdown of the sutra below: Interesting, that the noble eightfold path is clearly announced as a path of practice, and not merely a description of what occurs under the right conditions, wouldn't you agree? I would like to hear what Jon has to say about this: is it descriptive or prescriptive? Best, Robert Ep. ============== --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon (and all) - > > In a message dated 5/18/02 7:23:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > <> writes: > > > > > > Victor > > > > --- yuzhonghao wrote: > > > Hi Jon, Anders and all, > > > > > > I would like to share some thoughts regarding the practice of > > > satipatthana. > > ... > > > The teaching in Satipatthana Sutta describes how satipatthana is > > > practiced; thus whether the teaching recommends sitting as a means to > > > the development of mindfulness is subject to speculation. > > > > > > Having read that the Buddha said: > > > > > > "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. " > > > > > > the unnamed monk the Buddha mentioned in the discourse is a model > > > that I would emulate. And this is how I learn how to establish > > > mindfulness from reading the Satipatthana Sutta: following the > > > examples in the discourse and emulate them. It is a process > > > of "learning by doing" and takes repetitive practice. > > > > I'm not sure about the approach of 'emulating' the monks mentioned in the > > discourses. Is it not better to seek to understand the essence of the > > Buddha's words? In any event, it is surely not possible to emulate the > > wisdom of another (many of those monks were ready for enlightenment on > > hearing the Buddha's teaching). > > > > How about "learning by understanding and applying"? > > > > Just my thoughts. > > > > Jon > > > ==================================== > I found a not-too-long sutta which I think is interesting in a couple > ways. The sutta is the following: > > *********************** > > Samyutta Nikaya XLVII.40 > > > > Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta > > > > Analysis of the Frames of Reference > > Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. > For free distribution only. > > "I will teach you the frames of reference, their development, and the path of > practice leading to their development. Listen & pay close attention. I will > speak. > > "Now, what are the frames of reference? There is the case where a monk > remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- > putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains > focused on feelings in & of themselves... mind in & of itself... mental > qualities in & of themselves -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside > greed & distress with reference to the world. "This is called the frames of > reference. > > "And what is the development of the frames of reference? There is the case > where a monk remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to > the body, remains focused on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to > the body, remains focused on the phenomenon of origination & passing away > with regard to the body -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & > distress with reference to the world. "He remains focused on the phenomenon > of origination with regard to feelings, remains focused on the phenomenon of > passing away with regard to feelings, remains focused on the phenomenon of > origination & passing away with regard to feelings -- ardent, alert, & > mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. "He > remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the mind, > remains focused on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the mind, > remains focused on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard > to the mind -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress > with reference to the world. "He remains focused on the phenomenon of > origination with regard to mental qualities, remains focused on the > phenomenon of passing away with regard to mental qualities, remains focused > on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to mental > qualities -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with > reference to the world. "This is called the development of the frames of > reference. > > "And what is the path of practice to the development of the frames of > reference? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right > speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, > right concentration. This is called the path of practice to the development > of the frames of reference." Revised: Mon 10 September 2001 HREF="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn47-040.html"> > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn47-040.html > ******************************* > The first section after the three introductory sentences defines what > "the frames of reference" (often called "the setting up of mindfulness") is, > namely the case where the practitioner remains directly focussed on the > various elements of experience "ardent, alert, & mindul - putting aside greed > & distress with reference to the world." We might note here that the activity > has two aspects: (1) the ardent, alert, and mindful focussing, and (2) the > putting aside of (what the translator gives as) "greed & distress with > reference to the world," this latter suggesting a state of equanimity. > The second section deals with the (further?) development of this, > consisting of focussing on the aspects of origination and of cessation of > these phenomena. This would engender the clear seeing of anicca and anatta, > leading to disenchantment. > Most interesting to me is the final section which defines "the path of > practice to the development of the frames of reference," as specifically the > noble eightfold path. The straightforward reading of this takes satipatthana > more as something which "comes later", penultimate to liberation, rather than > as a technique to be practiced "all along". It would seem, on this reading, > that the entire eight-factored path is the path of practice culminating in > satipatthana (and then in awakening and liberation). > > With metta, > Howard > 13371 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun May 19, 2002 3:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K.] --- yuzhonghao wrote: > TG, > > For the statement "there is no self", > see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html > > For the statement "there is no control", I would like to share this > verse with you: > > 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train > others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is > self-control. Dear Victor, Here we have a clear description of the Buddha advocating self-control. Now, I wonder if those who believe there is 'no control' because there is no 'self' will explaint that this is merely conventional speech and does not refer to either a 'self' or an actual imperative to 'exercise control' over oneself? One can always say that something the Buddha said was not actually what he meant because it is merely conventional speech, while when the Buddha says something that is in accord with what one regards as the path, one will say that the Buddha meant it literally. It is a slippery slope, because it means that we are making distinctions between different suttas, or even different statements in the same sutta, based on our prior beliefs. It is an equally slippery slope to maintain the opposite, that the Buddha was being literal when he says that we should maintain self-control, but metaphoric or conventional when he says something else that we disagree with. To make these kinds of distinctions at all is fraught with danger. So what is the correct view? We do not want to wind up like some interpreters of the Bible who conclude based on taking it literally [according to their interpretation of what is literal] that the earth is only 5,000 years old, in the face of all scientific evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, we do not want to wind up in the position of those who insist that the only experiences that are believeable are those which can be scientifically tested. It seems to me that in general, we should take the Buddha literally, unless we have some evidence to the contrary. What is the evidence that 'one should practice self-control' is merely conventional, and not a true imperative? Well, since Buddha states clearly that none of the five khandas can be considered to have the property of 'self', there are two possibilities: what he considers 'self' is beyond the five kandhas, or: he is asking practitioners to attempt to control certain arising phenomena, in the understanding that such attempt will have certain results which will be beneficial to their progress. I think it may satisfy both camps if we say that he is addressing the conventional self and asking his listeners to attempt to exercise control over akusala conditions, even though such control may not be possible, in the understanding that this will have certain effects, though they are not caused directly by the practitioner. This is very similar to other Buddhist practices. If one practices meditation, the worst form of such practice is to struggle directly with the mind and attempt to control it, which leads to tension and frustration. One follows certain practices, trusting that eventually they will yield the fruit. The practice is voluntary, but the results are involuntary. If one practices discernment in daily life, it is the same thing: one pays attention to the attempt to discern namas and rupas, knowing that most of the time he or she will fail, but eventually the attempt to do so will yield fruit. There is intention, but not control. It explains why the sutta is useful, without falling into the fallacy of an atta which can take action. Best, Robert Ep. > See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html > > Regards, > Victor > > > --- <> wrote: > > <> writes: > > > > > > > Dan and Robert, > > > > > > Each and every aggregate is not self. It does not mean that > there is > > > no self doing anything. It does not mean that there is a self > doing > > > anything. It does not mean "no control." It simply means each > and > > > every aggregate 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." > > > > > > The characteristics of each and every aggregate being not self is > not > > > to be confused with the view "there is no self" or "no control." > > > > > > Regards, > > > Victor > > > > > > > There is no-self, and there is no control. Both Self and control > are a > > delusion and both delusions are "self view." > > > > Things arise and cease due to conditions. We might think its "our" > idea to > > study Buddhism. Not without the condition of the Buddha's teaching > it isn't. > > We might think its "our" idea to take a trip to Paris. Not > without the > > condition of the travel industry, not without the European > continent, not > > without financial resources, or the job that provides them, or the > people who > > created the job, or the ancestors of those people, or our > ancestors, or with > > the heat from the sun, or without the gravity from mass, or without > oxygen, > > or without the elements generated by supernova, or without a > particular > > interest that makes Paris interesting, or without the conditions > that > > contacted that interest, or without a government that allows that > freedom, > > etc., etc., uncountable times over. > > > > There is pushing and pulling of causal forces, there is an illusion > of self > > control, but ultimately there is no self control. > > > > How then can an effort be made to practice dhamma? Because of the > causality > > of education. Plus uncountable supporting (conditional) phenomena. > > > > TG 13372 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun May 19, 2002 3:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? - Jon and Nina Thanks, Jon! robert ep. ========== --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep > > Just a very quick note to say that the extracts in my earlier post are not > from Nina's ADL but from CMA, the translatin of the Abhidhamattha Sangaha. > > > More later, as i am out of time on this hotel computer. > > Jon > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > The quote from Abhidhamma in Daily Life troubles me, and not > > coincidentally. > > Since this is Nina's book, I invite Nina to comment, and I apologize in > > advance > > for taking a tough view towards this quote. I don't want to > > misinterpret what she > > says through ignorance, but this is what troubles me: > > > > "Ultimate realities are things that exist by reason of their own > > intrinsic > > > nature > > > (sabhaava). 13373 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun May 19, 2002 3:20pm Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana Hi Jon. Comments below. --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob E > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Jon, > > I guess what this particular issue comes down to is whether the Buddha is > saying > > to contemplate these characteristics of realities, or whether to contemplate > > specific namas and rupas in a given category, and just, as you say, indicating > the > > areas within which the specific instances can be found. > > I'm not quite clear on the distinction you are making here, Rob, so I'll just > say > that I take him to be indicating the contemplation of any presently arising > phenomena. What I was saying was that, if Buddha is saying to see the arising moments as examples of one of the categories he's talking about, that is a conceptual understanding. If he is saying to discern particular moments that happen to be in those categories, which is how you interpret it, that is pointing towards the discernment of namas and rupas. I'm not sure which one he is indicating by the language of the sutta. And I have a hard time seeing the discernment of anatta, anicca and dukkha in the arising object as being a non-conceptual understanding. I mean, it is a realization that these qualities exist in the object, not something that can be directly perceived. Where does 'anatta' live in a rupa or nama in the moment? Anatta is the absence of something, it cannot be perceived as a direct quality, same thing for anicca. It is only upon reflection on the momentary nature one has experienced, immediately afterwards perhaps, that one can deduce anatta or anicca as a quality of the object. It seems to me to be a very direct but thought-related insight. If I am used to assuming that an object has a fixed and substantial nature, and I suddenly see with clear discernment that it lasts only a moment and then changes into something else, then I can draw the conclusion; 'there is no fixed entity here [anatta], and there is no permanent reality but only a very fleeting one [anicca]. Buddha seems to describe this kind of insight as a kind of statement in many, many suttas, and it seems to me that this is an insight, an understanding, that is deductively drawn from a direct discernment, rather than being directly discerned itself. If you disagree with this, please explain how anatta or anicca can be perceived through a sense-door. If it is a nama, then it is a thought *about* a rupa that has just been perceived and that has passed. And this is different than perceiving anatta, anicca and dukkha *in* the object in the moment. The reason I am emphasizing this, is that I think the role of useful concepts may be a very strong one, when they are based on direct discernment. More below. > > I also agree, and think it is an important point, that concepts as such can be > > pointing towards other concepts or be pointing towards realities, and that > > concepts that point to realities have a very special usefulness, even though > they > > themselves do not have a real object. They are the only guide we have to > direct > > us towards real objects, other than direct discernment itself. > > > > If the Sutta says "...takes hold of the aggregate of...", it is reasonable to > say > > that the Buddha is saying to take an arising example of the aggregate as an > object > > of discernment and see it for what it is. I'm just not sure from the language > of > > the Sutta whether he is saying that or not. > > Here are some further passages from the sutta that it might be useful to > consider in > that light: > > "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands the consciousness with lust [or with > hate > or with ignorance], as with lust [or hate or ignorance]; the consciousness > without > lust [etc.], as without lust [etc.]; …" > "Here, O bhikkhus, when sensuality [or any of the other of the 5 hindrances] is > present, a bhikkhu knows with understanding: 'I have sensuality [or whichever of > the > 5 hindrances],' or when sensuality [etc.] is not present, he knows with > understanding: 'I have no sensuality [etc.].'" > > The commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta explains 'present' in the passage just > above as "existing by way of occurrence, practice or repeated happening", and > 'not > present' as "not existing, by way of non-occurrence or because of rejection from > the > mind by way of reflection or concentration". > > It then explains the terms "by way of occurrence" and "existing" as follows: > "Since there is no state of yoking together of the good and the bad moral > qualities > similar to the yoking of two bulls to a cart, -- since the good and the bad do > not > exist together -- from the absence of sensuality at the time of seeing one's > mind > through knowledge it is said: 'by way of occurrence'. At the moment of seeing > wisely > the occurrence of sense-desire there is no sense-desire as good and bad states > of > mind cannot exist together > "Existing means: When it is found in one's own mental flux." > > Some people really doubt whether there can be awareness of presently arising > ('existing') akusala states. Here it clearly assumes there can be, and explains > that the akusala state and the moment of wisely seeing it are in reality 2 > separate > mind moments. > > I hope you find something here to reflect on. Well I think that's great. It seems that a kusala discernment trumps an akusala state and disappears it? So much for the search for good Dharma medicine for the ills of ordinary life. A moment of discernment replaces akusala with kusala, which makes sense. In that way, discernment and all the qualities which lead to it: samatha + vipassana, sati and panna, defeat the akusala qualities and dissolve them in the moments in which they exist. Which explains why when one reaches arahantship, akusala has been completely rooted out of the system. Rather than trying to identify and eradicate akusala states, one need only focus on the path, and the more one discerns, the more free one is from these states. Am I misinterpreting the implications here? Best, Robert Ep. 13374 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun May 19, 2002 3:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Dear Sarah, Hi! Haven't spoken to you in a while. How are you? I am having trouble with the idea that concepts are not part of the five kandhas, as I thought that everything that arises in mental and perceptual-physical experience was included in the five kandhas, in other words, everything in this life other than the experiencing of Nibbana. How do concepts get exemption? I am also wondering what the exact delineation of the concept is. If a thought about a concept is a paramatha dhamma, but a concept is not, where does the concept occur in the thought, as what part of the thought? Let me propose an example: "I saw a tree yesterday." I is a concept. saw is a concept. tree is a concept yesterday is a concept. Is that not so? Where is the reality of this thought? Is the whole thing a concept, a collection of concepts? Or is it a string of concepts, but the thought itself which holds them all together is not a concept? So if I discern: "I am thinking 'I saw a tree yesterday'", the discerning thought "I am thinking..." etc. is a paramatha dhamma, but it's object, the concept "I saw a tree yesterday" is a concept and is not a paramatha dhamma? In the sentence: "You are smiling right now", which I could be perceiving at this very moment, You is a concept, Are is a concept, Smiling is a concept, Right now is a concept, no? Where is the thought that is an actuality, and are these in fact all concepts? Is the thought as a whole a concept? Here is another thought: "I am sad right now." The experience of sadness is a paramatha dhamma, but when I think "I am sad", in the thought, sadness is a concept, because the thought does not actually contain the experience. It takes place in another moment and refers to the sadness second-hand. So where is the actual thought that is an actuality, if all the contained concepts are not real? The only thoughts I can think of that would qualify for paramatha dhamma status, would be reflective thoughts that take a thought as an object. These can be referrred to in the present moment, because their objects are in language and therefore not second-hand. So if I say "I want to consider the thought "I am sad" ", the "I am sad" is a concept, but the statement "I want to consider..." etc., is a thought which has a concept as an object, and is therefore a paramatha dhamma. Is this correct? Perhaps you can help me sort this out. Thanks, and hope you are well, Robert Ep. ================== --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Howard, > > I have a couple of your posts which I delayed replying to;-) > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Sarah - > > > I have heard of no things that are neither conditioned nor > > unconditioned. If concepts are neither, then they are nothing at all - > ..... > As I understand, when the texts discuss the conditioned and unconditioned, > they are discussing the phenomena with sabhava that are formed up > (sankhata) and not formed up (asankhata). In other words, the phenomena > that can be directly known by wisdom (panna). It’s true that accordingly, > in an ultimate (paramattha) sense, concepts are nothing at all, illusions > conceived by the mind that are so often taken for being *real*. > ..... > > there > > are no concepts, and we waste our time talking about them. > ..... > Concepts (pannatti) are concepts only. It is not a waste of time using > them and talking about them as long as they are not taken for *realities*. > If there were an idea, however, that any wisdom will be gained merely by > talking about and ‘working out’ the concepts, it would be rather like the > analogy of moving the Titanic deck chairs thinking that this in itself > might prevent the ‘sinking’ in samsara. > ...... > >But concepts > > are > > mind objects, they are constructed, conditioned by multiple senses > > including > > mind, and not irreducible, but they are mind objects. If there is a > > third > > category of things that are neither conditioned nor unconditioned, it is > > a > > category that I have not heard of nor seen mentioned in any sutta. > ..... > The Buddha makes it clear that often he is using ‘wordly’ language. The > end of Nina’s translation of the commentary to the Savaka Sutta just > posted, refers to this. Concepts are not included in the 5 khandhas, the > ‘All’ to be directly known. > ..... > > >Sabbe sankhara anicca. Ideas, patterns, mind-constructed objects, as > well as > > all > > paramatthadhammas other than nibbana *do not remain*. > ..... > What are ‘sabbe sankhara’? As I understand, the 5 khandhas or namas and > rupas or any of the other classifications of paramattha dhammas. > ..... > I’ll be glad to look at any other references or comments. At this moment I > think we agree that there can be awareness of thinking (thinking which > thinks about concepts). Are you sure there can be awareness of the concept > itself? > > Let me finish with one quote from the Vism on sankhara (formations): > Vism XX11, 22 > > “...He brings to bear the faculties, the powers, and the enlightenment > factors, and he works over and turns up the same field of formations > (sankhara), classed as materiality, feeling, perception, formations, and > consciousness, with the knowledge that they are impermanent, painful, > not-self, and he embarks upon the progressive series of insights.” > > Thanks as usual for your points for consideration, Howard. > > Sarah > ===== > 13375 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun May 19, 2002 3:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - Do you > > see a necessary > > contradiction in these 2 attributes (conditionality vs. own essence)? > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The problem I have here is with the adjectival phrase "of their own" > in the sentence "The fact that these phenomena are conditioned and last for > only a brief moment doesn't mean that they lack characteristics of their own > capable of being discerned by consciousness accompanied by panna (termed > 'individual essence')." Everything about these phenomena, including their > very existence, arises in total dependence on conditions, all of which are > equally empty of own-being. What arises in total dependence on other > conditions does not have own-being, and inasmuch as these other conditions > are equally without own-being, the emptiness is thoroughgoing. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Dear Howard, I would really like to pay a little more attention this important point of yours. Do the terms paramatha dhamma, own-being and dhammas having their own independent characteristics not imply a substantial quality these fleeting appearances? Is there not an implication of substantiality, and is it not inherent in the terms and the feeling that is created around them? I keep seeing these terms as a kind of hidden life-raft within the philosophy of Abhidhamma, and it is as much their implied feeling as it is their explicit definition. When you say 'the emptiness is thoroughgoing' it makes me heave a sigh of relief, because the sense of own-being and independent characteristics seems laden with the burden of substantiality. It just carries that flavor. One can explain it differently, but why do those ideas exist? What is the sense of own-being if not a sense of substantiality? What other purpose does it serve? It seems to implicitly undercut emptiness and anatta. If something has own-being, it has entity. And if it has entity, it does not partake of anatta. Own-being seems to me to be nothing other than another way of saying 'entity' or 'being'. It even has the word 'being' in it, and 'own', which means that it belongs to one, ie, the entity in question. Together with Buddhaghosa saying that the paramatha dhammas are the 'final irreduceible entities of experience', it really makes me feel that there is a hidden substantiality and entity at play in these words. How can something have an 'individual essence' and not be identified as an entity? Otherwise, why not just say that these experiences are insubstantial and momentary, which would be in the direction of anatta and anicca? Can you have something that is solid and empty at the same time? Best, Robert Ep. ================================= 13376 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun May 19, 2002 3:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? Dear Howard, Exactly. And well put. Robert Ep. ==================== --- Howard wrote: > Hi, TG - > > In a message dated 5/5/02 4:13:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, TG > writes: > > > > I would be interested to know how "dhamma's," that are completely dependent > > on something else (Dependent Arising), are 'with its own characteristic.' > > How can something have "its own characteristic" if it doesn't have any self > > > > at all? > > > > The way I see it...it is "something else's characteristic" that is > > responsible for arisen states/dhammas. But that "something else" had > > something else responsible for "its" characteristic, and so on and so on > > indefinitely. > > > ========================== > This is exactly it! No core or self or self-nature at all in any > conditioned dhamma: When exactly the right assembly of conditions has > occurred, with none missing, the conditioned dhamma arises, but should any > one of these conditions be missing, the dhamma does *not* arise. So, in what > sense are any characteristics or even the bare existence of a conditioned > dhamma inherent in itself, in this which is totally dependent on other things > that are, themselves, equally empty. There are characteristics, yes, but not > *own* characteristics, nor borrowed. They are inherent in nothing, not in > themselves, not in anything else. Empty phenomena, rolling on. Phantoms > chasing phantoms. Foam bubbling upon foam. Nothing to hold onto, all > ungraspable, without anchor and footing. Nothing to do but *let go*. > It seems to me that if, in trying to see the impersonality of all > dhammas, an essential enterprise (!), one is led to a belief in ultimate > dhammas with own-being, then one has traded one aspect of atta-view for > another. It also seems to me that a mere intellectual understanding of the > truth that all dhammas other than nibbana arise in dependence on causes and > conditions still misses a full understanding of anatta. I think that the > truth of anatta is more fully realized when one contemplates the sheer > "magic" and wonder of the arising of conditioned phenomena. One moment dhamma > D is not to be seen. Then a group of ghostly conditions fleetingly traverse > the stage of awareness, and suddenly, where there was no dhamma D, there it > is, as if by a conjurer's power, and, then, poof, it's gone once again! What > an extraordinary magic show, especially because this display of empty > ephemera *looks* to us like something substantial! > > 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) 13377 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun May 19, 2002 3:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Concentration - Rob Ep - beware/incredibly long Thanks for your reply, Jon. I always appreciate discussing these things with you, although as you know I would rather exchange personal views than do sutta homework. : - ) A sad admission on my part. It's easier to rant than give evidence. However, when I am able to do it, I will try to back up my comments that you have selected below with sutta excerpts. Just one point of clarification for now: I did not mean to say that you have shown suspicion for any part of the Satipatthana Sutta. I believe that you take all the Buddha's Suttas with great faith and seriousness. What I meant to say was that the the type of meditation which I believe is indicated in the Satipatthana Sutta is regarded by you with some suspicion. Obviously your interpretation of the Satipatthana Sutta and what it advocates is a little different than mine, so of course you are not suspicious of the Sutta itself. Best, Robert Ep. ============================ --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob E > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Jon, > > Well, I meant to answer you simply and somewhat in accord, but I wound up > going on > > a tremendous rant. In the interest of science, I have not attempted to edit > it. > > I hope there is something of value in there. > > > > Below is the post as it was written, a few minutes ago: > > I'm glad you decided to let it go as written. It contains many useful areas for > discussion. I hope you don't mind if I select only a few to come back on. > > A. Jhanas and the true nature of realities > I think the crux of our differences can be found in this passage from your post: > > When we talk about the jhanas, and other 'practiced states' which clearly > cause > > specific changes to consciousness and the mind, and give rise to changes in > the > > way in which self and reality are perceived, it seems easier for me to see > this as > > a real mark of progress on the path. > > It seems to be your view that the jhanas are a practice or technique for > experiencing > directly the true nature of realities. I realise that this is a view shared by > many, > perhaps by a majority of those practising Buddhism today. It's also most > people's > instinctive view when they first hear about jhana as part of the dhamma. But is > it > something the Buddha said directly, or is it something that people readily infer > from the > suttas because it accords with their intuitive view (after all, it's so easy to > go with > our instincts and ignore the contrary evidence)? I would be interested to know > whether > you can you point to a passage in the Tipitaka that positively supports this > proposition. > > B. Contemplating objects vs. direct experience of realities > You gave a description of contemplating a prized piano, as an analogy of there > being > direct awareness of a reality (dhamma) of the present moment. However, the 2 > are not the > same. What you describe there is simply a form of *thinking about*, not the > *direct > experience of*, something. So if as you suggest that process were to be > 'applied to one > reality after another', it would not lead to anything that I would associate > with the > development of satipatthana. > > C. Sitting vipassana > You refer to long periods (3 years) sitting in vipassana meditation leading to > obvious > changes in one's sense of self. Can you point to any instance in the texts of > the Buddha > recommending such a practice, or any mention at all of 'sitting vipassana > meditation'. > > D. 'Right' and 'wrong' approaches > You say: > > To read the Suttas with great care > > and to contemplate their meaning with great intent is also a form of > meditation. > > I just don't make the distinctions between 'right' approaches and 'wrong' ones > > that you do. Of course I believe that there are wrong paths and pitfalls, but > I > > don't think that legitimate meditation, Sutta study, or discernment of > everyday > > realities as they arise, are among them. These are not pitfalls, they are > > pathways. > > What would be your criteria for identifying right paths from wrong paths and > pitfalls? > > E. Satipatthana Sutta references > You say: > > But I don't see the real rationale for this kind of > > suspicion of the special efforts which seem to have been clearly described by > the > > Buddha in the Satipatthana Sutta, in his discussions of the jhanas, etc. > > I can't really comment unless I know what passages you are referring to here, > Rob. Can > you give a reference, please. Thanks. I can only say at this stage that I'm > not aware I > have cast suspicion on any aspect of the Satipatthana Sutta. > > > I'm sorry not to say a lot more in this post, but I think that the best way to > discuss > differences is in the context of excerpts from the teachings, rather than simply > exchanging personal views. So I hope you can give me some references to look at > and > discuss. Thanks. > > Jon > > > =========== > > > > I think it would be great to establish common ground, and I appreciate your > wish > > to identify where we can stand together. That would make an even more useful > > ground from which to depart on issues where we may have some differences. > > > > Let me contemplate what you said: > > > > are we at least in agreement that the crux of the development of > > > insight is the knowing of the true nature of the realities of the present > > > moment, and that this includes any reality of any present moment, regardless > of > > > the nature of the reality (nama or rupa, wholesome or unwholesome, internal > or > > > external), on the basis that all realties are taken as being permanent, > > > satisfactory and self (in one of the 3 aspects), yet in reality are not so? > > > > First let me agree in my own language and see if that accords with the above: > I > > think that knowing the true nature of the experienced moment, and thus gaining > > insight into the nature of the experiencing mind, is the goal of all > discernment. > > > > Let's say we were to see that a prized piano, which we are attached to, is > really > > only a succession of sensations and qualities of hardness, smoothness, > concept, > > memory, etc., and we began to discern these 'realities' for what they were. > > > > What would be the result? That piano, which we were attached to, would begin > to > > lose its attraction, as it was deconstructed into simple elements of > experience. > > > > If we also get direct insight into the piano's impermanence, if we see that > the > > original finish has become worn, that the piano keys are old and yellowing, > this > > done with discernment and not nostalgia can also lessen attachment and > ignorance. > > We begin to trade in the cherished object for the simple realities of what > exists > > in this actual moment. Likewise, we begin to see that the piano has no fixed > > identity as we thought it did, and that it is not an 'entity' that we can hold > > onto. > > > > There can also be no satisfaction in holding onto an object that has changed, > is > > subject to further change, and will eventually perish. > > > > In being attached to the piano, we had made it part of our self-identity, and > had > > established our own entity by establishing its entity as part of us. So our > own > > sense of entity, of self, is somewhat let go and relaxed by letting go of the > > concept of the piano to which we were attached. > > > > I can see this process, applied to one reality after another, as they arise, > as > > gradually wittling away at the sense of personal self which is the > source-concept > > of all suffering. > > > > However, I also believe that there are experiences to be discerned which > dissolve > > the sense of personal self more directly. And I think that somehow these > sorts of > > discernments do not always seem to be included in the 'realities' to be > discerned. > > > > You have said in the past that seeing the 'anatta-ness' of the mind or > personal > > self is not really part of the practice because these 'concepts' are empty and > > cannot be directly discerned, or something to that effect, am I correct? So > one > > is left to contemplate the reality of objects that arise for perception or > > mentation, rupas and namas. To me, the rupas and namas are only artifacts of > the > > bodymind's apprehension of experience, and are secondary to the apprehension > of > > that which experiences. But then we get into consciousness as something > beyond > > the cittas, and that whole realm of awareness..... And I guess that is the > > potential trap if one tries to discern the 'mind' or 'self' apart from > individual > > namas and rupas. > > > > So, as I say above, the letting go of attachment through seeing the three > > unwholesome or delusory attributes of arising objects, and their breakdown > into > > individual moments of actual apprehension of qualities, seems to me to be > > something we can agree upon as a core activity. But I am left somewhat > > unsatisfied by this, as it doesn't seem to me to directly access the gradual > > evolution, transformation of the overall state of the practitioner. As Buddha > > says, as one moves to higher levels of wisdom and refinement, the overall > > experience of being alive is quite transformed, as one's false sense of self > and > > all the clingings associated with it are gradually loosened and eventually > > dropped. As more kusala develops and akusala becomes less and less present, > the > > experience of living must be quite different in quality. I find it hard to > > understand the direct relationship of all these changes to the simple > discernment > > of namas and rupas, which seems more like a kind of perceptual purity than a > > transformation of mind and personality. Does this simple though immensely > > difficult act, in itself, lead to the transformative evolution of all the > kandhas? > > > > > > When we talk about the jhanas, and other 'practiced states' which clearly > cause > > specific changes to consciousness and the mind, and give rise to changes in > the > > way in which self and reality are perceived, it seems easier for me to see > this as > > a real mark of progress on the path. My former teacher and friend, who went > off > > to sit in Vipassana meditation for almost three years straight, came back with > > obvious changes to his sense of self. He had through direct and uninterrupted > > focus, discerned 'realities' and shed an enormous amount of the mental and > > emotional junk which he had had before. He was visibly and demonstrably > altered > > and didn't have the kind of reactivity he had had before. He had gained > > enormously in his ability to be in the moment without clinging and to discern > > realities directly. His Theravadan teachers approved of him, and basically > > certified his transformation. > > > > My question is what kind of involvement causes one to make great progress. We > may > > not awaken in this lifetime, but I would think we want to be clear about what > > maximizes our potentiality for ending suffering and reaching our goal. It is > also > > clear to me that those of you who are committed, dedicated to Abhidhamma, have > a > > way of working, a method and a path, that is effective in discerning realities > and > > thus gradually freeing the mind. In other words, though it is a philosophy of > > everyday discernment without external strivings or special exercises, it is > still > > a form of meditation as far as I am concerned, and takes its place in the > > legitimate forms of mediatation that exist. To read the Suttas with great > care > > and to contemplate their meaning with great intent is also a form of > meditation. > > I just don't make the distinctions between 'right' approaches and 'wrong' ones > > that you do. Of course i believe that there are wrong paths and pitfalls, but > I > > don't think that legitimate meditation, Sutta study, or discernment of > everyday > > realities as they arise, are among them. These are not pitfalls, they are > > pathways. > > > > So to say that 'there should be no special effort necessary' to discern > realities, > > still seems to me to be a philsophical bias against meditation. When the > rubber > > meets the road, you really think that making a special effort outside of > everyday > > living and the study of the Suttas is a mistake and perhaps a negative > influence, > > since it may produce 'special states' that will seem like they are discerning > when > > in fact they are not. But I don't see the real rationale for this kind of > > suspicion of the special efforts which seem to have been clearly described by > the > > Buddha in the Satipatthana Sutta, in his discussions of the jhanas, etc. > > > > To say that he was addressing those who were already well versed in the > jhanas, > > and that it was a sort of coincidence then that he instructed them about what > to > > do with those states, seems to me to be too dismissive of the amount of weight > > that he accorded to these practices. Do you really think that the Buddha's > > disciples were practicing the jhanas on their own initiative, and that the > Buddha > > did not accept and promote this practice? Even if we admit that we are too > busy > > and too unconcentrated to engage in jhana meditation, to say that samatha is > not > > an important component of the path seems again to fly in the face of the > Buddha's > > own words. > > > > I have offered an alternative possibility, that samatha can be developed > through > > concentration on the Dhamma and through concentrated discernment in everyday > life, > > just as insight can, and that wisdom can develop in many different ways *if > the > > right principles are adhered to* in whatever the practice is. > > > > Our only real argument is whether the 'special practices' such as studied > > meditation and the states of consciousness they produce are inherently in a > less > > natural, lower position in Buddhism than everyday discernment, Sutta study and > the > > advice of a wise spiritual friend. It seems that Abhidhamma has discarded > > meditation for reasons of its own philosophy, and has discounted the immense > role > > that is has played in the entire history of Buddhism. When Buddha sat under > the > > Bodhi tree and reached the full flowering of enlightenment, he was clearly in > > meditation. Do you not agree? Yet you regularly go back to the position that > > meditation is both unnecessary and in some ways undesireable. > > > > Again, I think that the intention to discern arising realities in everyday > life is > > just as much a meditation technique as the jhanas. There is no inherent > > difference in value between them, unless one happens to think that one is more > > effective than the other. I have said before, and still feel, that both are > the > > ideal combination. But it makes no sense to me that concentrated time spent > in > > meditation will yield an impure or unwholesome effect *if it is done > properly*, > > any more than everyday discernment will yield an unwholesome effect if it is > done > > in accord with the intentions of the Dhamma. If it is done with force or > > attachment, everyday discernement could be just as harmful and deluding as > sitting > > in meditation, so I don't see the inherent difference in their potentiality. > > Again, it seems like a philosophical prejudice to me, and I don't, haven't > been > > able to figure out, what Abhidhamma gains by having that view, or where that > view > > actually arises from philosophically. It doesn't seem to register with me, or > > else I have never heard a proper explanation. What I usually hear in this > regard > > is 'why should a special effort be expended' when it is the moment as it > arises in > > life that is to be discerned, as if meditation is not part of life, and as if > the > > intention to discern anything doesn't spoil the naturalness of the moment in > any > > case. > > > > We should accept the fact that just following the Dhamma obscures the > naturalness > > of the moment anyway, and what we are doing is specialized whether it is > > Abhidhamma study or meditation or anything else that has an underlying > 'special > > intention' to it. That is why i said in another post that we are stuck 'using > the > > false concept of self to get rid of the false concept of self.' I think > that > > accepting this is a good starting point, and not pretending that anything we > do is > > going to be 'natural'. > > > > Well, I've said too much, and perhaps not enough, but I hope it will be the > basis > > of a good honest dialogue that can get to the heart of the truth. Where that > > truth lies remains to be revealed, as we are all more or less treading water > in > > this sea of delusion. > > > > May all creatures have a moment of insight soon, if not actual liberation. > > > > Robert Ep. > > 13378 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun May 19, 2002 4:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Iddhi --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Wynn, > > Thanks for dropping by;-) Sorry for the delay and hope you're still > reading all the posts. > ..... > --- wynn wrote: > Hi, > > > > Sorry to interupt. > ..... > You’re never interrupting and never any need to apologise. Your questions > are fine ones, but difficult ones and I’ve been waiting to hear from > someone who may know more;-) > ..... > > Also, I am not sure this is the right place to ask these questions. > > Before answering my questions, please take note that I am aware that > > supranormal power is NOT a pre-requisite for enlightenment and it is not > > necessary to have it all. I am just being curious after readings several > > passages about it in several books. > > > > First Question. > > Are the KASINA MEDITATION mentioned in the Tipitaka? > ..... > I’m glad you wrote that you appreciate that it is NOT a pre-requisite for > enligtenment and that you are just curious. I can’t tell you where all the > references are off-hand, but someone else may do a search on this. One > place in the Tipitaka I know of where there are some fairly detailed notes > on kasina and supernormal powers is in the section on “Treatise on success > (Supernormal Power) at the end of Patisambhidamagga (Path of > discrimination). > > To give one quote from it (PTS p379): > > “He goes unhindered through walls, through enclosures, through mountains, > as though in open space: naturally he is an obtainer of the space kasina > attainment. He adverts: “Through the wall, through the enclosure, through > the mountain’; having adverted, he decides with knowledge ‘Let there be > space’. there is space. He goes unhindered through the wall, through the > enclosure, through the mountain. Just as men naturally not possessed of > success (supernormal power) go unhindered where there is no obstruction or > enclosure, so too this possessor of success (supernormal power) attained > to mastery of will goes unhindered through the wall, through the > enclosure, through the mountain, as though in open space.” > ***** > ..... > > > > Second Question > > Visudhimagga do teaches how to develop supranormal powers. (see > > Visudhimagga > > Chapter XII & Chapter V, verse 27 onwards) But does the Tipitaka tell us > > how? I have never come across it. > > > > The nearest is this: > > > > ".......And what is the miracle of psychic power? There is the case > > where a > > monk wields manifold psychic powers. Having been one he becomes many; > > having > > been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded > > through > > walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out > > of > > the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if > > it > > were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a > > winged > > bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so > > mighty > > and powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the > > Brahma > > worlds........." (Kevatta Sutta etc.) > ..... > > I don’t know if you read my posts on Sri Lanka study corner, but in those > I discussed a little about how Mahinda and the other enlightened followers > used these powers, always for the benefit of others. > > We read in the Vism in detail about the various kasinas and the > development of jhanas in general. In Patisambhidamagga (same section as > above), we read about the 16 roots of success and how the consciousness is > not perturbed by indolence, agitation, greed, ill-will, (wrong) view, zeal > and greed, greed for sensual-deaires, defilement and so on. We are talking > about very fine and highly developed states of wholesomeness indeed, which > are not related by a desire to experience jhanas or supernormal powers or > concentration without very clear right understanding of how the ksaina in > question conditions calm. > ..... > > > > Third Question > > I understand that to have the supernormal power, one must have mastery > > over > > the 4 jhanas, right? > ..... > Right. This is clear in both the Vism and Patisambhid. > ..... > > But, the Visudhimagga said we must have mastery of all the 8 jhanas. But > > if > > this is true, does that mean that those who have supranormal powers have > > mastery of all the 8 jhanas? > ..... > Sorry, would you give the reference. In Vism, V,27 uner “Limited Space > Kasina’ there is a reference to the kasinas as basis of ‘fourfold and of > fivefold jhana’. > ..... > > > > How do you explain the levitation perform by the yogis of TM > > (Transcendental > > Meditation) > ..... > > I don’t try;-) Let me know what you think! Perhaps they have learned something akin to the jhanas. While the Noble Eightfold Path and the discernment of anatta may be unique to Buddhism, the development of deep meditation states and psychic powers is not. Hindu practice of samadhi/jhana is about 10 - 15,000 years old, and very effective. There is no doubt that the yogins of old, as exemplified by Patanjali's yoga suttas, were masters of many of these states. The word jhana is the Pali for the Sanskrit dhyana, which is the core of the practice of the Ashtanga [eight-limbed] path of yoga, leading to ultimate Samadhi states. Dhyana, while important for Theravadan Buddhism in its Pali form as jhana, became the basis for the most important Mahayana sects as well: dhyana practice was transmitted from India to China by Bodhidharma, where they came to pronounce it 'Ch'an'. Ch'an Buddhism was brought from China to Japan, where the Japanese pronounced it....you guessed it: Zen. Jhana = Dhyana = Ch'an = Zen. Those sects which took their version of the name 'jhana or dhyana' as the name of their sect, emphasized sitting meditation and direct realization of nibbana/nirvana. Best, Robert Ep. Best, Robert Ep. 13379 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun May 19, 2002 4:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta commentary thanks, anders. robert ep. ========== --- anders_honore wrote: > The Dutthatthaka Sutta of the Sutta Nipata says: > > One whose doctrines aren't clean -- > fabricated, formed, given preference > when he sees it to his own advantage -- > relies on a peace > dependent > on what can be shaken. > > ------------------------------- > Fabricated doctrines here refers to dcotrines that are of the nature > of views and not of true seeing of reality that comes from > enlightenment. Of course the minute you become a Buddhist, to avoid > giving preference to Buddhist doctrine over non-Buddhist ones is > virtually impossibe. In fact, it is needed initially in order to set > one up on the Buddhist path. However, for someone solidly grounded in > Buddhism, who knows what is means to be mindful and knows about the > doctrine of not-self and can work on one's own mind with this, > lending preference to this becomes and obstruction. Why? Because he > relies on a knowledge that can be shaken, due to its fabricated > nature. By giving preference to it, he clings to it, and sustains it, > obstructing the realisation of true knowledge. > ------------------------------- > > Because entrenchments in views > aren't easily overcome > when considering what's grasped > among doctrines, > that's why > a person embraces or rejects a doctrine -- > in light of these very > entrenchments. > > ------------------------------- > Almost self-explanatory. Because we have the tendency to entrench > ourselves in views, we naturally lend preference to one above the > other, and thus cling to it. So what can be done to avoid clinging to > it? > ------------------------------- > > Now, one who is cleansed > has no preconceived view > about states of becoming > or not- > anywhere in the world. > Having abandoned conceit & illusion, > by what means would he go? > He isn't involved. > > For one who's involved > gets into disputes > over doctrines, > but how -- in connection with what -- > would you argue > with one uninvolved? > He has nothing > embraced or rejected, > has sloughed off every view > right here -- every one. > > ------------------------------- > This part should answer my question above. An Aryan has cast off all > views of anything in this world, has no preferences, and through > this, he is liberated. > 13380 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun May 19, 2002 4:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re:anicca (do concepts arise and fall?) Hi, Gogler, I guess you are off for a while. Sorry I didn't acknowledge this sooner, but thanks for your breakdown of concepts here. I am going to look at it more thoroughly when I am able, and I think it will be particularly helpful to me at this time, as I am wrestling with what is and is not a concept. Thanks again, Robert Ep. =============== --- goglerr wrote: > Hi Robert, Howard and all, > > Knock! Knock! I would like to barge in for a moment, if u don't > mind? > > The discussion on `concept' caught my eye. I have checked out a few > things from some books to add in, just to make the discussion more > interesting (or perhaps more confusing!). smile > > We understand that the 4 ultimate realities (paramattha dhamma) are > consisting of materiality, consciousness, mental factors and Nibbana. > And the `nature' of concepts (which are `natureless') are explained > from the by the excellent attachment posted by Robert > entitled`Philosophical Cornerstone of the ABHIDHAMMA' by Y. > Karunadasa, The Wheel Publication No. 412/413. > > Pa~n~nati (translated as concepts, idea or notion) are divided into > two categories. > > A. Concept which is made known (pa~n~napiyatiti) > It makes or fabricates a meaning for the mind. For e.g. the notion > of `a piece of machine with lighted screen which you're starring at', > therefore that `notion' begins to fabricate a meaning for the mind. > In other word a notion is born. This concept is also known as attha > pa~n~nati (concept-as-meanings or meaning-concept) > > B. Concepts which makes known (pa~n~napetiti) > It means labeling the notion with a name or a designation. For e.g. > the above notion `a piece of machine with lighted screen which > you're starring at', is mentally labeled as `monitor'. This > concepts is also known as nama pa~n~nati (concept-as-name or name- > concept). So the notion (attha pannati) is designated as `monitor' > (nama pannati). Then, this mental labeling is translated into > speech/words (sadda pannati), that means we actually say it out or > write it down. Just like what I understand (attha pannati) right now, > I put in down in words (nama/sadda pannati). Also we can translate > the notion into action like hand-sign. > > Let's go back to Atthapannathi. There are 6 classes of concept-as- > meaning. > > 1) Formal concepts (santhana pannati) > They correspond to form or configuration of things or the continuity > of things. They correspond to the 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional > world. For e.g. land, mountains, rivers etc. > > 2) Collective concept (samuha pannati) > They correspond to a collective or group of things. For e.g. house, > car, computer, man, woman, a being (satta pannati) etc. > > 3) Directional concepts (disa pannati) > They correspond to a locality or direction, the relationship from one > thing to another. For e.g. east, west, there, up, down, upward, > right, left etc. > > 4) Time concepts (kala pannati) > They correspond to periods or unit of time. They also built upon > recurrent and continuous flow of material and mental phenomena. For > e.g. morning, noon, week, months etc. In material sense, they involve > light and darkness (as in day or night). In mental sense, they > involve mental activities such as sleeping time, lunch time, working > time etc. (There is a book `Abhidhamma Studies: Buddhist > exploration of consciousness and time' by Nyanaponika Thera give wide > coverage on the idea of time from the Buddhist perspective). > > 5) Space concepts (akasa pannati) > They correspond to open spaces or to spatial regions void of > perceptible matter. For e.g. well, cave, hall, window etc. > > 6) Sign concepts (nimitta pannati) > They correspond to visualized images such the learner's sign and > mirror image of tranquility meditation (such as color kasina). Many > hallucination and imageries also come this category. > > Now we go to nama pannati (concept-as-name). They are also 6 ways of > labeling. > > 1) A (direct) concept of what is real. (vijjamana pannati) > Materiality, feelings, consciousness, greed, anger, mental factors, > Nibbana etc. really exist in ultimate sense, which can be directly > experienccs without conceptualisation. The concepts that designate > them (as in words) are called direct concepts of what is real. A > direct experience of the continous arising and ceasing of a real > phenomena (for e.g a painful feeling) is ultimate reality and terming > them as `impermanent' is a direct concept (of that painful feeling). > We have to convey the `activity' of a real phenomena to somebody, > therefore we have to the term `impermanent'. > > 2) A (direct) concept of what is unreal. (avijjamana pannati) > Land, river, hill, person, man, woman, etc. are not ultimate > realities but conventional entities established conceptually through > mental construction. Though these concepts are based on ultimate > realities, the meanings they convey are not things that are > themselves ultimate realities since they do not correspond to things > that exist of their own intrinsic nature (sabhavato). > > 3) A concept of the unreal by means of the real (vijjamanena > avijjamana pannati) > The following no. 3, 4, 5 and 6 will be a combination of no 1 and 2. > E.g. the meditator (person) is mindful. The `meditator' is not real > but `mindful' (with mindfulness) is something real. > > 4) A concept of the real by means of the unreal. (avijjamanena > vijjamana pannati) > E.g. the voice of a man. The `voice' is real but the 'man' is not > real. > > 5) A concept of real by means of real (vijjamanena vijjamana pannati) > E.g. the consciousness of greed. The `consciousness' and 'greed' are > real. > > 6) A concept of unreal by means of unreal (avijjamanena vijjamana > pannati) > E.g. Today is my birthday. `Today', `my', and 'birthday' are not real > ultimately. > > There is also another 6 ways of description of concepts but they are > actually a mixture of both type of concepts (attha and nama pannati) > which are presented above. > > So we may see from here how concepts are formed and conveyed to each > other. The world of concepts, without a doubt, still important in our > everyday life as we need to communicate with each other. We also need > to remind ourselves not to be too engrossed with them. Instead, we > need to look for the world of realities where the end of suffering > lies. > > There are some references for `concepts'. Visuddhimagga (trans by > Nanamoli, VII, footnote 18), Comprehensive manual of Abhidhamma > (trans by B. Bodhi, VIII, pg 325-328), The psychology & philosophy of > Buddhism (by Jayasuriya), Compendium of Philosophy (PTS, 1979 > Anuruddha), Essentials of Insight Meditation (Sujiva) > > Ok. That all for now. > > Goglerr > > 13381 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun May 19, 2002 4:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'no control', kamma of the fourth kind, MN117 hi Sukin. Wow, it's taken me a long time to get back to you here. I have to work backwards in spurts, with long breaks. I don't want my wife to beat my up, so I have to sneak onto the computer and hope I can stay awake the next day. [I am of course exaggerating]. I really enjoy these dialogues. does that mean they're kusala? --- sukinderpal wrote: > Dear Rob, > > You said: > ……. but I think the issue is still out as to whether the > intention put into > consciousness at a given moment, which is then carried by the stream > of arising moments of consciousness, will at some point bear a > positive > fruit. > > Sukin: > I think everything that we do and think has an effect on what we will > do > and think in the future, as accumulated wrong view or wisdom or as > behavioral tendency. But whether it will be positive or negative is > hard > to know. > > You said: > If we think right now: well I will commit myself to being more > mindful; > does that thought bear a fruit for future mindfulness? > > Sukin: > I think you will agree that different people with different > backgrounds > will have different understanding of what is worthy and what is not. > A > buddhist with a good knowledge of the Tipitaka will not necessary > know > what the right object of mindfulness should be, let alone know what > the > conditions are for sati to arise. Which is why I consider "right > view"( I > speak of the intellectual level ) as the most important aspect of the > Buddha's teachings. What I've noticed is that even with one > `right view' > many wrong practices are seen for what they are and hence discarded. > I think one of the greatest stumbling blocks in our progress towards > more understanding of the Buddha's teachings, is our tendency to > be > stuck in old thought habits. We have very little knowledge of our > accumulated wrong view and so we do not notice the fault in our > reasoning, which is based on premises we take for granted. > For example this idea about trying to be mindful in all situations > has > been so much popularized by meditation teachers and writers of today > that we are stuck with the story about it. We never even try to > question > about its validity or even go deeper into the meaning of samatha and > vipassana, there is so much superficial appeal that we quickly grab > the > idea and follow any or all who speak with a voice of authority. > My own brief encounter with Goenka style of practice has shown me > how I was attached to the `goal' set by myself regarding time > and place > of practice, how on the day I manage to more or less reach that goal > was a day I felt pleased with myself and on other days I would be > somewhat disappointed. Would it have been different had I thought > along the lines "if I reach the goal good, if I don't reach > the goal also > good"? I doubt it. Why, because if there is no right > understanding in the > beginning about what is taking place, then there is a moving towards > a > goal and attachment to the outcome. Part of what I would call > `right > understanding' would be, "All dhammas are anatta, they arise > because > of conditions, sati being a dhamma will arise only when the > conditions > are right for it to. Intention is a dhamma, it will arise and have > the right > object only when it arises with sati and a host of other kusala > dhammas."( I'm just repeating myself here, sorry.) > Also in looking back, when walking around trying to be mindful of my > bodily movement, my thoughts etc., I don't remember ever having a > sense of `letting go' in relation to having an insight into > a situation, but > instead I was often reminding myself about the need to `let > go' and so > end up in `trying to let go'. Did I ever have any idea that I > was dealing > with concepts? NO! In other words I was blissfully unaware of what > was going on. So am I now, but at least I don't believe otherwise. > But this is only my experience and I cannot speak for another. You make some very very good points here, Sukin. I agree with a lot of what you say. I think one of the main areas where we may disagree, as I find a similar disagreement with Jon, is whether or not certain practices can be assumed to eventually lead to kusala, sati, panna, and all the other positive qualities. Another point is whether putting forth intentions implies that there is a self, and that the only way to acknowledge anatta is by admitting that nothing can be done to either speed or slow the path. One has to kind of sneak in Sutta study and discernment in a passive, natural way, so that the notion of self won't get in and ruin it. [Hope you don't mind me being a little facetious to highlight the point.] I personally think [for whatever that's worth -- not much, I hear Jon saying...my God, I've internalized him!] that sitting with attention to the breath or to the present moment will eventually yield increased discernment, and lead to sati and panna. I add that of course if one does this in an unskillful way it may not lead to any such results, but the practice itself, done with some reasonable understanding and instruction, tends to lead in the right direction. I think that most Abhidhammists will tend to disagree with this, and say that we cannot possibly predict the arising of kusala based on any given practice. I also believe that intention can be put forth by cittas and that this cumulative intention will eventually tend to yield positive fruit. And I think some take this to imply that there must be a self being posited that will both put this effort forth and yield the fruit of that intention. I contend that this is not necessarily so, and that intention can be put forth, just as we put forth this or that cause through the production of consciousness. We have a moment of anger and the intention arises to either hold it back and take a deep breath or to yell and scream. There is a moment of decision there as well. There may also be a moment where we say, 'okay, let's not act on this anger in future' and eventually this may have an effect in that direction. Can we choose to have an intention and then have it? I don't know. But I do think the putting forth of intention can yield an eventual result that arises from that intention. My own life seems to give evidence for this. One more comment below. Let me > now go to your next point. > > You said: > And if the thought arises and is agreed to by subsequent > consciousnesses: `well there is no use in exerting mundane effort > and > intention, since the results are really out of my control', what > fruits will > that yield? > > Sukin: > If I am doing nothing, I am still doing something, viriya cetasika is > still > there. Only its object will be different. I still have to consider > what is > kusala and what is not. But what do I do? The cittas have already > fallen > away before their affect have fallen into awareness, so there is > nothing to be done about those. What about the future cittas, akusala > can arise again? So they will, if the conditions are there, if the > kilesas > are still in plenty. Does this mean I do nothing about it? Yes! I > cannot do > anything directly about my kilesas, but I can have `right > understanding' > and this will influence the accumulated tendencies. Sati and panna > can > arise in the future and whatever that can be done with regard to > akusala > will be done by these cetasikas, not by anything else. And is this > control, > I don't think so. There is no trying to do anything directly with > whatever > is arising now. When I read the posts on dsg for instance, it's > mostly a > desire to understand more but sometimes there is chanda to have more > understanding. But in either case there is no thinking that I will > one day > be able to be mindful of all situations or that sati will arise more > often. > Such thinking I think is based on lobha, it will not lead to the goal. > I think this answers (or at least I hope it does, since I'm > already feeling > so tired, I type at snail's pace) your points below too. > > You said: > So I don't think that trying to > intervene in the process of delusion and ignorance necessarily > implies > that one is promoting a self-concept, in and of itself. I think we > can put > our minds in the right direction by `going along' with the > proper thoughts > and intentions when they arise, and follow the Buddha's lead in > promoting the breakup of ignorance. > > As a last thought, if we try to study the Dhamma and practice > discernment, does this or does this not imply the idea that there is > a `self' to be enlightened? If there weren't, > wouldn't we just drop the > whole thing and go about our daily lives, knowing that there was no > self > and therefore the path was unnecessary? > > So I think there is virtually no escape from the idea that `we > use the > idea of self to defeat the idea of self'. Since we are incapable > of > dropping the idea of self, which would be the most convenient end to > suffering, we use it to eradicate itself, and have no other choice in > life. I > think if we pretend that we will study Dhamma with no self-concept > influencing our intentions, we are being deluded about being deluded. > An interesting possibility....... > > Sukin: > The possibility of being deluded are plenty, especially for me. I > hope I > can at least have good cheer arise whenever I'm confronted with the > truth and not feel discouraged. But this too arises with some level > of > panna no? ..sigh.... > > Best wishes, > Sukin Good cheer is always of great value. And I again appreciate the dialogue with you. Hope to have more. best, Robert Ep. 13382 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun May 19, 2002 4:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Samatha bhavana - Rob Ep Hi Jon, Long time to get back to you on this. Can you say a word on how the understanding of realities of the present moment lead to the realisation of the Noble Eightfold Path? I see that you say that this is the most difficult aspect of the dhamma to come to terms with, and it seems that I cannot always make the connection between discernment of realities and how this leads to the Noble Eightfold Path. I agree that this is a most fruitful area for discussion. Thanks, Robert Ep. ============================= --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob E > > I particularly liked your remarks that: > > … being present to the reality of the moment to the greatest extent > > possible is … something that can be done at any time > > and which is surely the correct practice in daily life. So that may be > > something we can all agree on, while we argue about everything else. > > As you say, we can keep up the discussion on other (doctrinal) points, but > let's not neglect giving each other support in understanding the reality of the > present moment at any time. > > Personally, I see this as the most useful thing that can be discussed on this > list. It is the understanding of the realities ('dhammas') of the present > moment that leads to the realisation of the Noble Eightfold Path. > > In my view this is also by far the most difficult aspect of the teaching to > come to terms with. > > Jon > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > Rob E > > > > > > Needless to say, I fully agree with your closing remarks here, that > > > "> Certainly, there is nothing that > > > > should lead us to wait to enquire into the reality of the moment through > > > > direct seeing. That is the ground upon which everything else pivots" > > > and I would be interested to hear your thoughts on how this should proceed. > > > > > > Jon > > > > By any means necessary. Including being present to whatever is arising in > > the > > moment with all currently available faculties, and anything else that is > > within > > the practitioner's predilections. > > > > But my point was, I think [memory is not my strongest suit] that whether or > > not > > one wants to meditate or do anything else to maximize growth towards > > enlightenment, being present to the reality of the moment to the greatest > > extent > > possible is, as you and others have said, something that can be done at any > > time > > and which is surely the correct practice in daily life. So that may be > > something > > we can all agree on, while we argue about everything else. > > > > > PS While in a manner of speaking I admire your confidence in your own > > sense of > > > reasoning, nevertheless a well-developed sense of reasoning (whether it be > > > reasoning based on a linear or a dialectic/synergistic view of the > > world(!)) is > > > not something that I would see a being particularly an asset in a person > > when > > > it comes to understanding the teachings. As you know, I think the crucial > > > thing is to ascertain exactly what the Buddha was saying about how things > > are, > > > and this may require the (temporary) suspension of one’s own, otherwise > > > well-reasoned, views. > > > > I'm not saying my way of reasoning is correct, only that I have this > > tendency. > > Everyone else on the planet also has one or another tendency towards thinking > > this > > way or that way. I agree that identifying and suspending one's own > > 'automatic' > > tendencies and looking directly at the Dhamma is a good practice. > > > > Doesn't guarantee that we'll be successful, or that your or my view will be > > more > > or less correct. So we're stuck doing the best we can, until things get > > better. > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. > > 13383 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun May 19, 2002 4:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Concentration - Rob Ep (II) Hi Jon. Well, I never saw this post and I really enjoyed it. Thanks for your kind explanation of the emphases in Abhidhamma. As I have been giving the Abhidhamma a rather hard time on paramatha dhammas lately, and probably causing some akusala reactions to arise towards myself, I would like to say that I think your explanation for the emphasis on dry insight makes a lot of sense. The belief that there will be subsequent lifetimes when the dhamma will not be available also helps to explain the current emphasis on dhamma study. In any case, thanks. I am trying to understand some of the points of emphasis that seem to exist here, and this helps me quite a bit. Best, Robert Ep. =============== --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Jon, > .... > > If Abhidhamma has any seeming prejudice [and I would contend that every single > > system, including every system of Buddhism does, including my own 'favorites'] > it > > is the idea that discernment of realities alone is really of utmost value, and > > that other efforts or practices are either distracting or ineffectual. For > > instance, there have been discussions lately about Right Concentration and > whether > > it is constituted of the jhanas. Although the Buddha seems to explicitly > state > > that it is constituted by the jhanas, this is interpreted in an indirect way > to > > mean something else, because cultivation would take the factor out of the > > exclusive realm of the stages of enlightenment. It is also pointed out that > the > > difficulty of attaining the jhanas is beyond the capability of most people, > > enormously difficult. But I would say that the discernment of namas and rupas > is > > equally hard, and so why not cultivate the former as well as the latter? > However > > many lifetimes it may take, if we are to follow the Buddha's advice, we should > be > > cultivating all that he advises, and let the process begin at the stage that > we're at. > > > It's true that the abhidhamma does not support the view of *mundane jhana as a > necessary > prerequisite* for the arising of magga citta (enlightenment consciousness). It > does, > however, support the description of Right Concentration as being *concentration > of an > intensity equivalent to that of mundane jhana* arising at moments of path > consciousness > (enlightenment). > > To suggest that this indicates a prejudice against samatha is I think to > prejudge the > issue (no pun intended!). It all depends on the view you take of the sutta > passages, > which is the very issue we are discussing here. As I said in an earlier > message, the > sutta description of the 8 path factors is far from clearly being a 'how to > cultivate' > guide. > > You might be interested to know that the abhidhamma contains extremely detailed > descriptions of the different realities involved at the different levels of > jhana. One > would almost say there was a disproportionately large amount of such detail. > > Also, as you may have noticed, the suttas themselves contain relatively little > about *how > to cultivate* samatha/the jhanas (typically the references in the suttas either > allude to > someone who is developing or is already adept at this practice, or they describe > the role > of samadhi (concentration) in various attainments including but not exclusively > insight). > The greatest detail on the 'how to' of samatha/concentration is to be found in > that > reputedly "abhidhammic" commentary the Visuddhimagga (in my copy, pages 85 to > 434 deal > with concentration, vs. pages 435 to 740 for understanding) and there is also > quite a lot > of detail in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha . > > So I don't think there's any 'anti-samatha' bias in the abhidhamma . ;-)) > > In another post (to Nina) you say: > I wonder if there is a special reason why Abhidhamma followers seem to emphasize > the 'dry insight' approach. > > I think any apparent emphasis is simply the appreciation that, if the > development of > vipassana is something that can take place independently of the development of > samatha > (even though both may also be developed in parallel), then the priority should > be to find > out as much as possible about the former in the limited time available. This > does not > mean ignoring samatha, any more than it means ignoring other forms of kusala, > but it > means appreciating the rarity of this opportunity of having the essence of the > dhamma > available (there will be plenty of lifetimes in the future when there will be no > dhamma, > only teachings on other forms of kusala, including the jhanas). > > Nor does it mean that those who understand the subtlety of the Buddha's teaching > on this > point have no personal interest in the development of samatha. But, to > paraphrase > Howard, if there was time for the study of only one or the other, is there any > doubt as > to what the choice should be? > > Jon > > > 13384 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun May 19, 2002 4:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Concentration - Rob Ep (II) I would also like to look into the Visudhimagga and see what is said about the jhanas. Hmmn....that means homework...... Best, Robert Ep. ========== --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Jon, > .... > > If Abhidhamma has any seeming prejudice [and I would contend that every single > > system, including every system of Buddhism does, including my own 'favorites'] > it > > is the idea that discernment of realities alone is really of utmost value, and > > that other efforts or practices are either distracting or ineffectual. For > > instance, there have been discussions lately about Right Concentration and > whether > > it is constituted of the jhanas. Although the Buddha seems to explicitly > state > > that it is constituted by the jhanas, this is interpreted in an indirect way > to > > mean something else, because cultivation would take the factor out of the > > exclusive realm of the stages of enlightenment. It is also pointed out that > the > > difficulty of attaining the jhanas is beyond the capability of most people, > > enormously difficult. But I would say that the discernment of namas and rupas > is > > equally hard, and so why not cultivate the former as well as the latter? > However > > many lifetimes it may take, if we are to follow the Buddha's advice, we should > be > > cultivating all that he advises, and let the process begin at the stage that > we're at. > > > It's true that the abhidhamma does not support the view of *mundane jhana as a > necessary > prerequisite* for the arising of magga citta (enlightenment consciousness). It > does, > however, support the description of Right Concentration as being *concentration > of an > intensity equivalent to that of mundane jhana* arising at moments of path > consciousness > (enlightenment). > > To suggest that this indicates a prejudice against samatha is I think to > prejudge the > issue (no pun intended!). It all depends on the view you take of the sutta > passages, > which is the very issue we are discussing here. As I said in an earlier > message, the > sutta description of the 8 path factors is far from clearly being a 'how to > cultivate' > guide. > > You might be interested to know that the abhidhamma contains extremely detailed > descriptions of the different realities involved at the different levels of > jhana. One > would almost say there was a disproportionately large amount of such detail. > > Also, as you may have noticed, the suttas themselves contain relatively little > about *how > to cultivate* samatha/the jhanas (typically the references in the suttas either > allude to > someone who is developing or is already adept at this practice, or they describe > the role > of samadhi (concentration) in various attainments including but not exclusively > insight). > The greatest detail on the 'how to' of samatha/concentration is to be found in > that > reputedly "abhidhammic" commentary the Visuddhimagga (in my copy, pages 85 to > 434 deal > with concentration, vs. pages 435 to 740 for understanding) and there is also > quite a lot > of detail in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha . > > So I don't think there's any 'anti-samatha' bias in the abhidhamma . ;-)) > > In another post (to Nina) you say: > I wonder if there is a special reason why Abhidhamma followers seem to emphasize > the 'dry insight' approach. > > I think any apparent emphasis is simply the appreciation that, if the > development of > vipassana is something that can take place independently of the development of > samatha > (even though both may also be developed in parallel), then the priority should > be to find > out as much as possible about the former in the limited time available. This > does not > mean ignoring samatha, any more than it means ignoring other forms of kusala, > but it > means appreciating the rarity of this opportunity of having the essence of the > dhamma > available (there will be plenty of lifetimes in the future when there will be no > dhamma, > only teachings on other forms of kusala, including the jhanas). > > Nor does it mean that those who understand the subtlety of the Buddha's teaching > on this > point have no personal interest in the development of samatha. But, to > paraphrase > Howard, if there was time for the study of only one or the other, is there any > doubt as > to what the choice should be? > > Jon > > > 13385 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun May 19, 2002 5:02pm Subject: Lunch with Azita was Re: [dsg] SE QLD Dear All, Just a few of my impressions from Sunday Lunch with Azita and SarahF.: It really looked like SarahF and I would make it on time to meet Azita in Maleny at 11.00 a.m. SarahF had nominated herself as driver and appropriated the keys (due to an Entirely False myth about me driving 60 kms. in a southerly direction when I was supposedly going north.) So we set off. An hour or so later, a slight query arose in my mind when we turned right at Mooloolaba (towards the ocean) rather than left (towards the hills and rainforest) - but, as I DO admit to a very occasional left hand/right hand confusion, I decided to say nothing. Ten minutes later, SarahF decided she should have taken the Maroochydore turnoff, not the Mooloolaba one. At this point, I regret my impulsive remark about 'genetics' as it didn't seem to help things... :-) Eventually, going the 'scenic route', via surf beaches and hinterland towns, and one more detour up the long driveway of the "Word of Life" Church, we arrived at Maleny. Still speaking to each other. :-) The grandeur and beauty along the rim road was worth the slight detours to get there. Actually we were only fifteen minutes late. Amazing how a slight anxiety can alter the impression of time passing.... Azita was at the designated meeting point (a bank) wearing the designated clothes, sitting on the footpath (casual town) and reading Nyanaponika Thera and Hellmuth Hecker's "Great Disciples of the Buddha"......who else could it be but her? Too easy! No awkwardness at all, hugs and smiles all round, and we decided to settle onto the verandah of The Maple 3 Cafe across the street. Warm sunshine and cool breezes. From that first moment, our discussions were as if we had known each other for years.... or :-) perhaps for lifetimes?:-) Pacing ourselves carefully, with pots of tea, spreading luncheon courses out, and more pots of tea, we managed to occupy the table for about three and a half hours. Discussions ranged over Jons' post to me that morning (Is Kamma unstoppable?), Kamma in general, bodily pleasant feeling and mental unpleasant feeling - kusala kamma and accumulations of dosa, seeing and visible object and nama and rupa in general. We also talked about meeting more Aussie's who are studying Dhamma and Abhidhamma and ways to increase our circle of 'admirable friends' before, oh so reluctantly, making our farewells. I have included a couple of links (mainly for SarahA who has been to Maleny before it grew into a tourist town - 4,000 inhabitants nowadays, and Azita says many of the same people are living in the Community). The community is named Manduka after the frog that listened to Dhamma before being squashed, and having a fortunate rebirth. I think the connection is environmental? http://www.queensland-holidays.com.au/pfm/sites/0000737/main.htm http://www.tourmaleny.com.au/ http://www.cybersayer.com/sunweb/places/maleny.html We are really looking forward to the July Weekend (with our international visitors :-)) - and it looks like a couple of new friends may be coming too, as well as hopefully KenH and Stigan. Going home, SarahF acknowledged that she had enjoyed the day and not been bored for a moment. Considering she doesn't know much about Buddhism, I felt quite heartened. She is happy to come on the July weekend as well. :-) Oh, one thing I forgot to mention. We may have to 'do something' about Azita and her computer knowledge. Her Dhamma knowledge is great, but I.T. comprehension is very sad.... :-) Did you know she once had hundreds upon hundreds of messages in her email in-box - (didn't think they'd keep coming with the computer off?), and didn't know until today how to read at the website? Did you know that she hasn't been fussed on the photos in the photo section of dsg because 'who can really see what people look like when the photo is so infinitesimally small?' Did you know she hasn't .... but I'll stop here, .... I'm going to try to help, but this could mean more trouble than she already has.... :-) Sorry Azita - one thing I learned from the honoured list moderators is that you musn't trust Anyone when you are content and relaxed over shared meals and Dhamma discussions. Remind me to tell you of my BKK experiences with 'them', preferably before July. :) :) :) metta Christine --- "Jaran Jainhuknan" wrote: > Christine: > Good to hear from you. Thanks for the explanation. Have fun. Looking > forward to your account of the lunch-on. > Good day, > jaran > > Hi Jaran, > > SE QLD means 'South East Queensland'. Azita is down from Cairns on > holiday in Maleny - a couple of hours drive north of Brisbane. She > and I (plus SarahF) are meeting for Dhamma discussions overlunch on > Sunday, which I am very much looking forward to. :-) > > metta, > Christine 13386 From: Howard Date: Sun May 19, 2002 6:29pm Subject: Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Re: [dsg] Sitting and mindfulness [Anders] Hi, Robert - In a message dated 5/19/02 2:55:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert Ep writes: > > Dear Howard, > Re. your nice breakdown of the sutra below: Interesting, that the noble > eightfold > path is clearly announced as a path of practice, and not merely a > description of > what occurs under the right conditions, wouldn't you agree? > ----------------------------------------------------- I don't want to come on too strong, Rob. The sutta speaks for itself - I'm just putting it out there. ---------------------------------------------------- > > I would like to hear what Jon has to say about this: is it descriptive or > prescriptive? > > Best, > Robert Ep. > ========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13387 From: Howard Date: Sun May 19, 2002 7:09pm Subject: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K.] Hi, Rob and Victor - We use conventional expressions all the time that have meaning, but not literal meaning. If we say that our alarm clock turns itself on at the preset time or that a VCR turns itself off after recording, we are not assuming a "self" in these things. It is clear what we DO mean, and it is not a philosophical assertion. Whether or not there is something in, about, identical with, associated with, or underlying the khandhas which is properly called a "self" may be asserted or denied. However, so far no one seems to encounter such when looking for it. It not being found, a pragmatic approach takes it to be at least irrelevant, and, for all practical purposes, nonexistent. Moreover, the Buddha *did* teach that with stream entry a *belief* in 'self' is gone, and that with arahatta even any odor of 'self' is gone. Inasmuch as these are states of liberation and enlightenment, it certainly suggests to me that while *beliefs* in 'self' and in 'no-self' are just that - beliefs, the *fact* of the matter is that there is no self. At this point, I have no belief in a self at all. All I find is impersonal, empty phenomena "rolling on". Included among these phenomena is the frequently arising "sense" of self, but that is all it seems to be, this "sense" - one more impersonal condition arising and ceasing from time to time as part of the ongoing flux of conditioned experience. With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/19/02 3:07:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert Ep writes: > > --- yuzhonghao wrote: > > TG, > > > > For the statement "there is no self", > > see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html > > > > For the statement "there is no control", I would like to share this > > verse with you: > > > > 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train > > others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is > > self-control. > > Dear Victor, > Here we have a clear description of the Buddha advocating self-control. > Now, I > wonder if those who believe there is 'no control' because there is no > 'self' will > explaint that this is merely conventional speech and does not refer to > either a > 'self' or an actual imperative to 'exercise control' over oneself? > > One can always say that something the Buddha said was not actually what he > meant > because it is merely conventional speech, while when the Buddha says > something > that is in accord with what one regards as the path, one will say that the > Buddha > meant it literally. > > It is a slippery slope, because it means that we are making distinctions > between > different suttas, or even different statements in the same sutta, based on > our > prior beliefs. > > It is an equally slippery slope to maintain the opposite, that the Buddha > was > being literal when he says that we should maintain self-control, but > metaphoric or > conventional when he says something else that we disagree with. To make > these > kinds of distinctions at all is fraught with danger. > > So what is the correct view? We do not want to wind up like some > interpreters of > the Bible who conclude based on taking it literally [according to their > interpretation of what is literal] that the earth is only 5,000 years old, > in the > face of all scientific evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, we do > not want > to wind up in the position of those who insist that the only experiences > that are > believeable are those which can be scientifically tested. > > It seems to me that in general, we should take the Buddha literally, unless > we > have some evidence to the contrary. What is the evidence that 'one should > practice self-control' is merely conventional, and not a true imperative? > Well, > since Buddha states clearly that none of the five khandas can be considered > to > have the property of 'self', there are two possibilities: what he > considers > 'self' is beyond the five kandhas, or: he is asking practitioners to > attempt to > control certain arising phenomena, in the understanding that such attempt > will > have certain results which will be beneficial to their progress. > > I think it may satisfy both camps if we say that he is addressing the > conventional > self and asking his listeners to attempt to exercise control over akusala > conditions, even though such control may not be possible, in the > understanding > that this will have certain effects, though they are not caused directly by > the > practitioner. > > This is very similar to other Buddhist practices. If one practices > meditation, > the worst form of such practice is to struggle directly with the mind and > attempt > to control it, which leads to tension and frustration. One follows certain > practices, trusting that eventually they will yield the fruit. The > practice is > voluntary, but the results are involuntary. If one practices discernment > in daily > life, it is the same thing: one pays attention to the attempt to discern > namas > and rupas, knowing that most of the time he or she will fail, but > eventually the > attempt to do so will yield fruit. There is intention, but not control. It > explains why the sutta is useful, without falling into the fallacy of an > atta > which can take action. > > Best, > Robert Ep. > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13388 From: yuzhonghao Date: Sun May 19, 2002 11:17pm Subject: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K.] Howard, For the statement "there is no self" see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html Regards, Victor --- <> wrote: > Hi, Rob and Victor - > > We use conventional expressions all the time that have meaning, but > not literal meaning. If we say that our alarm clock turns itself on at the > preset time or that a VCR turns itself off after recording, we are not > assuming a "self" in these things. It is clear what we DO mean, and it is not > a philosophical assertion. > Whether or not there is something in, about, identical with, > associated with, or underlying the khandhas which is properly called a "self" > may be asserted or denied. However, so far no one seems to encounter such > when looking for it. It not being found, a pragmatic approach takes it to be > at least irrelevant, and, for all practical purposes, nonexistent. Moreover, > the Buddha *did* teach that with stream entry a *belief* in 'self' is gone, > and that with arahatta even any odor of 'self' is gone. Inasmuch as these are > states of liberation and enlightenment, it certainly suggests to me that > while *beliefs* in 'self' and in 'no-self' are just that - beliefs, the > *fact* of the matter is that there is no self. > At this point, I have no belief in a self at all. All I find is > impersonal, empty phenomena "rolling on". Included among these phenomena is > the frequently arising "sense" of self, but that is all it seems to be, this > "sense" - one more impersonal condition arising and ceasing from time to time > as part of the ongoing flux of conditioned experience. > > With metta, > Howard > > > In a message dated 5/19/02 3:07:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > <> writes: > > > > > > --- yuzhonghao wrote: 13389 From: Howard Date: Sun May 19, 2002 7:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? Hi, Rob - In a message dated 5/19/02 3:45:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert Ep writes: > > --- Howard wrote: > > Hi, Jon - > > Do you > > > see a necessary > > > contradiction in these 2 attributes (conditionality vs. own essence)? > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > The problem I have here is with the adjectival phrase "of their > own" > > in the sentence "The fact that these phenomena are conditioned and last > for > > only a brief moment doesn't mean that they lack characteristics of their > own > > capable of being discerned by consciousness accompanied by panna (termed > > 'individual essence')." Everything about these phenomena, including their > > > very existence, arises in total dependence on conditions, all of which > are > > equally empty of own-being. What arises in total dependence on other > > conditions does not have own-being, and inasmuch as these other > conditions > > are equally without own-being, the emptiness is thoroughgoing. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Dear Howard, > I would really like to pay a little more attention this important point of > yours. > Do the terms paramatha dhamma, own-being and dhammas having their own > independent > characteristics not imply a substantial quality these fleeting appearances? > Is > there not an implication of substantiality, and is it not inherent in the > terms > and the feeling that is created around them? > > I keep seeing these terms as a kind of hidden life-raft within the > philosophy of > Abhidhamma, and it is as much their implied feeling as it is their explicit > definition. When you say 'the emptiness is thoroughgoing' it makes me > heave a > sigh of relief, because the sense of own-being and independent > characteristics > seems laden with the burden of substantiality. It just carries that > flavor. One > can explain it differently, but why do those ideas exist? > > What is the sense of own-being if not a sense of substantiality? What > other > purpose does it serve? It seems to implicitly undercut emptiness and > anatta. If > something has own-being, it has entity. And if it has entity, it does not > partake > of anatta. Own-being seems to me to be nothing other than another way of > saying > 'entity' or 'being'. It even has the word 'being' in it, and 'own', which > means > that it belongs to one, ie, the entity in question. Together with > Buddhaghosa > saying that the paramatha dhammas are the 'final irreduceible entities of > experience', it really makes me feel that there is a hidden substantiality > and > entity at play in these words. How can something have an 'individual > essence' and > not be identified as an entity? > > Otherwise, why not just say that these experiences are insubstantial and > momentary, which would be in the direction of anatta and anicca? > > Can you have something that is solid and empty at the same time? > > Best, > Robert Ep. > ============================= I agree that terminology is *very* important. How we think is strongly influenced by the descriptive terms used. I will not second-guess the motivation of using sabhava-like terminology in some Theravadin writings - there may be no substantialist motivation at all, and the intention may be, as Robert K points out, nothing more than the ascription of characteristics to elements of experience. However, I do think that the pragmatics of such language use is harmful, controversial, and misleading. 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) 13390 From: Howard Date: Sun May 19, 2002 7:45pm Subject: Re: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Rober... Hi, Victor - In a message dated 5/19/02 11:18:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Victor writes: > > Howard, > > For the statement "there is no self" > see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html > > Regards, > Victor > > =========================== Yes. This well known sutta is a great example of the Buddha not replying to a person out of kindness and knowledge, knowing that the state of that person's mind is such that any answer will be misunderstood. 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) 13391 From: Howard Date: Sun May 19, 2002 7:57pm Subject: Re: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Rober... Hi, all - In a message dated 5/19/02 11:46:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Howard ambiguously writes: > This well known sutta is a great example of the Buddha not > replying to a person out of kindness and knowledge, knowing that the state > of > that person's mind is such that any answer will be misunderstood. > ============================ The foregoing could be read as saying that the Buddha did not reply out of kindness and knowledge (that is, replied unkindly and ignorantly!), which, of course, is not at all what I meant. I should have formulated this as follows: *************** This well known sutta is a great example of the Buddha, out of kindness and knowledge, and knowing that the state of a person's mind was such that any answer would be misunderstood, choosing to not reply to that person. ************** 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) 13392 From: yuzhonghao Date: Mon May 20, 2002 0:05am Subject: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Rober... Howard, "Ananda, if I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self -- were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self -- were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html Regards, Victor --- <> wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 5/19/02 11:18:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > <> writes: > > > > > > Howard, > > > > For the statement "there is no self" > > see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > > > > =========================== > Yes. This well known sutta is a great example of the Buddha not > replying to a person out of kindness and knowledge, knowing that the state of > that person's mind is such that any answer will be misunderstood. > > With metta, > Howard 13393 From: yuzhonghao Date: Mon May 20, 2002 0:13am Subject: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K.] Another quote I would like to share with the group: "[1] Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view. "And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with fermentations [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path. "And what is the right view that has fermentations, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has fermentations, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions. "And what is the right view that is without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from fermentations, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path. "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities -- right view, right effort, & right mindfulness -- run & circle around right view. See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn117.html Regards, Victor 13394 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Mon May 20, 2002 3:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K.] The other evidence we have about speaking conventally when talking about self-control, etc comes from the Suttas themselves. In the Connected Discourse, "A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya" by Bhikkhu Bodhi we read on page102 #64 "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." The Buddha says the same thing about himself in a Sutta from MN, but I forget which number, but I am sure others here will know the passage. So as well as the evidence you supplied, there is also this evidence from the Canon that the Buddha does use such terms as a "mere expressions." ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Epstein" Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 12:06 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K.] > > --- yuzhonghao wrote: > > TG, > > > > For the statement "there is no self", > > see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html > > > > For the statement "there is no control", I would like to share this > > verse with you: > > > > 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train > > others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is > > self-control. > > Dear Victor, > Here we have a clear description of the Buddha advocating self-control. Now, I > wonder if those who believe there is 'no control' because there is no 'self' will > explaint that this is merely conventional speech and does not refer to either a > 'self' or an actual imperative to 'exercise control' over oneself? > > One can always say that something the Buddha said was not actually what he meant > because it is merely conventional speech, while when the Buddha says something > that is in accord with what one regards as the path, one will say that the Buddha > meant it literally. > > It is a slippery slope, because it means that we are making distinctions between > different suttas, or even different statements in the same sutta, based on our > prior beliefs. > > It is an equally slippery slope to maintain the opposite, that the Buddha was > being literal when he says that we should maintain self-control, but metaphoric or > conventional when he says something else that we disagree with. To make these > kinds of distinctions at all is fraught with danger. > > So what is the correct view? We do not want to wind up like some interpreters of > the Bible who conclude based on taking it literally [according to their > interpretation of what is literal] that the earth is only 5,000 years old, in the > face of all scientific evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, we do not want > to wind up in the position of those who insist that the only experiences that are > believeable are those which can be scientifically tested. > > It seems to me that in general, we should take the Buddha literally, unless we > have some evidence to the contrary. What is the evidence that 'one should > practice self-control' is merely conventional, and not a true imperative? Well, > since Buddha states clearly that none of the five khandas can be considered to > have the property of 'self', there are two possibilities: what he considers > 'self' is beyond the five kandhas, or: he is asking practitioners to attempt to > control certain arising phenomena, in the understanding that such attempt will > have certain results which will be beneficial to their progress. > > I think it may satisfy both camps if we say that he is addressing the conventional > self and asking his listeners to attempt to exercise control over akusala > conditions, even though such control may not be possible, in the understanding > that this will have certain effects, though they are not caused directly by the > practitioner. > > This is very similar to other Buddhist practices. If one practices meditation, > the worst form of such practice is to struggle directly with the mind and attempt > to control it, which leads to tension and frustration. One follows certain > practices, trusting that eventually they will yield the fruit. The practice is > voluntary, but the results are involuntary. If one practices discernment in daily > life, it is the same thing: one pays attention to the attempt to discern namas > and rupas, knowing that most of the time he or she will fail, but eventually the > attempt to do so will yield fruit. There is intention, but not control. It > explains why the sutta is useful, without falling into the fallacy of an atta > which can take action. > > Best, > Robert Ep. > > See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > > > > > --- <> wrote: 13395 From: TG Date: Mon May 20, 2002 2:31am Subject: Re: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Rober... In a message dated 5/19/2002 9:06:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Victor writes: > Howard, > > "Ananda, if I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is > a self -- were to answer that there is a self, that would be > conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of > eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If > I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self -- > were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with > those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism > [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. > > See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html > > Regards, > Victor > Victor It is misleading to leave out the most important part of this quote which follows immediately where you ended it. This Sutta is particularly important because it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Buddha "meant" to teach that "all things are not self." I'll quote in full... "Ananda, if I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self -- were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self -- were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self -- were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?" "No, lord." "And if I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self -- were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'" TG 13396 From: TG Date: Mon May 20, 2002 2:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K.] Thanks for supplying such a super appropriate quote rhen. :) In a message dated 5/19/2002 12:34:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, <> writes: > > The other evidence we have about speaking conventally when talking about > self-control, etc comes from the Suttas themselves. In the Connected > Discourse, "A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya" by Bhikkhu Bodhi we > read on page102 #64 > "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." > > The Buddha says the same thing about himself in a Sutta from MN, but I > forget which number, but I am sure others here will know the passage. So as > well as the evidence you supplied, there is also this evidence from the > 13397 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Mon May 20, 2002 9:13am Subject: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K.] --- Dear Ray, Thanks for the good points. There is a similar quote when the Buddha explains his use of terms like self or person: "These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world. And of these a Tathagata makes use indeed, but he does not misapprehend them" Digha 9. Right view, of course understands that: "The mental and physical are really here But here there is no human being to be found for it is void and merely fashinoned like a doll just suffering piled up like grass and sticks" (visuddhimagga XVIII) And "There is no doer of a deed Or one who reaps the deeds result Phenomena alone flow on No other view than this is right" (vis. XIX,19) best wishes robert "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > The other evidence we have about speaking conventally when talking about > self-control, etc comes from the Suttas themselves. In the Connected > Discourse, "A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya" by Bhikkhu Bodhi we > read on page102 #64 > "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." > > The Buddha says the same thing about himself in a Sutta from MN, but I > forget which number, but I am sure others here will know the passage. So as > well as the evidence you supplied, there is also this evidence from the > Canon that the Buddha does use such terms as a "mere expressions." > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Epstein" > Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 12:06 AM > Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K.] > > > > > > --- yuzhonghao wrote: > > > TG, > > > > > > For the statement "there is no self", > > > see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html > > > > > > For the statement "there is no control", I would like to share this > > > verse with you: > > > > > > 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train > > > others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is > > > self-control. > > > > Dear Victor, > > Here we have a clear description of the Buddha advocating self- control. > Now, I > > wonder if those who believe there is 'no control' because there is no > 'self' will > > explaint that this is merely conventional speech and does not refer to > either a > > 'self' or an actual imperative to 'exercise control' over oneself? > > > > One can always say that something the Buddha said was not actually what he > meant > > because it is merely conventional speech, while when the Buddha says > something > > that is in accord with what one regards as the path, one will say that the > Buddha > > meant it literally. > > > > It is a slippery slope, because it means that we are making distinctions > between > > different suttas, or even different statements in the same sutta, based on > our > > prior beliefs. > > > > It is an equally slippery slope to maintain the opposite, that the Buddha > was > > being literal when he says that we should maintain self-control, but > metaphoric or > > conventional when he says something else that we disagree with. To make > these > > kinds of distinctions at all is fraught with danger. > > > > So what is the correct view? We do not want to wind up like some > interpreters of > > the Bible who conclude based on taking it literally [according to their > > interpretation of what is literal] that the earth is only 5,000 years old, > in the > > face of all scientific evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, we do > not want > > to wind up in the position of those who insist that the only experiences > that are > > believeable are those which can be scientifically tested. > > > > It seems to me that in general, we should take the Buddha literally, > unless we > > have some evidence to the contrary. What is the evidence that 'one > should > > practice self-control' is merely conventional, and not a true imperative? > Well, > > since Buddha states clearly that none of the five khandas can be > considered to > > have the property of 'self', there are two possibilities: what he > considers > > 'self' is beyond the five kandhas, or: he is asking practitioners to > attempt to > > control certain arising phenomena, in the understanding that such attempt > will > > have certain results which will be beneficial to their progress. > > > > I think it may satisfy both camps if we say that he is addressing the > conventional > > self and asking his listeners to attempt to exercise control over akusala > > conditions, even though such control may not be possible, in the > understanding > > that this will have certain effects, though they are not caused directly > by the > > practitioner. > > > > This is very similar to other Buddhist practices. If one practices > meditation, > > the worst form of such practice is to struggle directly with the mind and > attempt > > to control it, which leads to tension and frustration. One follows > certain > > practices, trusting that eventually they will yield the fruit. The > practice is > > voluntary, but the results are involuntary. If one practices discernment > in daily > > life, it is the same thing: one pays attention to the attempt to discern > namas > > and rupas, knowing that most of the time he or she will fail, but > eventually the > > attempt to do so will yield fruit. There is intention, but not control. > It > > explains why the sutta is useful, without falling into the fallacy of an > atta > > which can take action. > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. > > > > > > > > > > > > > See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html > > > > > > Regards, > > > Victor > > > > > > > > > --- <> writes: 13398 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 20, 2002 11:03am Subject: Re: Lunch with Azita was Re: [dsg] SE QLD Christine Thanks very much for these reflections on your (you and SarahF)lunch with Azita. Entertaining reading in the taxi on a long and rain-soaked trip to the airport. Looking forward to seeing you all in July. Jon Bangkok --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear All, > Just a few of my impressions from Sunday Lunch with Azita and SarahF.: > It really looked like SarahF and I would make it on time to meet > Azita in Maleny at 11.00 a.m. SarahF had nominated herself as driver > and appropriated the keys (due to an Entirely False myth about me > driving 60 kms. in a southerly direction when I was supposedly going > north.) So we set off. An hour or so later, a slight query arose in > my mind when we turned right at Mooloolaba (towards the ocean) rather > than left (towards the hills and rainforest) - but, as I DO admit to > a very occasional left hand/right hand confusion, I decided to say > nothing. Ten minutes later, SarahF decided she should have taken the > Maroochydore turnoff, not the Mooloolaba one. At this point, I > regret my impulsive remark about 'genetics' as it didn't seem to help > things... :-) Eventually, going the 'scenic route', via surf beaches > and hinterland towns, and one more detour up the long driveway of > the "Word of Life" Church, we arrived at Maleny. Still speaking to > each other. :-) > The grandeur and beauty along the rim road was worth the slight > detours to get there. > Actually we were only fifteen minutes late. Amazing how a slight > anxiety can alter the impression of time passing.... Azita was at > the designated meeting point (a bank) wearing the designated clothes, > sitting on the footpath (casual town) and reading Nyanaponika Thera > and Hellmuth Hecker's "Great Disciples of the Buddha"......who else > could it be but her? Too easy! > No awkwardness at all, hugs and smiles all round, and we decided to > settle onto the verandah of The Maple 3 Cafe across the street. Warm > sunshine and cool breezes. From that first moment, our discussions > were as if we had known each other for years.... or :-) perhaps for > lifetimes?:-) > Pacing ourselves carefully, with pots of tea, spreading luncheon > courses out, and more pots of tea, we managed to occupy the table for > about three and a half hours. Discussions ranged over Jons' post to > me that morning (Is Kamma unstoppable?), Kamma in general, bodily > pleasant feeling and mental unpleasant feeling - kusala kamma and > accumulations of dosa, seeing and visible object and nama and rupa in > general. We also talked about meeting more Aussie's who are studying > Dhamma and Abhidhamma and ways to increase our circle of 'admirable > friends' before, oh so reluctantly, making our farewells. I have > included a couple of links (mainly for SarahA who has been to Maleny > before it grew into a tourist town - 4,000 inhabitants nowadays, and > Azita says many of the same people are living in the Community). The > community is named Manduka after the frog that listened to Dhamma > before being squashed, and having a fortunate rebirth. I think the > connection is environmental? > http://www.queensland-holidays.com.au/pfm/sites/0000737/main.htm > http://www.tourmaleny.com.au/ > http://www.cybersayer.com/sunweb/places/maleny.html > We are really looking forward to the July Weekend (with our > international visitors :-)) - and it looks like a couple of new > friends may be coming too, as well as hopefully KenH and Stigan. > Going home, SarahF acknowledged that she had enjoyed the day and not > been bored for a moment. Considering she doesn't know much about > Buddhism, I felt quite heartened. She is happy to come on the July > weekend as well. :-) > > Oh, one thing I forgot to mention. We may have to 'do something' > about Azita and her computer knowledge. Her Dhamma knowledge is > great, but I.T. comprehension is very sad.... :-) Did you know she > once had hundreds upon hundreds of messages in her email in-box - > (didn't think they'd keep coming with the computer off?), and didn't > know until today how to read at the website? Did you know that she > hasn't been fussed on the photos in the photo section of dsg > because 'who can really see what people look like when the photo is > so infinitesimally small?' Did you know she hasn't .... but I'll > stop here, .... I'm going to try to help, but this could mean more > trouble than she already has.... :-) > Sorry Azita - one thing I learned from the honoured list moderators > is that you musn't trust Anyone when you are content and relaxed over > shared meals and Dhamma discussions. Remind me to tell you of my BKK > experiences with 'them', preferably before July. :) :) :) > metta > Christine > > --- "Jaran Jainhuknan" wrote: > > Christine: > > Good to hear from you. Thanks for the explanation. Have fun. Looking > > forward to your account of the lunch-on. > > Good day, > > jaran > > > > Hi Jaran, > > > > SE QLD means 'South East Queensland'. Azita is down from Cairns on > > holiday in Maleny - a couple of hours drive north of Brisbane. She > > and I (plus SarahF) are meeting for Dhamma discussions overlunch on > > Sunday, which I am very much looking forward to. :-) > > > > metta, > > Christine 13399 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon May 20, 2002 1:55pm Subject: Re: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Rober... Hi TG. Well I still think it's interesting that the Buddha never says, even to these disciples who presumably would *not* become bewildered if he were to say it: "There is no Self". Why does he repeat over and over again that all things within the five kandhas - the entire content of *this* life - are 'not self', but refuses to ever say that 'there is not a self of any kind'? If the reason is in fact that to make such a statement would be adhering to annihilationism, one must ask: What is wrong with the view that the Buddha has here said that he wants to avoid? Why does the Buddha *not* want to promote the view that death, to quote the Sutta itself, 'is the annihilation of consciousness'. Certainly there been quite a few discussions on this list in which the Buddha's words in other Suttas have been interpeted to mean precisely that: that consciousness is totally annihilated at the death of an Arahant who has realized Nibbana. So is the only view the Buddha wishes to avoid the view that the ordinary person has his consciousness annihilated at death? It seems to me that the Buddha is saying here that the annihilationists are wrong. The eternatlists are wrong too, but we can talk about that after looking at the annihilationists a little more closely. One would hope that if the Buddha were merely saying the unenlightened person does *not* have their consciousness annihilated at death - because of course the tendencies of the kandhas' karma still unresolved will cause him to be reborn - but that the enlightened person's consciousness, having no more such tendencies - *is* annihilated at death [Parinibbana], he would say so and make this explicit. If such a distinction exists anywhere in the canon, I would appreciate being pointed to it. This is not my sense of what the Buddha is saying. It seems apparent that he is saying that the annihilationists are deluded and that consciousness is *not* annihilated at death. But if the Buddha were to assert that there is no self, this is the conclusion that the annihilationists would draw, and he would be leading them into deeper delusion. The eternalists on the other hand say that there *is* a self, and if Buddha were to assert that there *is* a self, he would be leading the eternalists to the conclusion that there is an immortal soul which survives death and continues beyond the body. I think it is fair to say that the Buddha does not agree with this view and does not want to promote it. There are two possibilities that this allows: One is that there is a self that is beyond the kandhas, a very unpopular view in the Theravadin community, but one never explicitly ruled out by the Buddha. I know he has clearly said that there is no 'consciousness' that survives death, and that there is no 'eternal consciousness' that constitutes a kind of selfless self, but these are all still within the limits of the kandhas as we know them in this life. In other words, there is no self that we as human beings can imagine. Still, the Buddha never says: 'There is no self of any kind', and I don't think the implication is that he will only not assert this because he doesn't want to confuse the annihilationists. Again, in his conversations with Ananda and other advanced Arahants, there is no reason why he could not say: 'Just between us, by the way, there is no self of any kind, but please don't tell the annihilationists as they will confuse the issue.' Even if this was the case, saying that 'there is no self' does not explain why he refuses to say that consciousness is extinguished at death, which he clearly announces here as a wrong view that the annihilationists hold. It seems clear to me that he is saying that the annihilationists view is wrong, otherwise, why not support it? Why not just say: 'yes, consciousness *is* extinguished at death'. But he does not want the annihilationists to think this, because it is clearly a wrong view. The other possibility is that there is no self of any kind, but that something beyhond consciousness and the kandhas survives in a form that is beyond anything we can know or imagine. This seems to be implied by the Buddha's refusal to rule out *some* kind of self, or *some* kind of consciousness surviving beyond death. Otherwise, why not just let the eternalists and the annihilationists know the truth: that there is no self, and that there is no consciousness beyond death? In what way would it confuse them or lead them into wrong views if in fact these two direct statements were true? It seems obvious to me that Buddha refrains from saying this because to make these blunt statements would be promoting wrong view, and that it is not correct to say that there is no self of any kind, and it is not correct to say that consciousness is extinguished at death. These are the exact views that he is saying are wrong. Now, the two important verses which you say that Victor left out make the following points: 1/ In the first one Buddha states bluntly that 'all phenomena are not-self' That is that all *phenomena*, everything we experience in this life, are 'not-self'. Again this does not say 'there is no self'. It says phenomena do not contain a self or constitute a self. So we must not look to phenomena to find a 'self'. The right view of anatta is always stated this way, isn't it? That when regarding phenomena we are not to cling to them and identify with them as 'self'. Isn't that right? Nowhere does the Buddha say: 'Look at yourself and be clear that there is no self of any kind that is your self'. He never rules out the possibility, never, of some kind of self beyond phenomena. Now, I am not saying that there is a self, but what I do want to point out is that Buddha's purpose in the doctrine of anatta does not seem to be to convince us that there is no self of any kind. Rather it seems to be to direct us to look at all the things of this life as 'not-self', 'impermanent' and 'unable to grant satisfaction' and thus not worthy of clinging to. When we stop clinging to all of these 'not-self' phenomena, we become free to travel the Noble Eightfold Path to liberation. And this seems to be Buddha's intent. I think this is why Victor keeps pointing out the form in which the Buddha addresses the subject of anatta, because many of us draw the conclusion, perhaps erroneously, that Buddha is preaching a kind of delayed annihilationism. If we say that 'there is no self and no property of self that exists beyond death, and only the kandhas' tendencies keep consciousness from dying out', then we aim for a kind of annihilationism that is delayed until Parinibbana, but is still directly in line with the view of the annihilationists none-the-less, that 'consciousness is extinguished at death', the view that the Buddha here explicitly rejects. how can we adopt a view that is explicitly rejected by the Buddha, and say that it is Buddhist doctrine? 2/ In the second verse that you have added to the post, Buddha makes it clear that the self one thinks one has is not real, and is not annihilated by the doctrine of anatta: > "And if I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self -- > were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become > even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'" The most that we can draw from this is that our *idea* of self is totally wrong. Vacchagotta is bewildered - he has the wrong idea of self. If told there is no self, he would think, well, 'I know I *do* have a self', and he has a fixed idea of what that self is, so if he were to accept the Buddha's assurance that there is 'no' self, he would become more bewildered and think the self he knows he has has been challenged, annihilated, by the Buddha's teaching. This is how many of us take the doctrine of anatta. We try to see that we have no self, and it is like a self struggling to annihilate itself. Instead of letting go of our wrong views about self, which Buddha says have to be completely let go - he says to let go of every last view we have, because every conceptual view is inherently wrong, an overlay on the truth - we think we really *do* have a self, and that we have to somehow destroy it in order to realize the goal of Buddhism. This is like fighting with a shadow, because our idea of what our self is is conceptual and based on mental and emotional attachments to ideas and objects. So Buddha is definitely saying that our *idea* of self is wrong, but he nowhere states either positively or negatively that is no self of any kind, just that we don't know and that we don't get it. In fact, isn't the point of what Buddha is saying here that 'everything we think we know is wrong', and that he doesn't want to feed any of our tendencies to falsely conceptualize about self and not-self? If we accept that as the premise, then we will focus on our own views of self, and let them go. My experience in the moment is that I am conscious of phenomena. I know this consciousness is present, and that it has one or another object. That is my present reality. There is a sense of self, which I do not what to make of, and cannot until enlightenment. I should neither accept nor reject this sense of self, but focus on letting go of false concepts that may arise about this sense of self, while trying to discern truly the functions of mind and the nature of arising objects to gain insight and wisdom, gradually refraining from creating new kammic tendencies, and letting go of attachments. But I think that Victor's basic view that the Buddha is telling us what to let go of, since it is 'anatta', that is: phenomena, is correct. And to think that Buddha has made any statement as to whether there is in fact some kind of self or not, or that consciousness is completely extinguished in all forms at death, is wrong. Best, Robert Ep. ======================================= --- TG wrote: > In a message dated 5/19/2002 9:06:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Victor writes: > > > > Howard, > > > > "Ananda, if I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is > > a self -- were to answer that there is a self, that would be > > conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of > > eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If > > I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self -- > > were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with > > those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism > > [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. > > > > See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > > > Victor > > It is misleading to leave out the most important part of this quote which > follows immediately where you ended it. This Sutta is particularly important > because it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Buddha "meant" to teach > that "all things are not self." I'll quote in full... > > "Ananda, if I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self > -- were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those > priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there > is an eternal, unchanging soul]. > > If I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self -- were > to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & > contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is > the annihilation of consciousness]. > > If I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self -- were to > answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of > knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?" "No, lord." > > "And if I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self -- > were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become > even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'" > > TG > > > > 13400 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon May 20, 2002 2:04pm Subject: Re: ritual "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > The other evidence we have about speaking conventally when talking about > self-control, etc comes from the Suttas themselves. In the Connected > Discourse, "A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya" by Bhikkhu Bodhi we > read on page102 #64 > "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." > The Buddha says the same thing about himself in a Sutta from MN, but I > forget which number, but I am sure others here will know the passage. So as > well as the evidence you supplied, there is also this evidence from the > Canon that the Buddha does use such terms as a "mere expressions." Thanks, Ray. My question is: Why would the Buddha use conventional speech in such a positive manner. In your quote above, he is saying that one may casually use 'I' or 'you' as a mere convention in order to communicate content, such as in the sentence, 'Are you hungry?' That's my sense of it. This is different. Here, he is making a positive command, saying: 'You should try as hard as you can to exercise self-control.' That is not merely using conventional speech, that is promoting it, if that's what it in fact is. If you agree that this is a much more forceful use of such conventions, we have to ask what the purpose is in saying this? If we have 'no control' and we are really to 'let go' and merely study Suttas and discern realities, why on earth would the Buddha literally exhort people to try as hard as possible to control themselves? My only conclusion can be that whether 'self' is a convention or not, he wants people to make an effort at exercising control. This seems quite different than the message he could have given if 'no control' were in fact the doctrine. He could have said, as many on this list seem to: 'Give up the effort to control yourselvew, because in fact there is no self to control, and no way for selfless kandhas to control them. Everything arises from a cause, and the most you can do is try to discern the truth of the way reality functions.' This would be a very effective message if this is in fact what the Buddha meant to say, but at least for these listeners, that is apparently *not* what he wanted them to do. Best, Robert Ep. 13401 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon May 20, 2002 2:10pm Subject: Re: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Rober... Dear Howard, Although I agree that this is an example of the Buddha choosing not to befuddle a confused seeker's mind, respectfully I don't think that the story would have made it into the canon except that it represents both the average person's mind as well, and most important issues of how to deal with annihilationism and eternalism, the discussion of which is launched on the platform of Vajjragotta's story. I think the Buddha's silence represented more than his response to Vajjragotta himself, but also a strong statement on the misapprehensions of making a direct statement to holders of either extreme philosophy which can only be understood in the light of their respective wrong views and assumptions. In this light, it does not make a definitive statement about the nature of 'self' or 'not-self' but makes clear that our common images, not only of 'self', but also of 'not-self', are deluded. Which is why Buddha was often silent when confronted with various standpoints to which people, such as ourselves, were attached. Best, Robert Ep. ================================= --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 5/19/02 11:18:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Victor writes: > > > > > > Howard, > > > > For the statement "there is no self" > > see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > > > > =========================== > Yes. This well known sutta is a great example of the Buddha not > replying to a person out of kindness and knowledge, knowing that the state of > that person's mind is such that any answer will be misunderstood. > > With metta, > Howard > 13402 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon May 20, 2002 2:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities? --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Rob - > > In a message dated 5/19/02 3:45:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert Ep writes: > > > > > > --- Howard wrote: > > > Hi, Jon - > > > > Do you > > > > see a necessary > > > > contradiction in these 2 attributes (conditionality vs. own essence)? > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > The problem I have here is with the adjectival phrase "of their > > own" > > > in the sentence "The fact that these phenomena are conditioned and last > > for > > > only a brief moment doesn't mean that they lack characteristics of their > > own > > > capable of being discerned by consciousness accompanied by panna (termed > > > 'individual essence')." Everything about these phenomena, including their > > > > > very existence, arises in total dependence on conditions, all of which > > are > > > equally empty of own-being. What arises in total dependence on other > > > conditions does not have own-being, and inasmuch as these other > > conditions > > > are equally without own-being, the emptiness is thoroughgoing. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Dear Howard, > > I would really like to pay a little more attention this important point of > > yours. > > Do the terms paramatha dhamma, own-being and dhammas having their own > > independent > > characteristics not imply a substantial quality these fleeting appearances? > > Is > > there not an implication of substantiality, and is it not inherent in the > > terms > > and the feeling that is created around them? > > > > I keep seeing these terms as a kind of hidden life-raft within the > > philosophy of > > Abhidhamma, and it is as much their implied feeling as it is their explicit > > definition. When you say 'the emptiness is thoroughgoing' it makes me > > heave a > > sigh of relief, because the sense of own-being and independent > > characteristics > > seems laden with the burden of substantiality. It just carries that > > flavor. One > > can explain it differently, but why do those ideas exist? > > > > What is the sense of own-being if not a sense of substantiality? What > > other > > purpose does it serve? It seems to implicitly undercut emptiness and > > anatta. If > > something has own-being, it has entity. And if it has entity, it does not > > partake > > of anatta. Own-being seems to me to be nothing other than another way of > > saying > > 'entity' or 'being'. It even has the word 'being' in it, and 'own', which > > means > > that it belongs to one, ie, the entity in question. Together with > > Buddhaghosa > > saying that the paramatha dhammas are the 'final irreduceible entities of > > experience', it really makes me feel that there is a hidden substantiality > > and > > entity at play in these words. How can something have an 'individual > > essence' and > > not be identified as an entity? > > > > Otherwise, why not just say that these experiences are insubstantial and > > momentary, which would be in the direction of anatta and anicca? > > > > Can you have something that is solid and empty at the same time? > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. > > > ============================= > I agree that terminology is *very* important. How we think is strongly > influenced by the descriptive terms used. I will not second-guess the > motivation of using sabhava-like terminology in some Theravadin writings - > there may be no substantialist motivation at all, and the intention may be, > as Robert K points out, nothing more than the ascription of characteristics > to elements of experience. However, I do think that the pragmatics of such > language use is harmful, controversial, and misleading. Dear Howard, Thanks for your reply. best, Robert Ep. 13403 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon May 20, 2002 2:23pm Subject: Re: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K.] Dear Howard, Thanks for your reply, which is both intelligent and personal. What I would say, along your lines, is that I have no belief in a self 'as such' at this point, a personal self, anything that we would call self in the conventional sense. But I differ in seeing 'only' fleeting phenomena rolling by. To me, there is both the continuous changes of content that mark human experience, and also a constant: consciousness, which has an ever-changing content but itself is everpresent. Consciousness has proved to be impersonal as well: it does not constitute a self, and the sense of self which you speak of is also merely an arising sensation within consciousness, but the sense of always being mindful, conscious, aware, of something is always there. This leads this consciousness to conclude that the property of awareness is the underlying reality within which all phenomena occur, and this is the sticking point between many Buddhists of various orientiations. Is awareness merely a mechanical property of causation, which arises with causes and subsides at death? Or at least at the death of an arahant? Or is it impersonal, beyond the ordinary consciousness we experience in the world of human objects, and does it have a life beyond the self? At times in the past you have agreed with me that there seems to be something like an impersonal awareness that is not annihilated at death. Now you seem to have grown beyond that, and that is fine. I have not, and it is still an issue for me. It is not an issue because I am worried about what will happen at death. I am concerned about the focus of present practice. Is it correct to discern the 'sense', not of self, but of 'being aware' as merely another mechanical arising, or is it a constant to be realized as one's actual basis for the experience of the kandhas and this life? I tend to think the latter, and by viewing all arisings as merely mechanical that perhaps something essential is lost in the practice of realization. These are my thoughts and as someone who I know has progressed at least to the point of letting go of concepts of self, I am wondering what you think about this these days. Best, Robert Ep. ==================== --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Rob and Victor - > > We use conventional expressions all the time that have meaning, but > not literal meaning. If we say that our alarm clock turns itself on at the > preset time or that a VCR turns itself off after recording, we are not > assuming a "self" in these things. It is clear what we DO mean, and it is not > a philosophical assertion. > Whether or not there is something in, about, identical with, > associated with, or underlying the khandhas which is properly called a "self" > may be asserted or denied. However, so far no one seems to encounter such > when looking for it. It not being found, a pragmatic approach takes it to be > at least irrelevant, and, for all practical purposes, nonexistent. Moreover, > the Buddha *did* teach that with stream entry a *belief* in 'self' is gone, > and that with arahatta even any odor of 'self' is gone. Inasmuch as these are > states of liberation and enlightenment, it certainly suggests to me that > while *beliefs* in 'self' and in 'no-self' are just that - beliefs, the > *fact* of the matter is that there is no self. > At this point, I have no belief in a self at all. All I find is > impersonal, empty phenomena "rolling on". Included among these phenomena is > the frequently arising "sense" of self, but that is all it seems to be, this > "sense" - one more impersonal condition arising and ceasing from time to time > as part of the ongoing flux of conditioned experience. > > With metta, > Howard > > > In a message dated 5/19/02 3:07:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert Ep writes: > > > > > > --- yuzhonghao wrote: > > > TG, > > > > > > For the statement "there is no self", > > > see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html > > > > > > For the statement "there is no control", I would like to share this > > > verse with you: > > > > > > 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train > > > others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is > > > self-control. > > > > Dear Victor, > > Here we have a clear description of the Buddha advocating self-control. > > Now, I > > wonder if those who believe there is 'no control' because there is no > > 'self' will > > explaint that this is merely conventional speech and does not refer to > > either a > > 'self' or an actual imperative to 'exercise control' over oneself? > > > > One can always say that something the Buddha said was not actually what he > > meant > > because it is merely conventional speech, while when the Buddha says > > something > > that is in accord with what one regards as the path, one will say that the > > Buddha > > meant it literally. > > > > It is a slippery slope, because it means that we are making distinctions > > between > > different suttas, or even different statements in the same sutta, based on > > our > > prior beliefs. > > > > It is an equally slippery slope to maintain the opposite, that the Buddha > > was > > being literal when he says that we should maintain self-control, but > > metaphoric or > > conventional when he says something else that we disagree with. To make > > these > > kinds of distinctions at all is fraught with danger. > > > > So what is the correct view? We do not want to wind up like some > > interpreters of > > the Bible who conclude based on taking it literally [according to their > > interpretation of what is literal] that the earth is only 5,000 years old, > > in the > > face of all scientific evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, we do > > not want > > to wind up in the position of those who insist that the only experiences > > that are > > believeable are those which can be scientifically tested. > > > > It seems to me that in general, we should take the Buddha literally, unless > > we > > have some evidence to the contrary. What is the evidence that 'one should > > practice self-control' is merely conventional, and not a true imperative? > > Well, > > since Buddha states clearly that none of the five khandas can be considered > > to > > have the property of 'self', there are two possibilities: what he > > considers > > 'self' is beyond the five kandhas, or: he is asking practitioners to > > attempt to > > control certain arising phenomena, in the understanding that such attempt > > will > > have certain results which will be beneficial to their progress. > > > > I think it may satisfy both camps if we say that he is addressing the > > conventional > > self and asking his listeners to attempt to exercise control over akusala > > conditions, even though such control may not be possible, in the > > understanding > > that this will have certain effects, though they are not caused directly by > > the > > practitioner. > > > > This is very similar to other Buddhist practices. If one practices > > meditation, > > the worst form of such practice is to struggle directly with the mind and > > attempt > > to control it, which leads to tension and frustration. One follows certain > > practices, trusting that eventually they will yield the fruit. The > > practice is > > voluntary, but the results are involuntary. If one practices discernment > > in daily > > life, it is the same thing: one pays attention to the attempt to discern > > namas > > and rupas, knowing that most of the time he or she will fail, but > > eventually the > > attempt to do so will yield fruit. There is intention, but not control. It > > explains why the sutta is useful, without falling into the fallacy of an > > atta > > which can take action. > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. 13404 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon May 20, 2002 2:25pm Subject: Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Re: [dsg] Sitting and mindfulness [Anders] Okay Howard. Hope I don't sound too disrespectful. I have a tendency to fight hard in this particular debate, and so I apologize if that leads me to step on anyone's toes. Best, Robert Ep. ==================== --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 5/19/02 2:55:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert Ep writes: > > > > > > Dear Howard, > > Re. your nice breakdown of the sutra below: Interesting, that the noble > > eightfold > > path is clearly announced as a path of practice, and not merely a > > description of > > what occurs under the right conditions, wouldn't you agree? > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > I don't want to come on too strong, Rob. The sutta speaks for itself - > I'm just putting it out there. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > > I would like to hear what Jon has to say about this: is it descriptive or > > prescriptive? > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. > > > ========================== > With metta, > Howard 13405 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 20, 2002 5:35pm Subject: Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Howard Many thanks for the interesting sutta below which I look forward to discussing with you. Before I do, however, we need to clarify something on the translation, which concerns the particular passage you have highlighted. I refer to the passage in the ATI translation that reads: > "And what is the path of practice to the development of the frames of > reference? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right > speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, > right concentration. This is called the path of practice to the development > of the frames of reference." In the Bhikkhu Bodhi translation (CDB, Wisdom), this appears as: "And what is the way leading to the development of the establishment of mindfulness? It is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, Right View … Right Concentration. This is called the way leading to the development of the establishment of mindfulness." The rendering in the CDB version is fairly standard stuff. I am wondering where the words "path of practice" in the ATI translation come from. Do you have any thoughts on this? Can anybody help us with the Pali here? Jon --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon (and all) - > I found a not-too-long sutta which I think is interesting in a > couple > ways. The sutta is the following: > > *********************** > > Samyutta Nikaya XLVII.40 > Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta > Analysis of the Frames of Reference > > Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. > For free distribution only. > > "I will teach you the frames of reference, their development, and the > path of > practice leading to their development. Listen & pay close attention. I > will > speak. > > "Now, what are the frames of reference? There is the case where a monk > remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful > -- > putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains > focused on feelings in & of themselves... mind in & of itself... mental > qualities in & of themselves -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting > aside > greed & distress with reference to the world. "This is called the frames > of > reference. > > "And what is the development of the frames of reference? There is the > case > where a monk remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with > regard to > the body, remains focused on the phenomenon of passing away with regard > to > the body, remains focused on the phenomenon of origination & passing > away > with regard to the body -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside > greed & > distress with reference to the world. "He remains focused on the > phenomenon > of origination with regard to feelings, remains focused on the > phenomenon of > passing away with regard to feelings, remains focused on the phenomenon > of > origination & passing away with regard to feelings -- ardent, alert, & > mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. > "He > remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the > mind, > remains focused on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the > mind, > remains focused on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with > regard > to the mind -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & > distress > with reference to the world. "He remains focused on the phenomenon of > origination with regard to mental qualities, remains focused on the > phenomenon of passing away with regard to mental qualities, remains > focused > on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to mental > qualities -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress > with > reference to the world. "This is called the development of the frames of > > reference. > > "And what is the path of practice to the development of the frames of > reference? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, > right > speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, > > right concentration. This is called the path of practice to the > development > of the frames of reference." Revised: Mon 10 September 2001 HREF="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn47-040.html"> > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn47-040.html > ******************************* … > Most interesting to me is the final section which defines "the > path of > practice to the development of the frames of reference," as specifically > the > noble eightfold path. The straightforward reading of this takes > satipatthana > more as something which "comes later", penultimate to liberation, rather > than > as a technique to be practiced "all along". It would seem, on this > reading, > that the entire eight-factored path is the path of practice culminating > in > satipatthana (and then in awakening and liberation). > > With metta, > Howard 13406 From: Sukinder Date: Tue May 21, 2002 8:39am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: 'no control', kamma of the fourth kind, MN117 Hi Rob, Nice to hear from you. ......... I agree with a lot of what you say. Happy to hear that. I think one of the main areas where we may disagree, as I find a similar disagreement with Jon, is whether or not certain practices can be assumed to eventually lead to kusala, sati, panna, and all the other positive qualities. I think the quality of citta is the important thing, not the activity itself. Giving importance to 'activity' will I feel lead to some form of silabbataparamasa or the other. Kusala is encouraged and accumulation of parami does support the development of panna, but this must be natural. By natural I mean, without the interference of an idea, that certain activities would condition kusala and that would in turn engender the development of panna. Even kusala cannot be forced and it has already fallen away by the time we think about doing something. And I definitely do not believe that practices of other religions, such as yoga, can lead to sati and panna. Kusala was and is recognized by all other religions and I do believe that some level of kusala can be developed by performing activities such as yoga and tai chi, but not sati and panna. The kusala they all encourage is with some sense and form of self or the other. They have no idea of anatta, or even anicca. Their conception of impermanence is basically conceptual, not having perceived the rise and fall of individual dhammas. Conceptual understanding of impermanence cannot lead to detachment from what buddhists know to be the momentary arising of phenonmenon, which is 'now', let alone detachment from the sense of self, which is constantly being reinforced through tanha, ditthi and mana. The Buddha was equally perfect in wisdom the first moment he attained enlightenment till the moment before he attained parinibbana. The wisdom of the arahants all combined do not equal to a small part of the Buddhas. And I do not believe any person outside the buddhist tradition in human history, will have the wisdom close to a sotapanna. Wisdom cannot be added and improved upon by sucessive generations. A system of practice like yoga which has been worked upon and changed through time can only result in getting people cling to the superficial aspect of it. My conclusion thus is, such practices not only do not help in buddhist practise, but if seen instead as being a support, can be extremely detrimental to development of panna. Satipatthana is the *only* way. With this in mind, it is counter productive to investigate and try out any other teachings. Panna being the aim of Buddha's teachings, why give preference to development of other kinds of kusala rather than understanding what is appearing at this moment? Robert: Another point is whether putting forth intentions implies that there is a self, and that the only way to acknowledge anatta is by admitting that nothing can be done to either speed or slow the path. One has to kind of sneak in Sutta study and discernment in a passive, natural way, so that the notion of self won't get in and ruin it. [Hope you don't mind me being a little facetious to highlight the point.] Sukin: Yes the sense of self is all pervading. Almost every moment of being awake there is a sense of self via ditthi, tanha or mana. Especially when we are not aware no? The sneaking in to study and paying attention to the teachings can be done or at least have many moments where lobha is ruling no?;-) I think this should alert us to how much the sense of self would then overshadow activities we do intentionally to overccome the sense of self. Robert: I personally think [for whatever that's worth -- not much, I hear Jon saying...my God, I've internalized him!] that sitting with attention to the breath or to the present moment will eventually yield increased discernment, and lead to sati and panna. I add that of course if one does this in an unskillful way it may not lead to any such results, but the practice itself, done with some reasonable understanding and instruction, tends to lead in the right direction. I think that most Abhidhammists will tend to disagree with this, and say that we cannot possibly predict the arising of kusala based on any given practice. I also believe that intention can be put forth by cittas and that this cumulative intention will eventually tend to yield positive fruit. And I think some take this to imply that there must be a self being posited that will both put this effort forth and yield the fruit of that intention. I contend that this is not necessarily so, and that intention can be put forth, just as we put forth this or that cause through the production of consciousness. We have a moment of anger and the intention arises to either hold it back and take a deep breath or to yell and scream. There is a moment of decision there as well. There may also be a moment where we say, 'okay, let's not act on this anger in future' and eventually this may have an effect in that direction. Can we choose to have an intention and then have it? I don't know. But I do think the putting forth of intention can yield an eventual result that arises from that intention. My own life seems to give evidence for this. Sukin: Rob, turn your attention to the frame of your monitor, now to other parts of your computer, next scan your room, if there is sound, sound. Do you see the diversity and range of sense impressions, can you appreciate that it all involves a complexity of conditions (one of which being my prompting you to)? Sitting down to observe your breath, does this involve any more favourable set of conditions( for the development of panna) than standing and staring out into the open? Do you know exactly what is going on at any given moment and can you give a correct interpretation of your experience to you meditation teacher? Can your meditation teacher know what are the conditions any given moment? I think it very important to distinguish between concept and reality, or else we are likely to end up getting caught in some form of practise, not recognizing our projections. Sorry I have to go out somewhere. I feel I have not addressed your precise points. Had some other points in mind after I read your post earlier today, but forgot what they were. But will wait for your reply to see if anything else could be said. Best wishes, Sukin. 13407 From: onco111 Date: Mon May 20, 2002 7:23pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K] Robert, > Understanding (panna) knows the object in the way stated, and it > brings about by endeavouring, the manifestation of the path." This > perhaps ties up with your excellent series on silabataparamasa; as > you indicated this is actually an aspect of wrong view, it is not > the action per se that is the clinging to rule and ritual but the > wrong view that feels one is somehow controlling and directing the > various khandas. In the quote from the visuddhimagga we see that > citta(without panna) can know the characteristic of dhammas, it can > perceive subtle feelings colours, sounds, hardness, heat - but if > panna is not present nothing is gained, one may be developing > silabataparamasa. Interesting perception, Robert. As you say, central to the effort is knowing not just the difference between sati and samadhi but also the difference between sati with panya and sati without panya, and knowing not just in a theoretical sense, but knowing as the dhammas arise and pass away. Silabbataparamasa is not necessarily akusala, but neither is it liberating. Dan 13408 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 20, 2002 7:28pm Subject: Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Howard I've now had a chance to look at this sutta, and I see the point you are raising about the final section. Here the Noble Eightfold Path is described as "the path [of practice] to the development of the frames of reference" or, in the Bh. Bodhi translation, as "the way leading to the development of the establishment of mindfulness". I admit I am puzzled by this and have no thoughts on it as yet. I am only familiar with the Noble Eightfold Path being described as the path leading to nibbana. This is something entirely new to me. As you know, I rely heavily on the commentaries for my interpretation of the suttas, but unfortunately there is no English translation of the Saaratthappakaasini or its tika. I don't know if our Thai members (e.g. Jaran, Kom or Num, or others) would be able to throw any light on this point from the Thai translation which as I understand it includes the commentary also. I've noted your comments on the 'straightforward' meaning, Howard, but I prefer not to speculate at this stage. Very interesting, and thanks for bringing it up. Any comments from others most welcome. Jon --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon (and all) - > I found a not-too-long sutta which I think is interesting in a > couple > ways. The sutta is the following: > > *********************** > > Samyutta Nikaya XLVII.40 > Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta > Analysis of the Frames of Reference > > Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. > For free distribution only. > > "I will teach you the frames of reference, their development, and the > path of > practice leading to their development. Listen & pay close attention. I > will > speak. > > "Now, what are the frames of reference? There is the case where a monk > remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful > -- > putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains > focused on feelings in & of themselves... mind in & of itself... mental > qualities in & of themselves -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting > aside > greed & distress with reference to the world. "This is called the frames > of > reference. > > "And what is the development of the frames of reference? There is the > case > where a monk remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with > regard to > the body, remains focused on the phenomenon of passing away with regard > to > the body, remains focused on the phenomenon of origination & passing > away > with regard to the body -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside > greed & > distress with reference to the world. "He remains focused on the > phenomenon > of origination with regard to feelings, remains focused on the > phenomenon of > passing away with regard to feelings, remains focused on the phenomenon > of > origination & passing away with regard to feelings -- ardent, alert, & > mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. > "He > remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the > mind, > remains focused on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the > mind, > remains focused on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with > regard > to the mind -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & > distress > with reference to the world. "He remains focused on the phenomenon of > origination with regard to mental qualities, remains focused on the > phenomenon of passing away with regard to mental qualities, remains > focused > on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to mental > qualities -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress > with > reference to the world. "This is called the development of the frames of > > reference. > > "And what is the path of practice to the development of the frames of > reference? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, > right > speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, > > right concentration. This is called the path of practice to the > development > of the frames of reference." Revised: Mon 10 September 2001 HREF="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn47-040.html"> > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn47-040.html > ******************************* … > Most interesting to me is the final section which defines "the > path of > practice to the development of the frames of reference," as specifically > the > noble eightfold path. The straightforward reading of this takes > satipatthana > more as something which "comes later", penultimate to liberation, rather > than > as a technique to be practiced "all along". It would seem, on this > reading, > that the entire eight-factored path is the path of practice culminating > in > satipatthana (and then in awakening and liberation). > > With metta, > Howard 13409 From: Jim Anderson Date: Mon May 20, 2002 7:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Jon, The Pali phrase is "satipa.t.thaanabhaavanaagaaminii pa.tipadaa". It seems to me that "the path of practice" is either a translation of "pa.tipadaa" (the way) or "-gaaminii pa.tipadaa" (the way leading to). It is also worth noting that the Pali text takes satipa.t.thaana to be in the singular (satipa.t.thaana.m) which B. Bodhi translates as "the establishment of mindfulness" while Thanissaro Bhikkhu has "the frames of reference" (plural). Best wishes, Jim Anderson > Howard > > Many thanks for the interesting sutta below which I look forward to > discussing with you. > > Before I do, however, we need to clarify something on the translation, > which concerns the particular passage you have highlighted. > > I refer to the passage in the ATI translation that reads: > > "And what is the path of practice to the development of the frames of > > reference? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, > right > > speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, > > right concentration. This is called the path of practice to the > development > > of the frames of reference." > > In the Bhikkhu Bodhi translation (CDB, Wisdom), this appears as: > "And what is the way leading to the development of the establishment of > mindfulness? It is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, Right View . Right > Concentration. This is called the way leading to the development of the > establishment of mindfulness." > > The rendering in the CDB version is fairly standard stuff. I am wondering > where the words "path of practice" in the ATI translation come from. Do > you have any thoughts on this? Can anybody help us with the Pali here? > > Jon 13410 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 20, 2002 8:42pm Subject: Reminder to trim posts.... Dear All, Just a reminder to trim those parts of previous posts which are not necessary for replies. Also when possible, please put your reply at the beginning rather than at the very end of a long message. These points assist those reading in digest form, those who print out messages or those reading in haste. Thanks, Jon & Sarah (who also forget at times) =============================== 13411 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 20, 2002 9:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Jim Many thanks for coming in here, Jim. --- Jim Anderson wrote: > Jon, > > The Pali phrase is "satipa.t.thaanabhaavanaagaaminii pa.tipadaa". It > seems > to me that "the path of practice" is either a translation of > "pa.tipadaa" > (the way) or "-gaaminii pa.tipadaa" (the way leading to). It is also It would seem that the reference to 'practice' is the translator's own gloss. > It is also worth > noting that the Pali text takes satipa.t.thaana to be in the singular > (satipa.t.thaana.m) which B. Bodhi translates as "the establishment of > mindfulness" while Thanissaro Bhikkhu has "the frames of reference" > (plural). On this point, Bh. Bodhi notes that the preferred sense would be "the establishing of mindfulness" > Best wishes, > Jim Anderson I won't ask you to look at the other question that arises with this sutta, which I mentioned in my subsequent post, and which I think arises independently of the translation points, as that would be too much of an imposition (especially as you are away from your home base). But any thoughts you may have on it would be most welcome. Jon 13412 From: Howard Date: Mon May 20, 2002 7:01pm Subject: Re: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Rober... Hi, Rob - The following is the initial portion of the article on anatta from Nyanatiloka's dictionary: > anattá: 'not-self', non-ego, egolessness, impersonality, is the last of the > three characteristics of existence (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) The anattá doctrine > teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, > nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could > be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding > substance. This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without understanding > which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible. It is the only > really specific Buddhist doctrine, with which the entire Structure of the > Buddhist teaching stands or falls. All the remaining Buddhist doctrines > may, more or less, be found in other philosophic systems and religions, but > the anattá-doctrine has been clearly and unreservedly taught only by the > Buddha, wherefore the Buddha is known as the anattá-vádi, or 'Teacher of > Impersonality'. Whosoever has not penetrated this impersonality of all > existence, and does not comprehend that in reality there exists only this > continually self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily and mental > phenomena, and that there is no separate ego-entity within or without this > process, he will not be able to understand Buddhism, i.e. the teaching of > the 4 Noble Truths (sacca, q.v.), in the right light. He will think that it > is his ego, his personality, that experiences suffering, his personality > that performs good and evil actions and will be reborn according to these > actions, his personality that will enter into Nibbána, his personality that > walks on the Eightfold Path. Thus it is said in Vis.M. XVI: > >> >> > > > > >> "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; > The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; > Nibbána is, but not the man that enters it; > The path is, but no traveler on it is seen." > With regard to the sentence "The anattá doctrine teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance.," I'd like to emphasize the words "nor outside of them." While I do not have a ready reference, I do seem to recall in some sutta the Buddha saying that there is no self outside of the khandhas. (And, of course, there *is* the sutta entitled The All, in which the Buddha describes the five khandhas as being all there is.) Now, of course, there is also nibbana, which is not any khandha at all. But the thing is, nibbana is without condition - it is the very absence of conditions. Now, can the discernment of absence, a thoroughgoing and utterly complete absence of all possible conditions be a self? I think not, for a "self", in addition to being unchanging, is also *personal*. But a thoroughgoing and utterly complete absence of all possible conditions has nothing by which it can be construed as personal. Consider, moreover the quoted material: "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; Nibbána is, but not the man that enters it; The path is, but no traveler on it is seen." The last two lines of this, as well, point to the impersonality of nibbana. So, I would say that there is no self to be found, not in the khandhas nor outside of them. I also do think that our strong desire that there BE a self outside the khandhas is a kind of last-ditch grasping at the anchor of self. That has to be let go of as well - or so it seems to me. With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/20/02 1:55:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert Ep writes: > > Hi TG. > Well I still think it's interesting that the Buddha never says, even to > these > disciples who presumably would *not* become bewildered if he were to say > it: > "There is no Self". Why does he repeat over and over again that all things > within > the five kandhas - the entire content of *this* life - are 'not self', but > refuses > to ever say that 'there is not a self of any kind'? > > If the reason is in fact that to make such a statement would be adhering to > annihilationism, one must ask: What is wrong with the view that the Buddha > has > here said that he wants to avoid? Why does the Buddha *not* want to > promote the > view that death, to quote the Sutta itself, 'is the annihilation of > consciousness'. Certainly there been quite a few discussions on this list > in > which the Buddha's words in other Suttas have been interpeted to mean > precisely > that: that consciousness is totally annihilated at the death of an Arahant > who > has realized Nibbana. So is the only view the Buddha wishes to avoid the > view > that the ordinary person has his consciousness annihilated at death? > > It seems to me that the Buddha is saying here that the annihilationists are > wrong. > The eternatlists are wrong too, but we can talk about that after looking at > the > annihilationists a little more closely. One would hope that if the Buddha > were > merely saying the unenlightened person does *not* have their consciousness > annihilated at death - because of course the tendencies of the kandhas' > karma > still unresolved will cause him to be reborn - but that the enlightened > person's > consciousness, having no more such tendencies - *is* annihilated at death > [Parinibbana], he would say so and make this explicit. If such a > distinction > exists anywhere in the canon, I would appreciate being pointed to it. This > is not > my sense of what the Buddha is saying. It seems apparent that he is saying > that > the annihilationists are deluded and that consciousness is *not* > annihilated at > death. But if the Buddha were to assert that there is no self, this is the > conclusion that the annihilationists would draw, and he would be leading > them into > deeper delusion. > > The eternalists on the other hand say that there *is* a self, and if Buddha > were > to assert that there *is* a self, he would be leading the eternalists to > the > conclusion that there is an immortal soul which survives death and > continues > beyond the body. I think it is fair to say that the Buddha does not agree > with > this view and does not want to promote it. > > There are two possibilities that this allows: One is that there is a self > that is > beyond the kandhas, a very unpopular view in the Theravadin community, but > one > never explicitly ruled out by the Buddha. I know he has clearly said that > there > is no 'consciousness' that survives death, and that there is no 'eternal > consciousness' that constitutes a kind of selfless self, but these are all > still > within the limits of the kandhas as we know them in this life. In other > words, > there is no self that we as human beings can imagine. Still, the Buddha > never > says: 'There is no self of any kind', and I don't think the implication is > that > he will only not assert this because he doesn't want to confuse the > annihilationists. Again, in his conversations with Ananda and other > advanced > Arahants, there is no reason why he could not say: 'Just between us, by > the way, > there is no self of any kind, but please don't tell the annihilationists as > they > will confuse the issue.' Even if this was the case, saying that 'there is > no > self' does not explain why he refuses to say that consciousness is > extinguished at > death, which he clearly announces here as a wrong view that the > annihilationists > hold. It seems clear to me that he is saying that the annihilationists > view is > wrong, otherwise, why not support it? Why not just say: 'yes, > consciousness *is* > extinguished at death'. But he does not want the annihilationists to think > this, > because it is clearly a wrong view. > > The other possibility is that there is no self of any kind, but that > something > beyhond consciousness and the kandhas survives in a form that is beyond > anything > we can know or imagine. This seems to be implied by the Buddha's refusal > to rule > out *some* kind of self, or *some* kind of consciousness surviving beyond > death. > Otherwise, why not just let the eternalists and the annihilationists know > the > truth: that there is no self, and that there is no consciousness beyond > death? > In what way would it confuse them or lead them into wrong views if in fact > these > two direct statements were true? It seems obvious to me that Buddha > refrains from > saying this because to make these blunt statements would be promoting wrong > view, > and that it is not correct to say that there is no self of any kind, and it > is not > correct to say that consciousness is extinguished at death. These are the > exact > views that he is saying are wrong. > > Now, the two important verses which you say that Victor left out make the > following points: > > 1/ In the first one Buddha states bluntly that 'all phenomena are > not-self' That > is that all *phenomena*, everything we experience in this life, are > 'not-self'. > Again this does not say 'there is no self'. It says phenomena do not > contain a > self or constitute a self. So we must not look to phenomena to find a > 'self'. > The right view of anatta is always stated this way, isn't it? That when > regarding > phenomena we are not to cling to them and identify with them as 'self'. > Isn't > that right? Nowhere does the Buddha say: 'Look at yourself and be clear > that > there is no self of any kind that is your self'. He never rules out the > possibility, never, of some kind of self beyond phenomena. Now, I am not > saying > that there is a self, but what I do want to point out is that Buddha's > purpose in > the doctrine of anatta does not seem to be to convince us that there is no > self of > any kind. Rather it seems to be to direct us to look at all the things of > this > life as 'not-self', 'impermanent' and 'unable to grant satisfaction' and > thus not > worthy of clinging to. When we stop clinging to all of these 'not-self' > phenomena, we become free to travel the Noble Eightfold Path to liberation. > And > this seems to be Buddha's intent. > > I think this is why Victor keeps pointing out the form in which the Buddha > addresses the subject of anatta, because many of us draw the conclusion, > perhaps > erroneously, that Buddha is preaching a kind of delayed annihilationism. > If we > say that 'there is no self and no property of self that exists beyond > death, and > only the kandhas' tendencies keep consciousness from dying out', then we > aim for a > kind of annihilationism that is delayed until Parinibbana, but is still > directly > in line with the view of the annihilationists none-the-less, that > 'consciousness > is extinguished at death', the view that the Buddha here explicitly > rejects. how > can we adopt a view that is explicitly rejected by the Buddha, and say that > it is > Buddhist doctrine? > > 2/ In the second verse that you have added to the post, Buddha makes it > clear that > the self one thinks one has is not real, and is not annihilated by the > doctrine of > anatta: > > > "And if I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self > -- > > were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would > become > > even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'" > > The most that we can draw from this is that our *idea* of self is totally > wrong. > Vacchagotta is bewildered - he has the wrong idea of self. If told there > is no > self, he would think, well, 'I know I *do* have a self', and he has a fixed > idea > of what that self is, so if he were to accept the Buddha's assurance that > there is > 'no' self, he would become more bewildered and think the self he knows he > has has > been challenged, annihilated, by the Buddha's teaching. This is how many > of us > take the doctrine of anatta. We try to see that we have no self, and it is > like a > self struggling to annihilate itself. Instead of letting go of our wrong > views > about self, which Buddha says have to be completely let go - he says to let > go of > every last view we have, because every conceptual view is inherently wrong, > an > overlay on the truth - we think we really *do* have a self, and that we > have to > somehow destroy it in order to realize the goal of Buddhism. This is like > fighting with a shadow, because our idea of what our self is is conceptual > and > based on mental and emotional attachments to ideas and objects. > > So Buddha is definitely saying that our *idea* of self is wrong, but he > nowhere > states either positively or negatively that is no self of any kind, just > that we > don't know and that we don't get it. > > In fact, isn't the point of what Buddha is saying here that 'everything we > think > we know is wrong', and that he doesn't want to feed any of our tendencies > to > falsely conceptualize about self and not-self? If we accept that as the > premise, > then we will focus on our own views of self, and let them go. My > experience in > the moment is that I am conscious of phenomena. I know this consciousness > is > present, and that it has one or another object. That is my present > reality. > There is a sense of self, which I do not what to make of, and cannot until > enlightenment. I should neither accept nor reject this sense of self, but > focus > on letting go of false concepts that may arise about this sense of self, > while > trying to discern truly the functions of mind and the nature of arising > objects to > gain insight and wisdom, gradually refraining from creating new kammic > tendencies, > and letting go of attachments. > > But I think that Victor's basic view that the Buddha is telling us what to > let go > of, since it is 'anatta', that is: phenomena, is correct. And to think > that > Buddha has made any statement as to whether there is in fact some kind of > self or > not, or that consciousness is completely extinguished in all forms at > death, is > wrong. > > Best, > Robert Ep. > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13413 From: Howard Date: Mon May 20, 2002 7:40pm Subject: Re: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Rober... Hi, Robert - In a message dated 5/20/02 2:23:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert Ep writes: > > Dear Howard, > Thanks for your reply, which is both intelligent and personal. What I > would say, > along your lines, is that I have no belief in a self 'as such' at this > point, a > personal self, anything that we would call self in the conventional sense. > But I > differ in seeing 'only' fleeting phenomena rolling by. To me, there is > both the > continuous changes of content that mark human experience, and also a > constant: > consciousness, which has an ever-changing content but itself is > everpresent. > Consciousness has proved to be impersonal as well: it does not constitute > a self, > and the sense of self which you speak of is also merely an arising > sensation > within consciousness, but the sense of always being mindful, conscious, > aware, of > something is always there. This leads this consciousness to conclude that > the > property of awareness is the underlying reality within which all phenomena > occur, > and this is the sticking point between many Buddhists of various > orientiations. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: There is, of course, vi~n~nana. It is inseparable from its objects. They arise together and are interdependent. Vi~n~nana is a separative awareness - separative in partaking of subject-object duality, and separative in the sense of separating out objects from the field of possibilities based on interest and inclinations. Vi~n~nana is conditioned, and it deals in conditions. Nibbana, on the other hand, is unconditioned, has no relation to conditions, but deals in absence, and is utterly impersonal. So, where is there a self? If one wishes to say that nibbana is of the genus "awareness", I would not disagree, but such awareness is so radically "other", that for us to just say that it is a mode of awareness and think we have supplied some real content in saying so, is, I believe, to be mistaken. ------------------------------------------------------------ > Is awareness merely a mechanical property of causation, which arises with > causes > and subsides at death? Or at least at the death of an arahant? Or is it > impersonal, beyond the ordinary consciousness we experience in the world of > human > objects, and does it have a life beyond the self? At times in the past you > have > agreed with me that there seems to be something like an impersonal > awareness that > is not annihilated at death. Now you seem to have grown beyond that, and > that is > fine. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, I haven't "grown" beyond anything. Perhaps I've refined my understanding a bit. No more. ----------------------------------------------------- I have not, and it is still an issue for me. It is not an issue because I> > > am worried about what will happen at death. I am concerned about the focus > of > present practice. Is it correct to discern the 'sense', not of self, but > of > 'being aware' as merely another mechanical arising, or is it a constant to > be > realized as one's actual basis for the experience of the kandhas and this > life? I > tend to think the latter, and by viewing all arisings as merely mechanical > that > perhaps something essential is lost in the practice of realization. > > These are my thoughts and as someone who I know has progressed at least to > the > point of letting go of concepts of self, I am wondering what you think > about this > these days. > > Best, > Robert Ep. > ============================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13414 From: Howard Date: Mon May 20, 2002 7:42pm Subject: Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Re: [dsg] Sitting and mindfulness [Anders] Hi, Rob - In a message dated 5/20/02 2:26:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert Ep writes: > Okay Howard. > Hope I don't sound too disrespectful. I have a tendency to fight hard in > this > particular debate, and so I apologize if that leads me to step on anyone's > toes. > > Best, > Robert Ep. > ======================== You are always respectful, and exhuberance is only to be admired! :-) 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) 13415 From: Howard Date: Mon May 20, 2002 7:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/20/02 7:28:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, <> writes: > Howard > > I've now had a chance to look at this sutta, and I see the point you are > raising about the final section. Here the Noble Eightfold Path is > described as "the path [of practice] to the development of the frames of > reference" or, in the Bh. Bodhi translation, as "the way leading to the > development of the establishment of mindfulness". > > I admit I am puzzled by this and have no thoughts on it as yet. I am only > familiar with the Noble Eightfold Path being described as the path leading > to nibbana. This is something entirely new to me. > > As you know, I rely heavily on the commentaries for my interpretation of > the suttas, but unfortunately there is no English translation of the > Saaratthappakaasini or its tika. I don't know if our Thai members (e.g. > Jaran, Kom or Num, or others) would be able to throw any light on this > point from the Thai translation which as I understand it includes the > commentary also. > > I've noted your comments on the 'straightforward' meaning, Howard, but I > prefer not to speculate at this stage. > > Very interesting, and thanks for bringing it up. Any comments from others > most welcome. > > Jon > > ========================== It may very well turn out that there is a way of understanding this sutta which accords with your perspective. Whatever the case may be, I'd just like to say that I really admire your intellectual honesty and your willingness to face whatever the facts may be! Most people cling strongly to long-held views, and your openness to other possibilities is really impressive! 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) 13416 From: yuzhonghao Date: Tue May 21, 2002 2:50am Subject: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Rober... Howard and all, "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 fabrications whatsoever... "Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness 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.' "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with 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 depleted, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'" See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html Regards, Victor --- <> wrote: > Hi, Rob - > > The following is the initial portion of the article on anatta from > Nyanatiloka's dictionary: > > > > anattá: 'not-self', non-ego, egolessness, impersonality, is the last of the > > three characteristics of existence (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) The anattá doctrine > > teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, > > nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could > > be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding > > substance. This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without understanding > > which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible. It is the only > > really specific Buddhist doctrine, with which the entire Structure of the > > Buddhist teaching stands or falls. All the remaining Buddhist doctrines > > may, more or less, be found in other philosophic systems and religions, but > > the anattá-doctrine has been clearly and unreservedly taught only by the > > Buddha, wherefore the Buddha is known as the anattá-vádi, or 'Teacher of > > Impersonality'. Whosoever has not penetrated this impersonality of all > > existence, and does not comprehend that in reality there exists only this > > continually self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily and mental > > phenomena, and that there is no separate ego-entity within or without this > > process, he will not be able to understand Buddhism, i.e. the teaching of > > the 4 Noble Truths (sacca, q.v.), in the right light. He will think that it > > is his ego, his personality, that experiences suffering, his personality > > that performs good and evil actions and will be reborn according to these > > actions, his personality that will enter into Nibbána, his personality that > > walks on the Eightfold Path. Thus it is said in Vis.M. XVI: > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; > > The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; > > Nibbána is, but not the man that enters it; > > The path is, but no traveler on it is seen." > > > > With regard to the sentence "The anattá doctrine teaches that neither > within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can > be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a > self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance.," I'd > like to emphasize the words "nor outside of them." While I do not have a > ready reference, I do seem to recall in some sutta the Buddha saying that > there is no self outside of the khandhas. (And, of course, there *is* the > sutta entitled The All, in which the Buddha describes the five khandhas as > being all there is.) Now, of course, there is also nibbana, which is not any > khandha at all. But the thing is, nibbana is without condition - it is the > very absence of conditions. Now, can the discernment of absence, a > thoroughgoing and utterly complete absence of all possible conditions be a > self? I think not, for a "self", in addition to being unchanging, is also > *personal*. But a thoroughgoing and utterly complete absence of all possible > conditions has nothing by which it can be construed as personal. > Consider, moreover the quoted material: > > "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; > The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; > Nibbána is, but not the man that enters it; > The path is, but no traveler on it is seen." > > The last two lines of this, as well, point to the impersonality of > nibbana. So, I would say that there is no self to be found, not in the > khandhas nor outside of them. I also do think that our strong desire that > there BE a self outside the khandhas is a kind of last-ditch grasping at the > anchor of self. That has to be let go of as well - or so it seems to me. > > With metta, > Howard > > > > In a message dated 5/20/02 1:55:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > <> writes: > > > > > > Hi TG. > > Well I still think it's interesting that the Buddha never says, even to > > these > > disciples who presumably would *not* become bewildered if he were to say > > it: > > "There is no Self". Why does he repeat over and over again that all things > > within > > the five kandhas - the entire content of *this* life - are 'not self', but > > refuses > > to ever say that 'there is not a self of any kind'? > > > > If the reason is in fact that to make such a statement would be adhering to > > annihilationism, one must ask: What is wrong with the view that the Buddha > > has > > here said that he wants to avoid? Why does the Buddha *not* want to > > promote the > > view that death, to quote the Sutta itself, 'is the annihilation of > > consciousness'. Certainly there been quite a few discussions on this list > > in > > which the Buddha's words in other Suttas have been interpeted to mean > > precisely > > that: that consciousness is totally annihilated at the death of an Arahant > > who > > has realized Nibbana. So is the only view the Buddha wishes to avoid the > > view > > that the ordinary person has his consciousness annihilated at death? > > > > It seems to me that the Buddha is saying here that the annihilationists are > > wrong. > > The eternatlists are wrong too, but we can talk about that after looking at > > the > > annihilationists a little more closely. One would hope that if the Buddha > > were > > merely saying the unenlightened person does *not* have their consciousness > > annihilated at death - because of course the tendencies of the kandhas' > > karma > > still unresolved will cause him to be reborn - but that the enlightened > > person's > > consciousness, having no more such tendencies - *is* annihilated at death > > [Parinibbana], he would say so and make this explicit. If such a > > distinction > > exists anywhere in the canon, I would appreciate being pointed to it. This > > is not > > my sense of what the Buddha is saying. It seems apparent that he is saying > > that > > the annihilationists are deluded and that consciousness is *not* > > annihilated at > > death. But if the Buddha were to assert that there is no self, this is the > > conclusion that the annihilationists would draw, and he would be leading > > them into > > deeper delusion. > > > > The eternalists on the other hand say that there *is* a self, and if Buddha > > were > > to assert that there *is* a self, he would be leading the eternalists to > > the > > conclusion that there is an immortal soul which survives death and > > continues > > beyond the body. I think it is fair to say that the Buddha does not agree > > with > > this view and does not want to promote it. > > > > There are two possibilities that this allows: One is that there is a self > > that is > > beyond the kandhas, a very unpopular view in the Theravadin community, but > > one > > never explicitly ruled out by the Buddha. I know he has clearly said that > > there > > is no 'consciousness' that survives death, and that there is no 'eternal > > consciousness' that constitutes a kind of selfless self, but these are all > > still > > within the limits of the kandhas as we know them in this life. In other > > words, > > there is no self that we as human beings can imagine. Still, the Buddha > > never > > says: 'There is no self of any kind', and I don't think the implication is > > that > > he will only not assert this because he doesn't want to confuse the > > annihilationists. Again, in his conversations with Ananda and other > > advanced > > Arahants, there is no reason why he could not say: 'Just between us, by > > the way, > > there is no self of any kind, but please don't tell the annihilationists as > > they > > will confuse the issue.' Even if this was the case, saying that 'there is > > no > > self' does not explain why he refuses to say that consciousness is > > extinguished at > > death, which he clearly announces here as a wrong view that the > > annihilationists > > hold. It seems clear to me that he is saying that the annihilationists > > view is > > wrong, otherwise, why not support it? Why not just say: 'yes, > > consciousness *is* > > extinguished at death'. But he does not want the annihilationists to think > > this, > > because it is clearly a wrong view. > > > > The other possibility is that there is no self of any kind, but that > > something > > beyhond consciousness and the kandhas survives in a form that is beyond > > anything > > we can know or imagine. This seems to be implied by the Buddha's refusal > > to rule > > out *some* kind of self, or *some* kind of consciousness surviving beyond > > death. > > Otherwise, why not just let the eternalists and the annihilationists know > > the > > truth: that there is no self, and that there is no consciousness beyond > > death? > > In what way would it confuse them or lead them into wrong views if in fact > > these > > two direct statements were true? It seems obvious to me that Buddha > > refrains from > > saying this because to make these blunt statements would be promoting wrong > > view, > > and that it is not correct to say that there is no self of any kind, and it > > is not > > correct to say that consciousness is extinguished at death. These are the > > exact > > views that he is saying are wrong. > > > > Now, the two important verses which you say that Victor left out make the > > following points: > > > > 1/ In the first one Buddha states bluntly that 'all phenomena are > > not-self' That > > is that all *phenomena*, everything we experience in this life, are > > 'not-self'. > > Again this does not say 'there is no self'. It says phenomena do not > > contain a > > self or constitute a self. So we must not look to phenomena to find a > > 'self'. > > The right view of anatta is always stated this way, isn't it? That when > > regarding > > phenomena we are not to cling to them and identify with them as 'self'. > > Isn't > > that right? Nowhere does the Buddha say: 'Look at yourself and be clear > > that > > there is no self of any kind that is your self'. He never rules out the > > possibility, never, of some kind of self beyond phenomena. Now, I am not > > saying > > that there is a self, but what I do want to point out is that Buddha's > > purpose in > > the doctrine of anatta does not seem to be to convince us that there is no > > self of > > any kind. Rather it seems to be to direct us to look at all the things of > > this > > life as 'not-self', 'impermanent' and 'unable to grant satisfaction' and > > thus not > > worthy of clinging to. When we stop clinging to all of these 'not-self' > > phenomena, we become free to travel the Noble Eightfold Path to liberation. > > And > > this seems to be Buddha's intent. > > > > I think this is why Victor keeps pointing out the form in which the Buddha > > addresses the subject of anatta, because many of us draw the conclusion, > > perhaps > > erroneously, that Buddha is preaching a kind of delayed annihilationism. > > If we > > say that 'there is no self and no property of self that exists beyond > > death, and > > only the kandhas' tendencies keep consciousness from dying out', then we > > aim for a > > kind of annihilationism that is delayed until Parinibbana, but is still > > directly > > in line with the view of the annihilationists none-the-less, that > > 'consciousness > > is extinguished at death', the view that the Buddha here explicitly > > rejects. how > > can we adopt a view that is explicitly rejected by the Buddha, and say that > > it is > > Buddhist doctrine? > > > > 2/ In the second verse that you have added to the post, Buddha makes it > > clear that > > the self one thinks one has is not real, and is not annihilated by the > > doctrine of > > anatta: > > > > > "And if I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self > > -- > > > were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would > > become > > > even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'" > > > > The most that we can draw from this is that our *idea* of self is totally > > wrong. > > Vacchagotta is bewildered - he has the wrong idea of self. If told there > > is no > > self, he would think, well, 'I know I *do* have a self', and he has a fixed > > idea > > of what that self is, so if he were to accept the Buddha's assurance that > > there is > > 'no' self, he would become more bewildered and think the self he knows he > > has has > > been challenged, annihilated, by the Buddha's teaching. This is how many > > of us > > take the doctrine of anatta. We try to see that we have no self, and it is > > like a > > self struggling to annihilate itself. Instead of letting go of our wrong > > views > > about self, which Buddha says have to be completely let go - he says to let > > go of > > every last view we have, because every conceptual view is inherently wrong, > > an > > overlay on the truth - we think we really *do* have a self, and that we > > have to > > somehow destroy it in order to realize the goal of Buddhism. This is like > > fighting with a shadow, because our idea of what our self is is conceptual > > and > > based on mental and emotional attachments to ideas and objects. > > > > So Buddha is definitely saying that our *idea* of self is wrong, but he > > nowhere > > states either positively or negatively that is no self of any kind, just > > that we > > don't know and that we don't get it. > > > > In fact, isn't the point of what Buddha is saying here that 'everything we > > think > > we know is wrong', and that he doesn't want to feed any of our tendencies > > to > > falsely conceptualize about self and not-self? If we accept that as the > > premise, > > then we will focus on our own views of self, and let them go. My > > experience in > > the moment is that I am conscious of phenomena. I know this consciousness > > is > > present, and that it has one or another object. That is my present > > reality. > > There is a sense of self, which I do not what to make of, and cannot until > > enlightenment. I should neither accept nor reject this sense of self, but > > focus > > on letting go of false concepts that may arise about this sense of self, > > while > > trying to discern truly the functions of mind and the nature of arising > > objects to > > gain insight and wisdom, gradually refraining from creating new kammic > > tendencies, > > and letting go of attachments. > > > > But I think that Victor's basic view that the Buddha is telling us what to > > let go > > of, since it is 'anatta', that is: phenomena, is correct. And to think > > that > > Buddha has made any statement as to whether there is in fact some kind of > > self or > > not, or that consciousness is completely extinguished in all forms at > > death, is > > wrong. > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. > > 13419 From: <> Date: Tue May 21, 2002 7:35am Subject: ADL ch. 9 (1) http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 9 (1) THE AHETUKA CITTAS WHICH ARE UNKNOWN IN DAILY LIFE There are eighteen types of ahetuka citta, or cittas arising without hetu (root). Fifteen types of ahetuka citta are vipaka. As we have seen, ten of these fifteen cittas are dvi-panca vinnanas. They are: two seeing-consciousness two hearing-consciousness two smelling-consciousness two tasting-consciousness two body-consciousness Seeing-consciousness is the result of kamma. When it is the result of an ill deed, seeing-consciousness is akusala vipakacitta which experiences an unpleasant object; when it is the result of a good deed, it is kusala vipakacitta which experiences a pleasant object. The function of seeing consciousness is to experience visible object. Kamma which produces seeing-consciousness does not only produce the vipakacitta which is seeing-consciousness, it also produces two other kinds of vipakacitta, which succeed seeing-consciousness. Seeing-consciousness is succeeded by vipakacitta which receives the object. This citta is called sampaticchana-citta (receiving-consciousness). Visible object which is experienced by seeing-consciousness does not fall away when seeing-consciousness falls away because it is rupa; rupa does not fall away as rapidly as nama. When an object is experienced through one of the six doors, there is not merely one citta experiencing that object, but there is a series of cittas succeeding one another, which share the same object. If the seeing-consciousness is akusala vipaka, the sampaticchana-citta (receiving-consciousness) is also akusala vipaka; if the seeing-consciousness is kusala vipaka, the sampaticchana-citta is also kusala vipaka. Thus there are two types of sampaticchana-citta: one is akusala vipaka and one is kusala vipaka. Sampaticchana-citta is ahetuka vipaka; there are no akusala hetus (unwholesome roots) or sobhana hetus (beautiful roots) arising with this type of citta. Sampaticchana-citta succeeds seeing-consciousness; seeing- consciousness is a condition for the arising of sampaticchana-citta. Likewise, when there is a process of cittas experiencing sound, sampaticchana-citta succeeds hearing-consciousness. It is the same with regard to nose, tongue, and body. Sampaticchana-citta always arises with upekkha (indifferent feeling), no matter whether the sampaticchana- citta is akusala vipaka or kusala vipaka. After the sampaticchana-citta has arisen and fallen away, the process of cittas is not yet over. The sampaticchana-citta is succeeded by another ahetuka vipakacitta which is still the result of kamma. This type of citta is called santirana-citta (investigating-consciousness). Santirana-citta investigates or considers the object which was 'received' by the sampaticchana-citta. Santirana-citta succeeds sampaticchana-citta through five sense-doors; sampaticchana-citta is a condition for the arising of santirana-citta. When seeing has arisen, sampaticchana-citta succeeds the seeing-consciousness, and santirana-citta succeeds the sampaticchana-citta in the process of cittas which experience visible object through eye-door. It is the same with the santirana- citta which arises in the process of cittas experiencing an object through ear-door, nose-door, tongue-door, body-door. It succeeds the sampaticchana-citta. We cannot choose whether santirana-citta should arise or not; cittas arise because of conditions, they are beyond control. Santirana-citta is also an ahetuka vipakacitta. When the object is unpleasant (anittharammana), the santirana- citta is akusala vipaka and it is accompanied by upekkha (indifferent feeling). As regards santirana-citta which is kusala vipaka, there are two kinds. When the object is pleasant (ittharammana), but not extraordinarily pleasant, santirana-citta is accompanied by upekkha. When the object is extraordinarily pleasant (atittharammana), the santirana-citta is accompanied by somanassa. Thus, there are three kinds of santirana-citta in all. It depends on conditions which kind of santirana-citta arises. Thus, there are fifteen (15) types of ahetuka citta which are vipaka. Summarizing them, they are: 10 cittas which are dvi-panca-vinnana (five pairs) 1 sampaticchana-citta (receiving-consciousness) which is akusala vipaka 1 sampaticchana-citta which is kusala vipaka 1 santirana-citta (investigating-consciousness) which is akusala vipaka, accompanied by upekkha 1 santirana-citta which is kusala vipaka, accompanied by upekkha 1 santirana-citta which is kusala vipaka, accompanied by somanassa 13420 From: Num Date: Tue May 21, 2002 6:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Hi Howard, Jon, Jim and all (Sarah, Nina and Larry at the end); << The Pali phrase is "satipa.t.thaanabhaavanaagaaminii pa.tipadaa". It seems to me that "the path of practice" is either a translation of "pa.tipadaa" (the way) or "-gaaminii pa.tipadaa" (the way leading to). >> Num: I looked up the Thai sutta and the atthakatha. <> translated as <> The word "pa.tipadaa" is left untranslated in Thai. The word "bhavana" means to develop and "gamini" means leading to. I have just got a Thai tipitaka and atthakatha CDrom from Kom. There is no specific commentary to this particular sutta (vibhanga-sutta). << "And what is the path of practice to the development of the frames of reference? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called the path of practice to the development of the frames of reference." >> << Most interesting to me is the final section which defines "the path of practice to the development of the frames of reference," as specifically the noble eightfold path. The straightforward reading of this takes satipatthana more as something which "comes later", penultimate to liberation, rather than as a technique to be practiced "all along". It would seem, on this reading, that the entire eight-factored path is the path of practice culminating in satipatthana (and then in awakening and liberation). >> Num: This reminds me of 37-bodhipakkhiyadhamma (factors pertaining to enlightenment). There are seven main groups in bodhipakkhiyadhamma. 4-Satipatthana is mentioned first and eight-factored path is mentioned last. Jon, you mentioned before that there were 14 core dhammas in 37-bodhipakkhiyadhamma. Sati is one of the core dhammas in bodhipakkhiyadhamma (factors pertaining to enlightenment). In bodhipakkhiyadhamma, sati-cetasika, as a factor pertaining to enlightenment, was mentioned under different terms: 4-satipatthana, satindriya, satipala, satisambojjhango, and sammasati. Satipatthana is sammasati in the eight-factored path. My understanding is all factors in 37-bodhipakkhiyadhamma (14 core dhammas) or in eight-factored path are simultaneously attained only during the moment of lokuttara-citta (there are some exceptions (piti- and vitaka-cetasika) for someone who attains enlightenment with jhana; ref: nnanakatha, PSM and magga-vibhanga, Vibhanga). Satipatthana in other kusala-cittas (lokiya-kusala) performs its function of leading to the path, by being mindful of whatever reality appearing and temporary eliminating akulsala but with weaker power. Not until the moment of lokuttara-citta, sati (satipatthana) at that moment with all factors pertaining to enlightenment will simultaneously and synchronously perform their functions by completely eradicate akusala according to the level of magga-citta. So in the moment of eight-factored path, there is the most fulfilling and enriching satipatthana. Each magga-citta occurs only one time for each person in sammasara. The arammana of lokuttara-citta is nibbana. Magga-citta and its accompanied cetasikas share the same arammana, nibbana. Best wishes. Num PS. Sarah, thanks for updating my profile. I will keep sneaking in as time permits. Sorry, I have no special power:-( I still live a life of a layperson, who enjoys working and having fun at the same time :-) BTW, I have not finished reading PSM yet. Nina and Larry and for those who are interested in PSM: I cannot make a commitment at this point. If the time is not too unkind, I am more than willing to share what I will learn from PSM session, although my understanding will be very limited. 13421 From: Num Date: Tue May 21, 2002 6:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Hi Howard, Jon, Jim and all (Sarah, Nina and Larry at the end); << The Pali phrase is "satipa.t.thaanabhaavanaagaaminii pa.tipadaa". It seems to me that "the path of practice" is either a translation of "pa.tipadaa" (the way) or "-gaaminii pa.tipadaa" (the way leading to). >> Num: I looked up the Thai sutta and the atthakatha. <> translated as <> The word "pa.tipadaa" is left untranslated in Thai. The word "bhavana" means to develop and "gamini" means leading to. I have just got a Thai tipitaka and atthakatha CDrom from Kom. There is no specific commentary to this particular sutta (vibhanga-sutta). << "And what is the path of practice to the development of the frames of reference? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called the path of practice to the development of the frames of reference." >> << Most interesting to me is the final section which defines "the path of practice to the development of the frames of reference," as specifically the noble eightfold path. The straightforward reading of this takes satipatthana more as something which "comes later", penultimate to liberation, rather than as a technique to be practiced "all along". It would seem, on this reading, that the entire eight-factored path is the path of practice culminating in satipatthana (and then in awakening and liberation). >> Num: This reminds me of 37-bodhipakkhiyadhamma (factors pertaining to enlightenment). There are seven main groups in bodhipakkhiyadhamma. 4-Satipatthana is mentioned first and eight-factored path is mentioned last. Jon, you mentioned before that there were 14 core dhammas in 37-bodhipakkhiyadhamma. Sati is one of the core dhammas in bodhipakkhiyadhamma (factors pertaining to enlightenment). In bodhipakkhiyadhamma, sati-cetasika, as a factor pertaining to enlightenment, was mentioned under different terms: 4-satipatthana, satindriya, satipala, satisambojjhango, and sammasati. Satipatthana is sammasati in the eight-factored path. My understanding is all factors in 37-bodhipakkhiyadhamma (14 core dhammas) or in eight-factored path are simultaneously attained only during the moment of lokuttara-citta (there are some exceptions (piti- and vitaka-cetasika) for someone who attains enlightenment with jhana; ref: nnanakatha, PSM and magga-vibhanga, Vibhanga). Satipatthana in other kusala-cittas (lokiya-kusala) performs its function of leading to the path, by being mindful of whatever reality appearing and temporary eliminating akulsala but with weaker power. Not until the moment of lokuttara-citta, sati (satipatthana) at that moment with all factors pertaining to enlightenment will simultaneously and synchronously perform their functions by completely eradicate akusala according to the level of magga-citta. So in the moment of eight-factored path, there is the most fulfilling and enriching satipatthana. Each magga-citta occurs only one time for each person in sammasara. The arammana of lokuttara-citta is nibbana. Magga-citta and its accompanied cetasikas share the same arammana, nibbana. Best wishes. Num PS. Sarah, thanks for updating my profile. I will keep sneaking in as time permits. Sorry, I have no special power:-( I still live a life of a layperson, who enjoys working and having fun at the same time :-) BTW, I have not finished reading PSM yet. Nina and Larry and for those who are interested in PSM: I cannot make a commitment at this point. If the time is not too unkind, I am more than willing to share what I will learn from PSM session, although my understanding will be very limited. 13422 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 21, 2002 1:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Dear Jim, Num, Jon, Howard, I don’t suppose the Pali grammar would allow a switch in cases to: “What does the development of satipatthana lead to? The Noble 8fold Path etc” Just a thought. Sarah (v.rusty on Pali noun tenses and not sure where to check easily) ====== --- Jim Anderson wrote: > Jon, > > The Pali phrase is "satipa.t.thaanabhaavanaagaaminii pa.tipadaa". It > seems > to me that "the path of practice" is either a translation of > "pa.tipadaa" > (the way) or "-gaaminii pa.tipadaa" (the way leading to). It is also > worth > noting that the Pali text takes satipa.t.thaana to be in the singular > (satipa.t.thaana.m) which B. Bodhi translates as "the establishment of > mindfulness" while Thanissaro Bhikkhu has "the frames of reference" > (plural). .......... 13423 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 21, 2002 1:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Hi Rob Ep, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah, > Hi! Haven't spoken to you in a while. How are you? You’re certainly maiking up for lost time;-) Just trying to catch up on work, home and dhamma fronts, so I’m not too sorry that most your posts are addressed to Howard and Jon;-) Still, I’m very glad to try to respond to this one which includes some useful questions: > I am having trouble with the idea that concepts are not part of the five > kandhas, > as I thought that everything that arises in mental and > perceptual-physical > experience was included in the five kandhas, in other words, everything > in this > life other than the experiencing of Nibbana. ..... This is correct. “Everything that arises in mental and perceptual physical experience”, i.e all namas and rupas that arise and fall away are included in the 5 khandhas. “Everything in this life” which is real with characteristics which can be known “other than the experiencing of Nibbana” is included. ..... > How do concepts get exemption? ..... They don’t qualify as namas or rupas or as paramattha dhammas. ..... > I am also wondering what the exact delineation of the concept is. If a > thought > about a concept is a paramatha dhamma, but a concept is not, where does > the > concept occur in the thought, as what part of the thought? ..... The thinking (you call thought) which thinks about the concepts (or experiences the concepts) has particular characteristics. The concepts never form part of it.They are conceptualized or imagined by it. ..... > Let me propose an example: > > "I saw a tree yesterday." > > I is a concept. > saw is a concept. > tree is a concept > yesterday is a concept. > > Is that not so? Where is the reality of this thought? Is the whole > thing a > concept, a collection of concepts? Or is it a string of concepts, but > the thought > itself which holds them all together is not a concept? ..... The conceiving--or the experiencing by the nama-- which thinks or experiences is real. The string of concepts, is just as you say, a string of concepts. The idea of something holding them together is another concept. No thing or whole thing in truth, just cittas, accompanied by sanna, moha, ditthi and all the other mental factors which help create the illusion of the concepts existing. ..... So if I discern: > "I am thinking 'I saw a tree yesterday'", the discerning thought "I am > thinking..." etc. is a paramatha dhamma, but it's object, the concept "I > saw a > tree yesterday" is a concept and is not a paramatha dhamma? ..... If I understand you, this is almost correct. At the moment of discerning (being aware?) of the nama, thinking, there is no idea of the concept. In other words, one moment there may be thinking (paramattha dhamma) of concept and another moment there may be awareness (paramattha dhamma) of thinking (paramattha dhamma --or p.d. from now on--).In other words, only the 5khandhas are ever ‘discerned’.(*I’m a little wary of the use of discern because I know that people use it in different ways on this list - ask your pal, Howard;-)) ..... > In the sentence: "You are smiling right now", which I could be > perceiving at this > very moment, > You is a concept, > Are is a concept, > Smiling is a concept, > Right now is a concept, > no? ..... yes ..... > Where is the thought that is an actuality, and are these in fact all > concepts? > Is the thought as a whole a concept? ..... As discussed, the cittas and cetasikas which ‘think’ are real....the story in part or whole is made up of concepts and doesn’t *exist*. ..... > Here is another thought: "I am sad right now." > The experience of sadness is a paramatha dhamma, but when I think "I am > sad", in > the thought, sadness is a concept, because the thought does not actually > contain > the experience. It takes place in another moment and refers to the > sadness > second-hand. So where is the actual thought that is an actuality, if > all the > contained concepts are not real? ..... Same answer as for the happy thoughts;-) Sadness (dosa) as you say is p.d., any awareness or understanding of it are p.d, but the story is a story. although the thinking of it, probably accompanied by yet more dosa are p.d. So it’s easy to see how the dosa continues as the thinking conceives more stories about it;-(. ..... > The only thoughts I can think of that would qualify for paramatha dhamma > status, > would be reflective thoughts that take a thought as an object. These > can be > referrred to in the present moment, because their objects are in > language and > therefore not second-hand. So if I say "I want to consider the thought > "I am sad" > ", the "I am sad" is a concept, but the statement "I want to > consider..." etc., is > a thought which has a concept as an object, and is therefore a paramatha > dhamma. > Is this correct? Perhaps you can help me sort this out. ..... It doesn’t sound quite right. At the moment of thinking or saying “I want to consider..” again there are p.d thinking (regardless of whether spoken out) about concepts. In other words, if it’s not a citta, cetasika or rupa, then it’s a concept which is not included in ‘the All’ which should be or can be directly known. Hope this helps. Many thanks for the good questions. Sarah ===== 13424 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue May 21, 2002 2:40pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: 'no control', kamma of the fourth kind, MN117 Dear Sukin, Well I really enjoyed your message. I like how vigorous it is. You seem to both have a very strong point of view which is somewhat opposed to mine and also to be in a very spontaneous frame of mind, which has a nice freshness to it. Now that I've reviewed your post like a good cup of coffee or a glass of wine, I should look to what you have actually said. But I will add that in this vigorous opposition I feel some kind of positive dialectic is there, and I look forward to some more exchanges. Okay, comments below. --- Sukinder wrote: > Hi Rob, > > Nice to hear from you. > > ......... I agree with a lot of what you say. > > Happy to hear that. > > I think one of the main areas where we may disagree, as I find a similar > disagreement with Jon, is whether or not certain practices can be assumed to > eventually lead to kusala, sati, panna, and all the other positive > qualities. > > I think the quality of citta is the important thing, not the activity > itself. Giving > importance to 'activity' will I feel lead to some form of silabbataparamasa > or the > other. Unfortunately do not know this term. But I am impressed by how long it is. If you can translate I would appreciate it. Kusala is encouraged and accumulation of parami does support the > development of panna, but this must be natural. By natural I mean, without > the > interference of an idea, that certain activities would condition kusala and > that > would in turn engender the development of panna. Okay, this goes back to one of my points, which perhaps you could address: I feel that the idea of developing kusala 'naturally' is itself an intention imposed on the 'naturalness' of the arising moments, and I would be interested to see how you can get a 'natural' development out of such a situation. It is very similar to the physicist who desperately wants to see what an electron looks like when he is not around and how it behaves when he's not watching, but the only way he can observe this is to use an electron microscope, and the use of the electron microscope changes the behavior of the electrons he is observing. So he can never see what actually takes place but only the result with his effect factored in. How can he account for his own effect on the phenomenon and thus get a 'pure' take on what the real behavior of electrons is? How can we possibly factor in the effect our intention to follow the Buddhist path has on the 'natural occurrence' of moments and thus really observe the actual moments as they arise without some sort of overlayingn intention? I don't think it is possible at all, therefore I conclude that trying to achieve some sort of 'naturalness' that is not affected by intentions and intentional activities and efforts is barking up the wrong tree. Instead we should follow our true intention and acknowledge it, which is of course, to reach enlightenment by following the dharma. Once acknowleding this extremely *unnatural* intention which permanently and irreparably tears apart the natural unconsciousness that is the keynote of ordinary life, we can set about answering the important questions as to how to most effectively follow the path. If there were only one answer to this question, and if the answer was as clear and simple as some sometimes think it is, life would be simple, the dharma would be simple, and the certain march to Nibbana would be simple. But it is extremely stressful, marked by decisions to be made, false starts and layers of delusion, even for those who follow the dhamma as closely as they know how. To start with, there is more than one approach to Buddhism, and each of the schools thinks that the others are deluded. This has always been the case with every religion, no matter what its goals, aims or teachings, and the conflicts within Buddhism, while not the same, are analogous. So the Theravadan school says that the Mahayana school is fabricated. The Mahayana school says that the Theravadan school is the lesser vehicle for those of ordinary capacities. The Vajrayana-Tibetan school says that both the other schools in their ordinary practices are limited. Meanwhile the Buddha is in the background calmly stating that all conceptual views are erroneous and that we shouldn't create debates between different schools of thought as this unsettles the mind. Yet the debates go on, because we are in samsara. So then we focus on Theravada itself, and we have the direct teachings in the Tipitaka. Even here we have conflicts: different translations, different teachers, different emphases, different interpretations, different commentaries. Abhidhamma states that it is the Abhidhammic commentaries that make true sense out of the otherwise not-so-clear Suttas. Other approaches to Theravada state that Abhidhamma is an intellectual approach and that simple meditation on the nature of the moments is more fruitful than trying to break the moments down into categories, and that we should focus instead on the jhanas and the development of vipassana through sitting meditation for very long periods of time. Abhidhamma replies that the Buddha never stated that meditation was to be the main approach to sati and panna, and that discernment is more natural in everyday life. etc. etc. So I do not see anything naturally occurring about any of this. What I see is a struggle to find the path and different authoritative answers as to how to follow the path for persons of different inclinations and temperaments. This also makes sense in the light of the Budhha's teachings, because he certainly preached different objects of attention for different groups in different stages of progress. Some he pointed to the ethical path, some to sitting meditation, some to discernment, some to study of intellectual distinctions about the nature of reality. If we attempt to discern the workings of consciousness and the kandhas in the moment, as we all agree that in one way or another we must and should, then I think this should include investigating the assumptions and views that we have about the path when they arise in consciousness. The concept 'Abhidhamma', the concept 'Theravada', the concept 'Buddha' should all be seen as ideas and not as realities. Then perhaps we can focus on the nature of the mind and perception [namas and rupas]. But to conclude this point, I disagree that we must somehow contrive to invent a naturalness to our methodology that simply doesn't exist. Instead, I think we should use whatever methods are in line with the Buddha's teachings in so far as we understand it and use them vigorously according to what works. How can we tell what works and what doesn't to make progress on the path? Buddha describes the kind of qualities that arise as one lets go of clingings and defilements and moves into higher stages of mental and perceptual purity along the path. He speaks of a refined sense of pleasure in the higher mental states, of a refined kind of emotion that develops, of a sort of peacefulness that pervades the mind, of eventual transcendence of thought and desire at even higher levels of release, and other qualities that are gradually attained if we are on the correct path. In my opinion, one can use these sorts of things as a barometer of progress. If the Buddha talks about feelings and realizations that mark progress on the path, we can look to these things. If we cannot use something in our personal experience to mark our progress, I think we must be forever deluded, because no outside source whether sutta or teacher can give us the final word on whether our experience has been elevated in the proper direction. So we have to develop some sort of real observation of what is happening in our consciousness, even if it is very slow. Now I have anger arising at different times, and frustration and this and that negative state. I also have various other things that seem to be akusala. But I can also see areas that are definitely less fearful and clinging, less angry and less rigid in view than there were in my consciousness say a year ago. I am not as afraid of death as I used to be, there is less concern for the loss of my personal self. I have less of a sense that there *is* a personal self. I am more inclined to see moments arising and a sense of awareness being present, but have had experiences of clearly not being able to see a self in the center of these operations. There have been some strong moments of clearly seeing the anattaness of certain things in the moment, struck by the changing nature of experience, etc. All of this to me shows a general trend towards progress on the path. While Jon is right that one can be fooled about kusala and akusala and other feelings or senses of progress, and that one has to have a refined consciousness to make these distinctions correctly, I still think that there is also some objectivity to doing a general or gradual assessment of progress. How often does anger arise? is there a feeling of suppression or a sense that a large tendency towards anger and frustration has gone away, been rooted out? Shouldn't we keep track of such things as part of our discernment and have a sense of whether we are going in the right direction? I think so. Otherwise we are always taking an outside source as the measure, and we will never reach the independence necessary to be able to discern with surety. Even kusala cannot be > forced and it has already fallen away by the time we think about doing > something. I think this is different than the general practices we do as a matter of lifestyle to make progress. If one becomes a monk, he doesn't have to think at every moment: I'm intending to make progress by being a monk. He has already made the decision which he thinks will be helpful to his path and he just continues to do it unless it proves to be incorrect. Isn't there some intention in that decision? Sure there is. > And I definitely do not believe that practices of other religions, such as > yoga, > can lead to sati and panna. Well, I understand your point of view, but I don't think you can really know that, can you? How would you know whether it does or not? Kusala was and is recognized by all other > religions > and I do believe that some level of kusala can be developed by performing > activities such as yoga and tai chi, but not sati and panna. This seems to be an assumption on your part unless you have some other knowledge that this is the case. The kusala they > all encourage is with some sense and form of self or the other. With respect, this is not only true of most religious practices, but also of most Buddhist practices. We are attached to form of self even if we have the concept of anatta. And I think it is sort of like saying 'well I'm sure there is no life on any other planet' because we are centered in our own experience, but it is very possible that adepts in other religions have also reached wisdom, since wisdom is not just a quality of the Buddha, but of human potential which the Buddha came to point out and point the path to. So we disagree on this point so far. That is not to say that any path as a path is as effective as Buddhism. I don't believe that anyone was as systematic and thorough and insightful as Buddha on the way to liberation. But that doesn't mean there are no Arahants or great sages who have realized emptiness of form and anattaness of human being in any other religion. I would look to Ramana Maharshi and Nisargardatta in Advaita Vedanta, whom I believe thoroughly realized anatta through and through. It is so indicated in both their lives and their conversations. They > have no idea of anatta, or even anicca. I would disagree. While anatta is the clear realization of the Buddha, others have come to see anatta in their own terms. I think it is a realization waiting to be discovered, not an invention of the Buddha. Their conception of impermanence > is basically conceptual, not having perceived the rise and fall of > individual > dhammas. I don't think this is true in the case of great sages of Hinduism. Hinduism in general is fettered with the concept of Atman which the average person takes to be an 'inner self', but in the great sages the term 'Atman' is dissolved into emptiness of form and self, and the statement is made by someone like Dattatreyas in the Avadhut Gita that there is no self, no form, no clinging, etc. He made this point very clearly. Some of these great sages founded schools which broke apart the conceptual frame of Hinduism in a similar way to that done by Buddha when he radicalized the Brahmanism of his day. This is not to take away from Buddha' overriding greatness, but just to point out that these discoveries are potentially universal and in some cases are realized within other forms of practice and terminologies. Conceptual understanding of impermanence cannot lead to > detachment from what buddhists know to be the momentary arising of > phenonmenon, which is 'now', Wouldn't that be lovely if the average Buddhist knew this? Certainly the impermanence of the momentary arising of phenomenon is a standard meditation feature of meditation-based Hinduism, which it has promoted quite effectively. The Buddha did not originate the non-conceptual realization of impermanence. It is a standard in Hindu meditation. let alone detachment from the sense of self, also a goal of Hindu meditation. Hinduism is a little different in that it tries to promote detachment from the conventional self but replaces it with a higher self, so it usually does not reach the level of true anatta. But in the highest versions, atman dissolves into no-self. This should be recognized because in some circles it does take place. For instance, Nisargardatta states that the self is not an entity but is just a conceptual object of consciousness. > which is constantly being reinforced through tanha, ditthi and mana. Sorry, I don't know these terms off the top of my head. > The Buddha was equally perfect in wisdom the first moment he attained > enlightenment till the moment before he attained parinibbana. The wisdom > of the arahants all combined do not equal to a small part of the Buddhas. I don't say you are wrong, but I would challenge whether you actually know this to be the case. What's the evidence for this? > And I do not believe any person outside the buddhist tradition in human > history, will have the wisdom close to a sotapanna. Well, how well have you studied the high teachings of other traditions? I find that the higher adepts of other traditions go quite far in the direction of realization of anatta, anicca and dukkha. I see this realization as more universal than you do, although pretty rare in all traditions, but universally potential. One has to sift through the terminology of each tradition to understand what is being said, but if you read properly I believe that there are 'selfless' and highly enlightened beings in other traditions. I don't think the Buddha wanted us to make him into a God who was the sole source of understanding. I think he wanted us to look to the universal human qualities and potentials that are there to be tapped. Buddhism in my opinion should not be turned into an exclusive club, but should be used as a window into the true nature of human existence and potential. > Wisdom cannot be added and improved upon by sucessive generations. Another disagreement. This is to set the Buddha's words in stone, rather than to reinvigorate them with our understanding in each generation. That which is set in stone becomes remote and static in my opinion. It must be put into practice in each of us by making it our own. > A system of practice like yoga which has been worked upon and changed > through time can only result in getting people cling to the superficial > aspect of it. I disagree strongly. The essential understanding of yoga has been very solid for 10 or 15,000 years. It has not changed with the wind, but like Buddhism, each generation has adapted their use of it to be able to practice within their understanding and circumstances. This does not change the nature of yoga. > My conclusion thus is, such practices not only do not help in buddhist > practise, but if seen instead as being a support, can be extremely > detrimental to development of panna. I think this is just an opinion here, Sukin, which, as far as I know, is not based upon your own practice, but just an idea you have that nothing but Buddhism can be useful. > Satipatthana is the *only* way. Well, that is like me saying 'meditation is the only way.' Buddha has pointed out a number of different practices to develop insight and wisdom, so the 'only' qualifier doesn't seem to do this justice. Satipatthana is the only result perhaps, but the methods are there to promote and practice mindfulness and letting go in various ways. There is not only one way to Satipatthana or Buddha wouldn't have had to speak about all the areas of life and so many different factors to be developed. With this in mind, it is counter productive > to investigate and try out any other teachings. I wouldn't advise running around trying things out. What I am talking about is a little more serious than that. Panna being the aim of > Buddha's teachings, why give preference to development of other kinds > of kusala rather than understanding what is appearing at this moment? yes, the question is what will aid the understandingn of what is appearing at this moment. You can neither prove nor disprove that focussing upon and opening up the body will or will not help the understanding of what appears in the moment. My sense from my own years of practice is that with the right attention to the moment, yoga can get rid of a lot of static and junk that gets in the way of paying attention to the moment and cultivating discernment. I think that's what it was designed for. One can of course look at jangled nerves and racing thoughts and try to discern the realities that they represent, but it is most difficult to do so. It is sometimes useful to be able to clear the decks and look more clearly at the basic arising of namas and rupas without such akusala static in the way. I see this as an obvious asset, *as long* as one does not become attached either to the practice or its results. > Robert: > Another point is whether putting forth intentions implies that there is a > self, > and that the only way to acknowledge anatta is by admitting that nothing can > be > done to either speed or slow the path. One has to kind of sneak in Sutta > study > and discernment in a passive, natural way, so that the notion of self won't > get in > and ruin it. [Hope you don't mind me being a little facetious to highlight > the > point.] > > Sukin: > Yes the sense of self is all pervading. Almost every moment of being awake > there is a sense of self via ditthi, tanha or mana. Especially when we are > not aware no? The sneaking in to study and paying attention to the teachings > can be done or at least have many moments where lobha is ruling no?;-) > I think this should alert us to how much the sense of self would then > overshadow activities we do intentionally to overccome the sense of self. All of our activities are intentional, even the ones we don't acknowledge as such, because they are the 'right' ones in our minds. If we discern the arising nature of a nama or rupa within the frame of Abhidhamma teaching that is an intentional practice. There is nothing natural about it. It is a guided activity within a conceptual framework. To not acknowledge this is very dangerous as it tends to make one think that their own conditioned view is the 'natural' one. Very dangerous indeed. One should disclose one's view to oneself as to what is natural, what is correct, what is proper and take that into account when discerning the nature of the moment. Otherwise one is just discerning one's own chosen philosophy in the guise of naturalness. It takes amazing honesty and attention to release one's own view and be in the presence of the naked moment. Having a view that one way is right and the other is wrong does not aid this endeavor, in fact it prejudices it and makes it even more difficult to see what is really happening when *all* views are seen as merely views and the moment itself is allowed to deliver its true nature directly to consciousness without concepts in the way. > Robert: > I personally think [for whatever that's worth -- not much, I hear Jon > saying...my > God, I've internalized him!] that sitting with attention to the breath or to > the > present moment will eventually yield increased discernment, and lead to sati > and > panna. I add that of course if one does this in an unskillful way it may > not lead > to any such results, but the practice itself, done with some reasonable > understanding and instruction, tends to lead in the right direction. I > think that > most Abhidhammists will tend to disagree with this, and say that we cannot > possibly predict the arising of kusala based on any given practice. > > I also believe that intention can be put forth by cittas and that this > cumulative > intention will eventually tend to yield positive fruit. And I think some > take > this to imply that there must be a self being posited that will both put > this > effort forth and yield the fruit of that intention. I contend that this is > not > necessarily so, and that intention can be put forth, just as we put forth > this or > that cause through the production of consciousness. We have a moment of > anger and > the intention arises to either hold it back and take a deep breath or to > yell and > scream. There is a moment of decision there as well. There may also be a > moment > where we say, 'okay, let's not act on this anger in future' and eventually > this > may have an effect in that direction. Can we choose to have an intention > and then > have it? I don't know. But I do think the putting forth of intention can > yield > an eventual result that arises from that intention. My own life seems to > give > evidence for this. > > Sukin: > Rob, turn your attention to the frame of your monitor, now to other parts of > your > computer, next scan your room, if there is sound, sound. Do you see the > diversity > and range of sense impressions, can you appreciate that it all involves a > complexity > of conditions (one of which being my prompting you to)? That's one way of looking at it. A less complex way of looking at it would be to say that it is all 'merely taking place'. Unless one observes a complex set of conditions causing sense impressions to arise, I would simply say they are taking place and allow myself to experience them with mindfulness. To see them as complex is a concept, one drawn from philosophy. Who says that all that we observe makes any given thing happen. Do we really know that? When we observe a process and can see the pattern that led to it that is great. Then we really see the chain of causes. But we shouldn't assume that all the 'stuff' we pick up is somehow related in a causal chain. Let's distinguish direct understanding from concept on this. Sitting down to > observe > your breath, does this involve any more favourable set of conditions( for > the > development of panna) than standing and staring out into the open? Well, I do know that focussing on an object causes more focussed attention. A simple fact. Is that a good thing? I think that generally it is. Before coming to this list I thought that was pretty much agreed upon. Focussing and cultivating mindfulness in both meditation free of distractions and in everyday life is the one-two punch that gradually knocks out ignorance. But here there is a great prejudice against meditative practice, it seems. Jon gave a decent explanation in that he says that we will not have the dharma in future lives, so we should study it now, and we can work on the jhanas in future lifetimes. But I still feel that there is a great prejudice here, based on philosophy, not experience. To take the Buddha's many words on meditation and discard them as secondary or even harmful seems to me a great disservice to a most important part of the path. I don't understand it and don't think it contributes anything to an otherwise noble school of Buddhism. It seems to me in a way to be a shying away *from* direct experience, because in meditation, in my experience, direct experience of the nature of realities is highlighted and heightened. I don't believe the argument that somehow this is unnatural. Buddhism is simply filled with expedient means, and meditation is high on the list on those given by the Buddha. Frankly, I think it's a grave error to think one must or should stick to naturally discerning everyday realities while shying away from a real practice in which mindfulness is highlighted, and by which the work with everyday realities would be greatly enhanced. Do you > know > exactly what is going on at any given moment and can you give a correct > interpretation of your experience to you meditation teacher? Not necessary. First of all, I don't have a meditation teacher at present, and second, telling a meditation teacher what I experience is not the foremost use of a meditation teacher or of meditation. Can your > meditation teacher know what are the conditions any given moment? Can anyone else? Yes or no, depending on whether they do or not. Why be particularly prejudiced against a great meditation teacher? You would not speak against the salutary effects of seeking the advice and teaching of an Abhidhammic 'spiritual friend'. But you assume that there is something wrong with the discernment and capability of a teacher who focusses on meditation. I say: what's the difference between these two? Because I really don't see any distinction. They are both teaching about ways of applying the Dhamma, both legitimate ways of doing so. But because of philosophical predispositions you can only accept the usefulness of one and not the other. I see this as a form of prejudice. Have you examined it, and found that it is really true? Or is it an idea you have developed from your affiliation with a school of thought? These are hard questions, but I think very good ones for us all to look at, whatever our orientation. > I think it very important to distinguish between concept and reality, or > else we are > likely to end up getting caught in some form of practise, not recognizing > our > projections. Likewise with *all* philosophies and forms of practices, including the ones you may think are exempt from this criticism. > Sorry I have to go out somewhere. I feel I have not addressed your precise > points. > Had some other points in mind after I read your post earlier today, but > forgot what > they were. But will wait for your reply to see if anything else could be > said. Well, I'm sure your response to my ruminations above will be very interesting. And I am looking forward to hearing back from you when you have a chance to digest them. Best, Robert Ep. 13425 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue May 21, 2002 2:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 5/20/02 7:28:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Jon writes: > > > > Howard > > > > I've now had a chance to look at this sutta, and I see the point you are > > raising about the final section. Here the Noble Eightfold Path is > > described as "the path [of practice] to the development of the frames of > > reference" or, in the Bh. Bodhi translation, as "the way leading to the > > development of the establishment of mindfulness". > > > > I admit I am puzzled by this and have no thoughts on it as yet. I am only > > familiar with the Noble Eightfold Path being described as the path leading > > to nibbana. This is something entirely new to me. > > > > As you know, I rely heavily on the commentaries for my interpretation of > > the suttas, but unfortunately there is no English translation of the > > Saaratthappakaasini or its tika. I don't know if our Thai members (e.g. > > Jaran, Kom or Num, or others) would be able to throw any light on this > > point from the Thai translation which as I understand it includes the > > commentary also. > > > > I've noted your comments on the 'straightforward' meaning, Howard, but I > > prefer not to speculate at this stage. > > > > Very interesting, and thanks for bringing it up. Any comments from others > > most welcome. > > > > Jon > > > > > ========================== > It may very well turn out that there is a way of understanding this > sutta which accords with your perspective. Whatever the case may be, I'd just > like to say that I really admire your intellectual honesty and your > willingness to face whatever the facts may be! Most people cling strongly to > long-held views, and your openness to other possibilities is really > impressive! agreed. robert ep 13426 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue May 21, 2002 2:54pm Subject: Re: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Rober... --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 5/20/02 2:23:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert Ep writes: > > > > > > Dear Howard, > > Thanks for your reply, which is both intelligent and personal. What I > > would say, > > along your lines, is that I have no belief in a self 'as such' at this > > point, a > > personal self, anything that we would call self in the conventional sense. > > But I > > differ in seeing 'only' fleeting phenomena rolling by. To me, there is > > both the > > continuous changes of content that mark human experience, and also a > > constant: > > consciousness, which has an ever-changing content but itself is > > everpresent. > > Consciousness has proved to be impersonal as well: it does not constitute > > a self, > > and the sense of self which you speak of is also merely an arising > > sensation > > within consciousness, but the sense of always being mindful, conscious, > > aware, of > > something is always there. This leads this consciousness to conclude that > > the > > property of awareness is the underlying reality within which all phenomena > > occur, > > and this is the sticking point between many Buddhists of various > > orientiations. > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > There is, of course, vi~n~nana. It is inseparable from its objects. > They arise together and are interdependent. Vi~n~nana is a separative > awareness - separative in partaking of subject-object duality, and separative > in the sense of separating out objects from the field of possibilities based > on interest and inclinations. Vi~n~nana is conditioned, and it deals in > conditions. Nibbana, on the other hand, is unconditioned, has no relation to > conditions, but deals in absence, and is utterly impersonal. So, where is > there a self? Certainly not a personal one, or an identity as we would think of it, if at all. If one wishes to say that nibbana is of the genus "awareness", > I would not disagree, well that is a big step for many, and I would agree with that. that to me is one of the main steppingstones away from annihilationism. but such awareness is so radically "other", that for us > to just say that it is a mode of awareness and think we have supplied some > real content in saying so, is, I believe, to be mistaken. I agree. I am willing to accept the total otherness of such nibbanic-awareness, and think that this may be why the Buddha refused to assert or refute such an identification. His understanding of nibbanic awareness was such that it would only be turned into an object of mind if it was communicated in the teachings. As such, he would choose the most expedient explanations for leading people there, rather than cause an intellectual obstacle by explaining what was beyond explanation. I am happy to leave it as 'wholly other', as long as it opens a chink of light, a doorway to the possibility that the essential quality of being, having become transformed and utterly impersonal and beyond form, may not be utterly extinguished in enlightenment. While this may frighten some in thinking that it implies another doorway for self to creep back in, I would say it must indeed be wholly beyond such form, and thus does not. > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Is awareness merely a mechanical property of causation, which arises with > > causes > > and subsides at death? Or at least at the death of an arahant? Or is it > > impersonal, beyond the ordinary consciousness we experience in the world of > > human > > objects, and does it have a life beyond the self? At times in the past you > > have > > agreed with me that there seems to be something like an impersonal > > awareness that > > is not annihilated at death. Now you seem to have grown beyond that, and > > that is > > fine. > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > No, I haven't "grown" beyond anything. Perhaps I've refined my > understanding a bit. No more. > ----------------------------------------------------- Okay. well, if you have anything to say about how that particular idea may have become more refined or changed, I would be interested. It's an important area for me, and I respect your thought on it. Best, Robert Ep. 13427 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue May 21, 2002 2:58pm Subject: Re: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Rober... --- Howard wrote: > "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; > The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; > Nibbána is, but not the man that enters it; > The path is, but no traveler on it is seen." > > The last two lines of this, as well, point to the impersonality of > nibbana. So, I would say that there is no self to be found, not in the > khandhas nor outside of them. I also do think that our strong desire that > there BE a self outside the khandhas is a kind of last-ditch grasping at the > anchor of self. That has to be let go of as well - or so it seems to me. > > With metta, > Howard Hi Howard. I understand your point, and I would simply ask: Is there a way to propose letting go of the last vestige of personal or substantial self, without falling into annihilationism? And to me that necessitates something still existing, even though it is neither self nor form. Best, Robert Ep. 13428 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 21, 2002 4:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Iddhi Dear Rob Ep, I fully agree with you that the practice of samadhi/jhana pre-dates Buddhism and is not unique to it. I certainly have no doubt about the practices so prevalent in the texts. Without wishing to sound disrespectful in anyway, I do however question whether TM levitation or any form of Astanga yoga taught today, for example, have any element of jhana involved. As discussed, when referring to the psychic powers in the texts, these can only be developed -- as Wynn pointed -- by those who had accomplished all rupa and arupa jhanas plus additional preparations. We are talking about what (for me) are incomprehensibly high levels of refined purity and wholesome states. We are not just talking about very highly developed concentration. If there is no clear understanding whilst doing yoga, TM , or any other practice of the difference between kusala and akusala moments, I don’t believe there can be any chance of even reaching base camp in the development of samatha. So that’s why I made my original comment;-) Sarah ===== --- Robert Epstein wrote: > W:> > > How do you explain the levitation perform by the yogis of TM > > > (Transcendental > > > Meditation) S:> > I don’t try;-) Let me know what you think! > R:> Perhaps they have learned something akin to the jhanas. While the Noble > Eightfold > Path and the discernment of anatta may be unique to Buddhism, the > development of > deep meditation states and psychic powers is not. > > Hindu practice of samadhi/jhana is about 10 - 15,000 years old, and very > effective. There is no doubt that the yogins of old, as exemplified by > Patanjali's yoga suttas, were masters of many of these states. The word > jhana is > the Pali for the Sanskrit dhyana, which is the core of the practice of > the > Ashtanga [eight-limbed] path of yoga, leading to ultimate Samadhi > states. Dhyana, > while important for Theravadan Buddhism in its Pali form as jhana, > became the > basis for the most important Mahayana sects as well: dhyana practice > was > transmitted from India to China by Bodhidharma, where they came to > pronounce it > 'Ch'an'. Ch'an Buddhism was brought from China to Japan, where the > Japanese > pronounced it....you guessed it: Zen. Jhana = Dhyana = Ch'an = Zen. > Those sects > which took their version of the name 'jhana or dhyana' as the name of > their sect, > emphasized sitting meditation and direct realization of nibbana/nirvana. .......... 13429 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Tue May 21, 2002 5:36pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K] --- Dear Dan, Actually you took the point to a whole 'nother level. I was pointing out that there can be "knowing" without either sati or insight - but you are right that there can also be knowing with sati but without panna. That is why panna (wisdom) is the base of the development of satipatthana. Some people think they have to make the "mind" still so that they can watch nama and rupa, not realising that the mind is a concept and that namas and rupas are arising and passing away all the time they are trying to arrange this still 'mind', that the nama that 'knows' has passed away before they even had time to think of it. We can become intent on trying to do this or that because of clinging to self view and its corollary, wrong practice, silabataparamasa. Most of us don't think we have to make seeing happen, or hearing or hardness but many won't accept that all dhammas are similary conditioned and arise without any self doing anything. The understanding of this - which develops as the different dhammas are investigated - is very relaxing and if it reaches sufficient level will come with strong samadhi, for a brief time; but it is a samadhi that is not the same as trying to concentrate on an object. All ways of kusala can support the development of insight, but they won't if they are clung to or mistaken as the path. best wishes robert "onco111" wrote: > Robert, > > Understanding (panna) knows the object in the way stated, and it > > brings about by endeavouring, the manifestation of the path." This > > perhaps ties up with your excellent series on silabataparamasa; as > > you indicated this is actually an aspect of wrong view, it is not > > the action per se that is the clinging to rule and ritual but the > > wrong view that feels one is somehow controlling and directing the > > various khandas. In the quote from the visuddhimagga we see that > > citta(without panna) can know the characteristic of dhammas, it can > > perceive subtle feelings colours, sounds, hardness, heat - but if > > panna is not present nothing is gained, one may be developing > > silabataparamasa. > > Interesting perception, Robert. As you say, central to the effort is > knowing not just the difference between sati and samadhi but also the > difference between sati with panya and sati without panya, and > knowing not just in a theoretical sense, but knowing as the dhammas > arise and pass away. Silabbataparamasa is not necessarily akusala, > but neither is it liberating. > > Dan 13430 From: Howard Date: Tue May 21, 2002 4:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Hi, Sarah - > Dear Jim, Num, Jon, Howard, > > I don’t suppose the Pali grammar would allow a switch in cases to: > > “What does the development of satipatthana lead to? The Noble 8fold Path > etc†> ========================== Heh, heh, heh! ;-)) [More seriously: Well, of course, who knows? It might be so.] With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13431 From: Howard Date: Tue May 21, 2002 4:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Hi, Sarah and Robert - > > Hi Rob Ep, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > Hi! Haven't spoken to you in a while. How are you? > > You’re certainly maiking up for lost time;-) Just trying to catch up on > work, home and dhamma fronts, so I’m not too sorry that most your posts > are addressed to Howard and Jon;-) > > Still, I’m very glad to try to respond to this one which includes some > useful questions: > > > I am having trouble with the idea that concepts are not part of the five > > kandhas, > > as I thought that everything that arises in mental and > > perceptual-physical > > experience was included in the five kandhas, in other words, everything > > in this > > life other than the experiencing of Nibbana. > ..... > > This is correct. “Everything that arises in mental and perceptual physical > experienceâ€, i.e all namas and rupas that arise and fall away are included > in the 5 khandhas. “Everything in this life†which is real with > characteristics which can be known “other than the experiencing of > Nibbana†is included. > ..... > > > How do concepts get exemption? > ..... > They don’t qualify as namas or rupas or as paramattha dhammas. > ..... > > > I am also wondering what the exact delineation of the concept is. If a > > thought > > about a concept is a paramatha dhamma, but a concept is not, where does > > the > > concept occur in the thought, as what part of the thought? > ..... > The thinking (you call thought) which thinks about the concepts (or > experiences the concepts) has particular characteristics. The concepts > never form part of it.They are conceptualized or imagined by it. > ..... > > Let me propose an example: > > > > "I saw a tree yesterday." > > > > I is a concept. > > saw is a concept. > > tree is a concept > > yesterday is a concept. > > > > Is that not so? Where is the reality of this thought? Is the whole > > thing a > > concept, a collection of concepts? Or is it a string of concepts, but > > the thought > > itself which holds them all together is not a concept? > ..... > The conceiving--or the experiencing by the nama-- which thinks or > experiences is real. The string of concepts, is just as you say, a string > of concepts. The idea of something holding them together is another > concept. No thing or whole thing in truth, just cittas, accompanied by > sanna, moha, ditthi and all the other mental factors which help create the > illusion of the concepts existing. > ..... > So if I discern: > > "I am thinking 'I saw a tree yesterday'", the discerning thought "I am > > thinking..." etc. is a paramatha dhamma, but it's object, the concept "I > > saw a > > tree yesterday" is a concept and is not a paramatha dhamma? > ..... > If I understand you, this is almost correct. At the moment of discerning > (being aware?) of the nama, thinking, there is no idea of the concept. In > other words, one moment there may be thinking (paramattha dhamma) of > concept and another moment there may be awareness (paramattha dhamma) of > thinking (paramattha dhamma --or p.d. from now on--).In other words, only > the 5khandhas are ever ‘discerned’.(*I’m a little wary of the use of > discern because I know that people use it in different ways on this list - > ask your pal, Howard;-)) > ..... > > > In the sentence: "You are smiling right now", which I could be > > perceiving at this > > very moment, > > You is a concept, > > Are is a concept, > > Smiling is a concept, > > Right now is a concept, > > no? > ..... > yes > ..... > > Where is the thought that is an actuality, and are these in fact all > > concepts? > > Is the thought as a whole a concept? > ..... > As discussed, the cittas and cetasikas which ‘think’ are real....the story > in part or whole is made up of concepts and doesn’t *exist*. > ..... > > Here is another thought: "I am sad right now." > > The experience of sadness is a paramatha dhamma, but when I think "I am > > sad", in > > the thought, sadness is a concept, because the thought does not actually > > contain > > the experience. It takes place in another moment and refers to the > > sadness > > second-hand. So where is the actual thought that is an actuality, if > > all the > > contained concepts are not real? > ..... > Same answer as for the happy thoughts;-) Sadness (dosa) as you say is > p.d., any awareness or understanding of it are p.d, but the story is a > story. although the thinking of it, probably accompanied by yet more dosa > are p.d. So it’s easy to see how the dosa continues as the thinking > conceives more stories about it;-(. > ..... > > The only thoughts I can think of that would qualify for paramatha > dhamma > > status, > > would be reflective thoughts that take a thought as an object. These > > can be > > referrred to in the present moment, because their objects are in > > language and > > therefore not second-hand. So if I say "I want to consider the thought > > "I am sad" > > ", the "I am sad" is a concept, but the statement "I want to > > consider..." etc., is > > a thought which has a concept as an object, and is therefore a paramatha > > dhamma. > > Is this correct? Perhaps you can help me sort this out. > ..... > It doesn’t sound quite right. At the moment of thinking or saying “I want > to consider..†again there are p.d thinking (regardless of whether spoken > out) about concepts. In other words, if it’s not a citta, cetasika or > rupa, then it’s a concept which is not included in ‘the All’ which should > be or can be directly known. > > Hope this helps. Many thanks for the good questions. > > Sarah > =============================== Robert, you and I understand concepts to be thoughts/ideas, and not their alleged referents (which, in terms of direct experience, sometimes exist, but most often don't.) I believe that the firm of Sarah, Jon & Associates, Ltd (Does that have a good ring to it, Sarah? ;-)) systematically conflate the two, or, if not that, then, at least, when using the term 'concept', have the alleged referents in mind whereas we have the ideas in mind. Thus, as I see it, there are two groups of people here, one group talking about A, the other talking about B, with A and B different, but we are all acting as though we mean the same thing. Such conversations can be amazingly coherent despite the fact that they shouldn't be at all! ;-)) 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) 13432 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 21, 2002 8:29pm Subject: Re: Lunch with Azita was Re: [dsg] SE QLD Dear Chris (& Azita). Yes, I really enjoyed the account too and having visited (20+yrs ago) makes it even more colourful;-) I’m glad you all had such fun and delighted Sarah F will be joining us in Noosa too. Perhaps we’ll be able to persuade her at least to have a ‘dip’ by way of a break from dhamma discussions. > Pacing ourselves carefully, with pots of tea, spreading luncheon > courses out, and more pots of tea, we managed to occupy the table for > about three and a half hours. Discussions ranged over Jons' post to > me that morning (Is Kamma unstoppable?), Kamma in general, bodily > pleasant feeling and mental unpleasant feeling - kusala kamma and > accumulations of dosa, seeing and visible object and nama and rupa in > general. We also talked about meeting more Aussie's who are studying > Dhamma and Abhidhamma and ways to increase our circle of 'admirable > friends' before, oh so reluctantly, making our farewells. I’m impressed. > Oh, one thing I forgot to mention. We may have to 'do something' > about Azita and her computer knowledge. Her Dhamma knowledge is > great, but I.T. comprehension is very sad.... :-) Did you know she.... Sounds like a great sharing of talents, skills and knowledge. > Sorry Azita - one thing I learned from the honoured list moderators > is that you musn't trust Anyone when you are content and relaxed over > shared meals and Dhamma discussions. Remind me to tell you of my BKK > experiences with 'them', preferably before July. :) :) :) Hey, Azita, I think you should reciprocate and give your version too. Thanks Chris (and also for the links -of course you researched well as usual;-))...... Sarah ===== 13433 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Tue May 21, 2002 8:41pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta --- Dear jon and Howard , I am probably a little dense but could someone tell me what the confusion or debateable point is in this sutta. Anyway some points (I my be completely missing what is being discussed): From the atthasalini, (see below)we know that sometimes the suttas use the eighfold path as a general term meaning both mundane and nibbanic - even though only the actual moments of attaining nibbana actually have all eightfactors. Like the Paticcasamuppada - it can be seen over lifetimes or over a moment - satipatthana and the eightfold path is deep, a moment of satipatthana is a moment of the eightfold (fivefold) path . When we consider what is being taught here we see that right view and all the other factors (as part of sankhara khandha) must be present for there to be satipatthana; the development of satipatthana is deep and long, cirakala bhavana(long time development) before it can be established. As Dan and me discussed ealier, there can be knowing of dhammas and this can seem to be satipatthana but it depends on whether insight is present as to whether is is the real mccoy: it needs the factor of samma-ditthi. We see how profound is satipatthana. Atthasalini page 204: "For althogh the pAth is eightfold, yet, in the wordly consciousness the tthree abstinces are not obtained at one and the same instant. hence it is said to be fivefold only. BUT it may be objected, there is this scripture;'The path by which one came is a phrase for the eightfold ariyan path'(samyutta 1v 195)In this sutta the path of insight preceeding the transcendental path is eightfold. now since the mundane path as implied by the term 'path by which they came'is eightfold, should it not be eightfold here also?' Nay, it should not be. the suttanta teaching is carried out by expounding. In this way he said, for instance, 'verily his bodily acts, vocal acts and life were quite pure'(majhhimma 111 289). BUT this abhidhamma teaching is bare teaching without exposition. in the worldly consciousness the three abstinces are not obtained at one and the same instant and therefore the Path is fivefold"ENDQUOTE. best robert > > > Howard > > > > I've now had a chance to look at this sutta, and I see the point you are > > raising about the final section. Here the Noble Eightfold Path is > > described as "the path [of practice] to the development of the frames of > > reference" or, in the Bh. Bodhi translation, as "the way leading to the > > development of the establishment of mindfulness". > > > > I admit I am puzzled by this and have no thoughts on it as yet. I am only > > familiar with the Noble Eightfold Path being described as the path leading > > to nibbana. This is something entirely new to me. > > > > As you know, I rely heavily on the commentaries for my interpretation of > > the suttas, but unfortunately there is no English translation of the > > Saaratthappakaasini or its tika. I don't know if our Thai members (e.g. > > Jaran, Kom or Num, or others) would be able to throw any light on this > > point from the Thai translation which as I understand it includes the > > commentary also. > > > > I've noted your comments on the 'straightforward' meaning, Howard, but I > > prefer not to speculate at this stage. > > > > Very interesting, and thanks for bringing it up. Any comments from others > > most welcome. > > > > Jon > > > > > ========================== > It may very well turn out that there is a way of understanding this > sutta which accords with your perspective. Whatever the case may be, I'd just > like to say that I really admire your intellectual honesty and your > willingness to face whatever the facts may be! Most people cling strongly to > long-held views, and your openness to other possibilities is really > impressive! > > With metta, > Howard 13434 From: Howard Date: Tue May 21, 2002 4:45pm Subject: Re: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Rober... Hi, Robert - In a message dated 5/21/02 3:51:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert Ep writes: > > Hi Howard. > I understand your point, and I would simply ask: Is there a way to propose > letting go of the last vestige of personal or substantial self, without > falling > into annihilationism? > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I would say that there is. There is, in fact, no self at all right now. Any discerning right now is a conditioned, samsaric discerning, and it is no self. There is no self to be found, and, thus, no self to be annihilated. There are just conditions and the knowing of conditions, with that knowing being yet one more condition, and with the advent of nibbana, there is just the absence of conditions, and there is no *separate* knowing of that absence, for that would be a condition, and thus what there *would* be is beyond all categories, beyond description. (Even to use the word 'be' is to be in error. To say *anything* is to be in error. Only silence would be without error. This whole post is in error!) -------------------------------------------------------- > > And to me that necessitates something still existing, even though it is > neither > self nor form. > > Best, > Robert Ep. > ============================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13435 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue May 21, 2002 8:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 5/20/02 7:28:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Jon writes: > > > > Howard > > > > I've now had a chance to look at this sutta, and I see the point you > are > > raising about the final section. Here the Noble Eightfold Path is > > described as "the path [of practice] to the development of the frames > of > > reference" or, in the Bh. Bodhi translation, as "the way leading to > the > > development of the establishment of mindfulness". > > > > I admit I am puzzled by this and have no thoughts on it as yet. I am > only > > familiar with the Noble Eightfold Path being described as the path > leading > > to nibbana. This is something entirely new to me. > > > > As you know, I rely heavily on the commentaries for my interpretation > of > > the suttas, but unfortunately there is no English translation of the > > Saaratthappakaasini or its tika. I don't know if our Thai members > (e.g. > > Jaran, Kom or Num, or others) would be able to throw any light on this > > point from the Thai translation which as I understand it includes the > > commentary also. > > > > I've noted your comments on the 'straightforward' meaning, Howard, but > I > > prefer not to speculate at this stage. > > > > Very interesting, and thanks for bringing it up. Any comments from > others > > most welcome. > > > > Jon > > > > > ========================== > It may very well turn out that there is a way of understanding > this > sutta which accords with your perspective. Whatever the case may be, I'd > just > like to say that I really admire your intellectual honesty and your > willingness to face whatever the facts may be! Most people cling > strongly to > long-held views, and your openness to other possibilities is really > impressive! > > With metta, > Howard Thanks Howard (and later, Rob Ep), very kind of you to say so. If the truth be known, however, there's no shortage of strong clinging to long-held views here -- but sometimes cunningly disguised as intellectual honesty and openness to other possibilities!!. Seriously, though, I do believe that ignoring or trying to explain away contrary evidence is counter-productive, since it may hold the key to some further understanding. And it is always useful to remember that progress along the path is measured as much by the wrong view that is exposed as it is by the insight that is 'gained'. Unfortunately, not much has turned up so far on this point. But it's certainly one I'll bring up with the 'experts' when I next get the chance. Jon 13436 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 21, 2002 9:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 8 (2)Larry/Azita Dear Larry, I meant to butt in on your post below a few days ago. It’s true that “akusala roots are at the heart of all self grasping” as you say. However I don’t think we can say that “akusala roots are what is most commonly taken for self”. All phenomena are taken for self as we read about over and over in the suttas; i,e. the 5 khandhas of grasping. Even concepts are mistakenly taken for being real and for being self. In order to understand dhammas as anatta, therefore, there has to be the development of awareness of all kinds of namas and rupas such as seeing, hearing, thinking, visible objects, likes, dislikes and so on. Likewise, vipaka (say, seeing or hearing), never becomes ‘the attribute of the akusala citta” (if I understand you), but akusala cittas and cetasikas succeeding the vipaka may cling, be averse, be ignorant or have wrong view of that vipaka. Understanding vipaka as rootless certainly helps distinguish it from these other states and it’s true, as perhaps you’re suggesting, that all these paramattha dhammas have to be understood as having different characteristics and functions and are not self. The theory such as knowing the difference between ahetuka and sahetuka cittas can in this way (as I think you’re saying) be a supporting condition for right view and awareness to develop. Instead of saying “the feeling is lobha, dosa or moha”, I’d suggest there are different feelings (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral vedana) accompanying these other mental factors. Like you suggest, they are namas and experience the object along with the citta. Yes, the object doesn’t have feelings (whether it’s a nama, rupa or concept) and untangling the tangle, knowing the different realities is the way to see self as just an illusion. I’m not sure if I’ve butted in or helped, but I’m appreciating the ADL extracts and your comments, though some of your ‘ADL corner’ seem a little quiet. Lucy’s weeklong breaks seem like a long time here. Still, she’s probably reading Rob Ep’s mail through the nite and trying to catch up - maybe we should recommend a course in speed-reading as an essential skill here;-) Sarah (another member of the 'untaught manyfolk') ===== Hi Christine, interesting article. I am far from understanding how kamma > works, but I think anatta can be partially glimpsed just by finding > rootless cittas. It seems obvious that akusala roots are at the heart of > all self grasping. That is to say, akusala roots are what is most > commonly taken as 'self'. And this 'self' appropriates vipaka as soon as > it arises, so the vipaka becomes the attribute of the akusala citta. > Seeing vipaka for what it is (rootless) is to see that it is not self. > Somehow this translates into seeing that the sahetuka citta is also not > self. It's sort of infectious. > > The main thing is to identify the object of one's feelings. See that the > object is itself without feeling. See that the feeling is lobha, dosa, > or moha. Voila! What was self is no longer self. Abhidhamma for the > untaught manyfolk :-) 13437 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue May 21, 2002 9:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Num Many thanks for going to the trouble of tracking down this sutta in your Tipitaka set and on CD-ROM. I must say I'm surprised there's nothing on the point that Howard has raised. --- Num wrote: > > Hi Howard, Jon, Jim and all (Sarah, Nina and Larry at the end); > > > << The Pali phrase is "satipa.t.thaanabhaavanaagaaminii pa.tipadaa". It > seems > to me that "the path of practice" is either a translation of > "pa.tipadaa" > (the way) or "-gaaminii pa.tipadaa" (the way leading to). >> > > > Num: I looked up the Thai sutta and the atthakatha. > <> translated as < satipatthana-4.>> The word "pa.tipadaa" is left untranslated in Thai. I find it interesting that this word should have been left untranslated (but I can't think what significance this might have ;-) ). > The word "bhavana" means to develop and "gamini" means leading to. > > I have just got a Thai tipitaka and atthakatha CDrom from Kom. There is > no specific commentary to this particular sutta (vibhanga-sutta). > > > << "And what is the path of practice to the development of the frames of > > reference? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, > right > speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, > right concentration. This is called the path of practice to the > development of the frames of reference." >> > > << Most interesting to me is the final section which defines "the path > of > practice to the development of the frames of reference," as specifically > the > noble eightfold path. The straightforward reading of this takes > satipatthana > more as something which "comes later", penultimate to liberation, rather > than > as a technique to be practiced "all along". It would seem, on this > reading, > that the entire eight-factored path is the path of practice culminating > in > satipatthana (and then in awakening and liberation). >> I believe your summary that follows is correct, at least as far as I recall from my reading of the Visuddhimagga . Thanks very much for the reminder. (But I don’t think it helps solve the problem raised by Howard, does it?). Jon > Num: This reminds me of 37-bodhipakkhiyadhamma (factors pertaining to > enlightenment). There are seven main groups in bodhipakkhiyadhamma. > 4-Satipatthana is mentioned first and eight-factored path is mentioned > last. > Jon, you mentioned before that there were 14 core dhammas in > 37-bodhipakkhiyadhamma. Sati is one of the core dhammas in > bodhipakkhiyadhamma (factors pertaining to enlightenment). > > In bodhipakkhiyadhamma, sati-cetasika, as a factor pertaining to > enlightenment, was mentioned under different terms: 4-satipatthana, > satindriya, satipala, satisambojjhango, and sammasati. Satipatthana is > sammasati in the eight-factored path. > > My understanding is all factors in 37-bodhipakkhiyadhamma (14 core > dhammas) > or in eight-factored path are simultaneously attained only during the > moment > of lokuttara-citta (there are some exceptions (piti- and > vitaka-cetasika) for > someone who attains enlightenment with jhana; ref: nnanakatha, PSM and > magga-vibhanga, Vibhanga). Satipatthana in other kusala-cittas > (lokiya-kusala) performs its function of leading to the path, by being > mindful of whatever reality appearing and temporary eliminating akulsala > but with weaker power. Not until the moment of lokuttara-citta, sati > (satipatthana) at that moment with all factors pertaining to > enlightenment > will simultaneously and synchronously perform their functions by > completely > eradicate akusala according to the level of magga-citta. So in the > moment of > eight-factored path, there is the most fulfilling and enriching > satipatthana. > > Each magga-citta occurs only one time for each person in sammasara. The > arammana of lokuttara-citta is nibbana. Magga-citta and its accompanied > cetasikas share the same arammana, nibbana. > > > Best wishes. > > Num 13438 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue May 21, 2002 9:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Deciding how best to act Christine --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hi Jon, > > You are quite right about the difficulty in coming to terms with this > aspect of dhamma. It is interesting that it is not a case of hearing > and 'not' understanding....because I do, at least intellectually. > Sometimes I feel as if there are two me's - a reasonable, rational > one who drags a kicking and resisting one along. :-) > Thanks for the common sense advice. Well, the 'kicking and resisting one' is also very zany and entertaining, and it helps keep a good balance here! Even we reasonable and rational types can resist accepting things we have heard and 'know' to be true. This is because the problem is not really the personality trait but the accumulated wrong view that is not going to be dispelled so easily. This is why one needs constant and continued exposure to right view, via the 'good friend(s)'. Wrong view is so deeply ingrained. We need to have patience with our kilesa, realising that it is not going to change overnight (or perhaps even in the foreseeable future). Jon > metta, > Christine > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Christine, DaiWen > > > > Christine, your post to Sarah raises aspects of dhamma that some > people have > > difficulty coming to terms with. And it reminded me of a recent > post of DaiWen's > > that I had meant to comment on. > > > > Christine said: > > > Non-action, like action, is an intentional choice. And if I > don't > > > act, when I could have acted, or if I choose one action instead > of > > > another, the results of that action or non-action are my kama- > vipaka > > > eventually? > > > Does Buddhism encourage protection of those in need of > protection, > > > speaking out about injustices, social action? > > > > I agree that non-action can be as much an intentional choice as > action. But as I > > understand the teachings, the merits of any (non-) action are > determined solely by > > the quality of the accompanying mental state, and not to any extent > by the > > conventional outcome. > > > > So is sympathetic action more likely to be kusala than non-action? > I think each > > person can only answer this by reference to their own experience. > What may come > > easily and naturally to one might be contrary to the nature of > another. And for a > > given person, much will depend on the kind of situation involved, > anyway. > > > > There is no inherent merit in one course rather than the other, > since so much > > depends on individual accumulations. In the end we all do what we > are inclined to, > > with what little kusala we can muster. > > > > Jon 13439 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 21, 2002 9:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Hi Howard, --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Sarah and Robert - > Robert, you and I understand concepts to be thoughts/ideas, and > not > their alleged referents (which, in terms of direct experience, sometimes > > exist, but most often don't.) I believe that the firm of Sarah, Jon & > Associates, Ltd (Does that have a good ring to it, Sarah? ;-)) > systematically > conflate the two, or, if not that, then, at least, when using the term > 'concept', have the alleged referents in mind whereas we have the ideas > in > mind. ..... I’d rather suggest that the firm be called ‘pannatti’ as referred to in the texts we are discussing --and clearly elaborated in the lists that Goglerr and others have posted of all the various kinds of pannatti--and encompassing as you point out, all ideas, including what you refer to as ‘their alleged referents’, if these are not the paramattha dhammas themselves. If I found Sarah, Jon & Asociates, Ltd (hmm, not sure about the ring) were not sticking strictly to precise definitions in these texts, especially those in the Abhidhamma where they are given in greatest detail, I’d certainly like to have any differences pointed out. I certainly have no interest in formulating any new theory and from my understanding see no need. ..... >Thus, as I see it, there are two groups of people here, one group > talking about A, the other talking about B, with A and B different, but > we > are all acting as though we mean the same thing. Such conversations can > be > amazingly coherent despite the fact that they shouldn't be at all! ;-)) ..... I think that if one group says A is right based on experience and study of the Tipitaka and the other says the same about B, then it’s helpful to look at the Tipitaka with the aid of ancient commentaries and different Pali translations if necessary, to see if, with a little teamwork, a happy resolution can be found.You’ve made mention once or twice I think of the ‘orthodox Theravada position’. I certainly take the orthodox position to include the Abhidhamma in the Tipitaka.(If the commentaries and Abhidhamma are excluded from review and the Suttas are interpreted in different ways which seem to accord with experience, then I agree that it’s going to be a difficult discussion;-)) It may take a lifetime or few, or differences may remain, but considering, checking and understanding a little more about the various mental states and other ‘actualities’ (just borrowed from B.Bodhi for a change) in the process can be very helpful. As Goglerr and I concluded, if differences or ‘gaps’ remain, that’s fine too. Who knows, maybe Rob Ep will agree with S,J & Assocs this time;-)) Sarah ===== 13440 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 21, 2002 9:47pm Subject: Re: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Rober... Hi Howard, Just to show the other 'many folk' that sometimes we're really in sync, may I say that I think this post of yours is very helpful and wise indeed. I particularly appreciate your conclusion at the very end about the 'last-ditch grasping at the anchor of self' so well-expressed. With appreciation, Sarah ====== --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Rob - > > The following is the initial portion of the article on anatta > from > Nyanatiloka's dictionary: > > > > anattá: 'not-self', non-ego, egolessness, impersonality, is the last > of the > > three characteristics of existence (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) The anattá > doctrine > > teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of > existence, > > nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense > could > > be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other > abiding > > substance. This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without > understanding > > which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible. It is the > only > > really specific Buddhist doctrine, with which the entire Structure of > the > > Buddhist teaching stands or falls. All the remaining Buddhist > doctrines > > may, more or less, be found in other philosophic systems and > religions, but > > the anattá-doctrine has been clearly and unreservedly taught only by > the > > Buddha, wherefore the Buddha is known as the anattá-vádi, or 'Teacher > of > > Impersonality'. Whosoever has not penetrated this impersonality of all > > > existence, and does not comprehend that in reality there exists only > this > > continually self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily and > mental > > phenomena, and that there is no separate ego-entity within or without > this > > process, he will not be able to understand Buddhism, i.e. the teaching > of > > the 4 Noble Truths (sacca, q.v.), in the right light. He will think > that it > > is his ego, his personality, that experiences suffering, his > personality > > that performs good and evil actions and will be reborn according to > these > > actions, his personality that will enter into Nibbána, his personality > that > > walks on the Eightfold Path. Thus it is said in Vis.M. XVI: > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; > > The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; > > Nibbána is, but not the man that enters it; > > The path is, but no traveler on it is seen." > > > > With regard to the sentence "The anattá doctrine teaches that > neither > within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of > them, can > be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a > self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance.," > I'd > like to emphasize the words "nor outside of them." While I do not have a > > ready reference, I do seem to recall in some sutta the Buddha saying > that > there is no self outside of the khandhas. (And, of course, there *is* > the > sutta entitled The All, in which the Buddha describes the five khandhas > as > being all there is.) Now, of course, there is also nibbana, which is not > any > khandha at all. But the thing is, nibbana is without condition - it is > the > very absence of conditions. Now, can the discernment of absence, a > thoroughgoing and utterly complete absence of all possible conditions be > a > self? I think not, for a "self", in addition to being unchanging, is > also > *personal*. But a thoroughgoing and utterly complete absence of all > possible > conditions has nothing by which it can be construed as personal. > Consider, moreover the quoted material: > > "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; > The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; > Nibbána is, but not the man that enters it; > The path is, but no traveler on it is seen." > > The last two lines of this, as well, point to the impersonality > of > nibbana. So, I would say that there is no self to be found, not in the > khandhas nor outside of them. I also do think that our strong desire > that > there BE a self outside the khandhas is a kind of last-ditch grasping at > the > anchor of self. That has to be let go of as well - or so it seems to me. 13441 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue May 21, 2002 9:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Rob K Thanks for the comments, Rob. Very much to the point as usual. --- "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: > --- > Dear jon and Howard , > I am probably a little dense but could someone tell me what the > confusion or debateable point is in this sutta. The point is I think that, while the sutta can be easily explained by taking the Noble Eightfold Path in its mundane version, it is difficult to read it with the Noble Eightfold Path as referring to magga citta. Does this make sense to you? On the other hand, perhaps your quote from the Atthasilini below could be read as meaning that the reference here is simply to the mundane path? Jon > Anyway some points (I my be completely missing what is being > discussed): > From the atthasalini, (see below)we know that sometimes the suttas > use the eighfold path as a general term meaning both mundane and > nibbanic - even though only the actual moments of attaining nibbana > actually have all eightfactors. Like the Paticcasamuppada - it can > be seen over lifetimes or over a moment - satipatthana and the > eightfold path is deep, a moment of satipatthana is a moment of the > eightfold (fivefold) path . When we consider what is being taught > here we see that right view and all the other factors (as part of > sankhara khandha) must be present for there to be satipatthana; the > development of satipatthana is deep and long, cirakala bhavana(long > time development) before it can be established. > As Dan and me discussed ealier, there can be knowing of dhammas and > this can seem to be satipatthana but it depends on whether insight > is present as to whether is is the real mccoy: it needs the factor > of samma-ditthi. We see how profound is satipatthana. > > Atthasalini page 204: > "For althogh the pAth is eightfold, yet, in the wordly > consciousness the tthree abstinces are not obtained at one and > the same instant. hence it is said to be fivefold only. BUT it > may be objected, there is this scripture;'The path by which one > came is a phrase for the eightfold ariyan path'(samyutta 1v > 195)In this sutta the path of insight preceeding the > transcendental path is eightfold. now since the mundane path as > implied by the term 'path by which they came'is eightfold, > should it not be eightfold here also?' > Nay, it should not be. the suttanta teaching is carried out by > expounding. In this way he said, for instance, 'verily his > bodily acts, vocal acts and life were quite pure'(majhhimma 111 > 289). BUT this abhidhamma teaching is bare teaching without > exposition. in the worldly consciousness the three abstinces are > not obtained at one and the same instant and therefore the Path > is fivefold"ENDQUOTE. > best > robert 13442 From: Howard Date: Tue May 21, 2002 6:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Hi, Sarah - > > Hi Howard, > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Sarah and Robert - > > > Robert, you and I understand concepts to be thoughts/ideas, and > > not > > their alleged referents (which, in terms of direct experience, sometimes > > > > exist, but most often don't.) I believe that the firm of Sarah, Jon & > > Associates, Ltd (Does that have a good ring to it, Sarah? ;-)) > > systematically > > conflate the two, or, if not that, then, at least, when using the term > > 'concept', have the alleged referents in mind whereas we have the ideas > > in > > mind. > ..... > I’d rather suggest that the firm be called ‘pannatti’ as referred to in > the texts we are discussing --and clearly elaborated in the lists that > Goglerr and others have posted of all the various kinds of pannatti--and > encompassing as you point out, all ideas, including what you refer to as > ‘their alleged referents’, if these are not the paramattha dhammas > themselves. If I found Sarah, Jon & Asociates, Ltd (hmm, not sure about > the ring) were not sticking strictly to precise definitions in these > texts, especially those in the Abhidhamma where they are given in greatest > detail, I’d certainly like to have any differences pointed out. I > certainly have no interest in formulating any new theory and from my > understanding see no need. > ..... > >Thus, as I see it, there are two groups of people here, one group > > talking about A, the other talking about B, with A and B different, but > > we > > are all acting as though we mean the same thing. Such conversations can > > be > > amazingly coherent despite the fact that they shouldn't be at all! ;-)) > ..... > I think that if one group says A is right based on experience and > study of the Tipitaka and the other says the same about B, then it’s > helpful to look at the Tipitaka with the aid of ancient commentaries and > different Pali translations if necessary, to see if, with a little > teamwork, a happy resolution can be found.You’ve made mention once or > twice I think of the ‘orthodox Theravada position’. I certainly take the > orthodox position to include the Abhidhamma in the Tipitaka.(If the > commentaries and Abhidhamma are excluded from review and the Suttas are > interpreted in different ways which seem to accord with experience, then I > agree that it’s going to be a difficult discussion;-)) > > It may take a lifetime or few, or differences may remain, but considering, > checking and understanding a little more about the various mental states > and other ‘actualities’ (just borrowed from B.Bodhi for a change) in the > process can be very helpful. As Goglerr and I concluded, if differences or > ‘gaps’ remain, that’s fine too. > > Who knows, maybe Rob Ep will agree with S,J & Assocs this time;-)) > > Sarah > ===== > ============================ My point is merely that I don't think our differences are differences in content, but only in terminology. Perhaps the translation of 'pa~n~natti' as 'concept' is not the best translation. If 'pa~n~natti' denotes an alleged concept-reference such as the tree on my back lawn that I am (conventionally) looking at right now, then the translation of it as 'concept' is misleading to those many people who think of concepts as mere ideas. The relatively concrete"tree on my back lawn", is, itself, a mental construct composed of very recent memories (mainly visual) with the idea of tree (the concept per se) superimposed. But it is not the same as the concept of 'tree on my back lawn', because there is more "immediacy" to it, due to its having been constructed from just-experienced conditions. At least that is how I understand it. In no case do I understand it to be some external "thing". Perhaps a translation of 'pa~n~natti' as 'percept' might come closer - I would find that very clear. But, in any case, the "reality" is an internal one, with any alleged external "tree" being nonexistent, or, at least, in principle unknowable. 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) 13443 From: watercolorca Date: Tue May 21, 2002 11:02pm Subject: A self ouside the khandas/simultaneity Hi everyone-I'm doing Pali lesson daily and attempting to keep up. If you read to the end-anyone have any thoughts on "five khanadas simutaneously come to be realized"....thanks,J. H: "...our strong desire that there BE a self outside the khandas..." Nyanatiloka: "the khandas are the five groups of clinging in which the Buddha has summed up all the physical and mental phenomena of existence, and which appear to ignorant man as his Ego or personality. What is called individual existence is in reality nothing but a mere process of those mental and physical phenomenon, a process that from time immemorial has been going on, and that also after death will still continue for unthinkably long periods of time. Some writers on Buddhism who have not understood that the five khandas are just classificatory groupings, have conceived of them as compact entities (heaps, bundles) while the Groups never exist as such; i.e. they never occur in a simultaneous totality of all their constituents. Also all these single constituents of a Group which are present in any body-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 unity of consciousness. They are to consciousness what redness, softeness, sweeteness, etc. are to an apple and have as little separate existence as those qualities." "Whatever, O Brother, there exists of feeling, of perception and of mental formations, these things are associated, not dissociated, and it is impossible to separate one from the other and show their difference. For whatever one feels, one perceives; and whatever one perceives, of this one is consciousness." (M.43) And of all of this - "this does not belong to me, this I am not, this is not my Ego." (S.XXI.5) While the doctrine of anatta proceeds analytically, by splitting existence up into ultimate constituent parts, into mere empty, unsubstantial phenomena or elements; the doctrine of Depedendent Origination proceeds synthetically, by showing that all phenomena are in some way, conditionally related with each other. Satipatthana (D.22 and M.10) Awareness of mindfullness...the monk dwells in contemplation of the body, feelings, mind and mind-objects. These contemplations are in reality not to be taken as merely separate exerises but as things inseparably associated with each other. Thereby the Satipatthana Sutta forms an illustration of the way in which these four contemplations relating ****to the five khandas simultanenously come to be realized, ****and finally lead to the Insight into the Impersonality of all existence. Mindfulness is meant to encompass the whole personality and starts with the body as primary and regular subject of meditation." There are many ways of analysis of "body" leading to insight into anatta in all Buddhist traditions. "One thing, O Monks, developed and repeatedly practiced, leads to the attainment of wisdom. It is the contemplation on the body." (A.I and Vis VI.2) "...the links of the eightfold "Path" not only do not arise one after the other, this should not be interpreted to mean that one advances step by step in sequence of ennumeration until one finally may reach the destination of Nibbana. If this were true, one would have realizied first of all Right View and penetration to the truth even before one could hope to proceed to Right Thought and Right Action etc. But the links in part arise simultaneously as inseparably associated mental factors in one and the same state of consciousness. At least four links are bound up with karmically wholesome consciousness but Right View is not necessarily present in every wholesome state of consciousness." "All khandas/phenomena are compared respectively, to a lump of froth, a bubble, a mirage, a coreless plantain stem, a conjuring trick, a m 13444 From: Num Date: Tue May 21, 2002 8:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Dear Jon: Jim: << The Pali phrase is "satipa.t.thaanabhaavanaagaaminii pa.tipadaa". It seems to me that "the path of practice" is either a translation of "pa.tipadaa" (the way) or "-gaaminii pa.tipadaa" (the way leading to). >> Num <> translated as <> The word "pa.tipadaa" is left untranslated in Thai. >> Jon: << I find it interesting that this word should have been left untranslated (but I can't think what significance this might have ;-) ). >> I meant in Thai tipitaka, the word patipada is used without being translated in to simpler Thai word. I think Jim can give more thorough meaning of the word. Pati- has a board meaning. I think here it means "toward" and pada means " the way". Another word 'patipatti'; pati here means "together or all over" and patti means "attaining or reaching". Patipatti, which usually translated into practice, can also mean reaching altogether, knowing all --> knowing nama and rupa. << This is called the path of practice to the development of the frames of reference>> <> Hmm, to me, I think the sutta speaks itself that satipatthana in a magga level (in 8-factored path) is the way that one needs to attain to reach lokuttaracitta/nibbana (conventional speaking). If it is not the satipatthana in 8-factored path level, sammasati/satipatthana/sati is still in a worldly level. So, again conventional speaking, nibbana cannot be attained without attaining satipatthana in 8-factorted path level. When I read it, I do not feel that the sutta tells us that the 8-factored path is a preceding factor to obtain first and then later practice satipatthana. I do not get the sense of chronology or practicing step here. Am I missing something? Num 13445 From: yuzhonghao Date: Wed May 22, 2002 2:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Hi Sarah, Just a suggestion that you might find useful: No matter what concept means to you, ask yourself these question: how does a concept come to be? What are its conditions? Regards, Victor > > Robert, you and I understand concepts to be thoughts/ideas, and > > not > > their alleged referents (which, in terms of direct experience, sometimes > > > > exist, but most often don't.) I believe that the firm of Sarah, Jon & > > Associates, Ltd (Does that have a good ring to it, Sarah? ;-)) > > systematically > > conflate the two, or, if not that, then, at least, when using the term > > 'concept', have the alleged referents in mind whereas we have the ideas > > in > > mind. > ..... > I'd rather suggest that the firm be called `pannatti' as referred to in > the texts we are discussing --and clearly elaborated in the lists that > Goglerr and others have posted of all the various kinds of pannatti- -and > encompassing as you point out, all ideas, including what you refer to as > `their alleged referents', if these are not the paramattha dhammas > themselves. If I found Sarah, Jon & Asociates, Ltd (hmm, not sure about > the ring) were not sticking strictly to precise definitions in these > texts, especially those in the Abhidhamma where they are given in greatest > detail, I'd certainly like to have any differences pointed out. I > certainly have no interest in formulating any new theory and from my > understanding see no need. > ..... > >Thus, as I see it, there are two groups of people here, one group > > talking about A, the other talking about B, with A and B different, but > > we > > are all acting as though we mean the same thing. Such conversations can > > be > > amazingly coherent despite the fact that they shouldn't be at all! ;-)) > ..... > I think that if one group says A is right based on experience and > study of the Tipitaka and the other says the same about B, then it's > helpful to look at the Tipitaka with the aid of ancient commentaries and > different Pali translations if necessary, to see if, with a little > teamwork, a happy resolution can be found.You've made mention once or > twice I think of the `orthodox Theravada position'. I certainly take the > orthodox position to include the Abhidhamma in the Tipitaka.(If the > commentaries and Abhidhamma are excluded from review and the Suttas are > interpreted in different ways which seem to accord with experience, then I > agree that it's going to be a difficult discussion;-)) > > It may take a lifetime or few, or differences may remain, but considering, > checking and understanding a little more about the various mental states > and other `actualities' (just borrowed from B.Bodhi for a change) in the > process can be very helpful. As Goglerr and I concluded, if differences or > `gaps' remain, that's fine too. > > Who knows, maybe Rob Ep will agree with S,J & Assocs this time;-)) > > Sarah > ===== 13446 From: Sukin Date: Wed May 22, 2002 3:05am Subject: Re: 'no control', Reply to Rob E. Hi Rob, Whew!! Finally finished reading your looong post. Sorry about yesterday, wasn't a good day for me. I always like reading your thoughts even if I don't fully agree, you consider from many angles. Hope you don't mind me not quoting you in the full, since its such a long post I'm replying to. Also I changing the name of the subject. > importance to 'activity' will I feel lead to some form of silabbataparamasa > or the other. Robert: Unfortunately do not know this term. But I am impressed by how long it is. If you can translate I would appreciate it. Sukin: Silabbataparamasa is "wrong practise", meaning anything we do with the view that doing such things will lead to understanding. Robert: I feel that the idea of developing kusala 'naturally' is itself an intention imposed on the 'naturalness' of the arising moments, and I would be interested to see how you can get a 'natural' development out of such a situation. Sukin: Vipaka arises all through life and we cannot know, less predict when which kamma will bear fruit as sense impressions through which doorway. Our accumulated kilesas will condition the subsequent moments and we will be accumulating more akusala. Sometimes however kusala can arise because conditions for it has arisen. Whether sati and panna will arise at any moment is beyond anyones control, so there is no *trying* to be natural. There will be understanding or there will not, as simple as that. Surely intention is there, but there is no seeking out already fallen states or unarisen ones. Nor trying to 'be' more attentive. Robert: How can we possibly factor in the.........activities and efforts is barking up the wrong tree. Sukin: Surely every individual factor comprising a moment of citta, including the arammana influences the type and quality of the citta. A citta conditioned by sati and panna and other beautiful cetasikas will be quite different from a citta conditioned by lobha and a desire to 'catch' and know the moment. The former will accomplish its function to understand, the latter will defeat its own purpose. Robert: Instead we should follow our true intention ........ most effectively follow the path. Sukin: Do you think, once you have found the path best suited to you, your sincere intentions to follow that path will carry you through? So is it only the question of finding your path and following it to the end? Robert: If there were only one answer to this question, ....... false starts and layers of delusion, even for those who follow the dhamma as closely as they know how. Sukin: I agree, trying out different methods must be quite stressful, but I don't think the difficulty of the path is due to these diversions. The difficulty is in our deeply conditioned, faulty way of viewing reality, made harder by our continual accumulation of ignorance. Robert: To start with, there is more than one approach to Buddhism, Sukin: Buddhism as we know it, not as the Buddha taught. Or do you think that the Mahayana teachings are the actual word of the Buddha? Robert: The Mahayana school says that theTheravadan school is the lesser vehicle for those of ordinary capacities. The Vajrayana-Tibetan school says that both the other schools in their ordinary practices are limited. Sukin: This might interest you Rob, I have become pro Theravada less than two years ago. Before that I read some Mahayana and a little bit about what Vajrayana was, I never questioned their assertions about them being progressively superior to Theravada. I believed their arguments. Interestingly at one point a couple of months ago, I was reminded about vajrayana, about how they teach about seeing no difference between Nirvana and Samsara, and that their aim is to view any and every event without choice and as equally enlightening. I compared this to K. Sujin's attitude towards the teachings and I saw that she encourages the same thing without having to go through all the hassles that the other practice puts forward as a pre-condition. And I dare say, more simply and affectively. Robert: Meanwhile the Buddha......Yet the debates go on, because we are in samsara. Sukin: Yes, debating is pointless I think. Robert: The concept 'Abhidhamma', .........of the mind and perception [namas and rupas]. Sukin: I agree. Robert: In my opinion, one can use these sorts of things as a barometer of progress. If the Buddha talks about feelings and realizations that mark progress on the path, we can look to these things. Sukin: Personally I don't find it useful to measure my or anyone else's progress, not knowing how to do it without giving importance to 'self' ;-). Robert: If we cannot use something .......So we have to develop some sort of real observation of what is happening in our consciousness, even if it is very slow. Sukin: I think it isn't necessary, just keep on studying and applying the teachings in an unforced manner. Robert: There have been some strong moments of clearly seeing .....me shows a general trend towards progress on the path. Sukin: Good, but is it worth clinging to?:-) Robert: Shouldn't we keep track of .....taking an outside source as the measure, and we will never reach the independence necessary to be able to discern with surety. Sukin: I think only when we have discerned the rise and fall of nama and rupa, knowing clearly the distinction between the two, as a sotapanna has, can we really know for sure that what the Buddha taught is all true and only then will we really be independent and no more need outside confirmation. Robert: I think this is different than the general practices ...... Isn't there some intention in that decision? Sure there is. Sukin: Intention is in every citta, it arises and falls with it and it takes on the quality of the citta, being with or without sati and panna. >And I definitely do not believe that practices of other religions, such as > yoga, can lead to sati and panna. Robert: Well, I understand your point of view, but I don't think you can really know that, can you? How would you know whether it does or not > Kusala was and is recognized by all other religions > and I do believe that some level of kusala can be developed by performing > activities such as yoga and tai chi, but not sati and panna. Robert: This seems to be an assumption on your part unless you have some other knowledge that this is the case. Sukin: I use sati here for sati of the level of satipatthana, which means having a reality as object. I do not think other practices can lead to actually percieving elementary realities. It is an assumption and will remain so until I actually tread the path to its fruition, meanwhile it is based on rational thinking and faith in the Buddha's teachings. > The kusala they > all encourage is with some sense and form of self or the other. Robert: With respect, this is not only true ...... Ramana Maharshi and Nisargardatta in Advaita Vedanta, whom I believe thoroughly realized anatta through and through. It is so indicated in both their lives and their conversations. Sukin: It is hard for me at this point to give a reasonable( I have to think more ) argument to support my claim. But hope you don't mind my pointing out that Nisargardatta either was a chain smoker or sold cigarettes as a living. Do you think that an enlightened person could do that? Would you choose to? A sotapanna could never do such. Besides people like the two you mentioned above, did believe in a great 'SELF' a 'THAT' no? > They have no idea of anatta, or even anicca. Robert: I would disagree. While anatta is the clear realization of the Buddha, others have come to see anatta in their own terms. I think it is a realization waiting to be discovered, not an invention of the Buddha. Sukin: Nobody has ever said that the Buddha invented anything, he didn't even invent buddhism;-). Anatta can be discovered, but by Buddhas only and i doubt there has been a Paceka Buddha even, in this past 2500 years. Robert: I don't think this is true in the case of great sages of Hinduism......cases are realized within other forms of practice and terminologies. Sukin: Hope you don't mind that I do not want to make any comments here. Robert: The Buddha did not originate the non-conceptual realization of impermanence. It is a standard in Hindu meditation. Sukin: Are you sure that they know that consciousness is an element, rising momentarily conditioning the next moment on and on? If not how can they see rise and fall of individual cittas? It would surprise me greatly if you brought out some proof. Robert: For instance, Nisargardatta states that the self is not an entity but is just a conceptual object of consciousness. Sukin: Yes perhaps( never read him) but wasn't he in this case trying to point out that the small individual 'self' is non existent, only to show that the 'real' self was the "SELF"? > The Buddha was equally perfect in wisdom the first moment he attained > enlightenment till the moment before he attained parinibbana. The wisdom > of the arahants all combined do not equal to a small part of the Buddhas. Robert: I don't say you are wrong, but I would challenge whether you actually know this to be the case. What's the evidence for this? Sukin: Just that to be a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha means that all the qualities have been developed and accumulated to 100%. > Wisdom cannot be added and improved upon by sucessive generations. Robert: Another disagreement. This is to set the Buddha's words in stone, rather than to reinvigorate them with our understanding in each generation. That which is set in stone becomes remote and static in my opinion. It must be put into practice in each of us by making it our own. Sukin: I think every buddhist knows that his religion is a practical religion not just a set of doctrines. By my statement above I meant that the original teacher's insights can only be taken as a guide, but can never be re examined and corrected and improved upon by its followers. Later generations can only adulterate the teachings. > A system of practice like yoga which has been worked upon and changed > through time can only result in getting people cling to the superficial > aspect of it. Robert: I disagree strongly. ...... This does not change the nature of yoga. Sukin: Sorry I made the wrong assumption, I based my conclusion on the variety of yoga books available in the market. > My conclusion thus is, such practices not only do not help in buddhist > practise, but if seen instead as being a support, can be extremely > detrimental to development of panna. Robert: I think this is just an opinion here, ....... Buddhism can be useful. > Satipatthana is the *only* way. Robert: Well, that is like me saying 'meditation is the only way.' .......and so many different factors to be developed. Sukin: Satipatthana means to be mindful of 'realities'. It can happen under whatever circumstance, even when one is meditating, only that it would be harder to come by if one thinks that one has to do certain activities (like meditation) in order that it will arise. It is the only 'way' to enlightenment but not in the sense that it is a programme or something. From this point of view, it can be reached from as many number of directions as there are beings practising it. Robert: All of our activities are intentional, .......of Abhidhamma teaching that is an intentional practice. There is nothing natural about it. It is a guided activity within a conceptual framework. Sukin: True Robert To not acknowledge this is very dangerous as it tends.....amazing honesty and attention to release one's own view and be in the presence of the naked moment. Sukin: Yes, and knowing that at the moment it arises frees us from this tendency. But what about moments of seeing, hearing etc., do we doubt those moments? Aren't these moments real? even if our sati and panna is not sharp enough to perceive them as just elements. We can in any case know the individual characteristics that are apparent eventhough clouded by the 'I' experiencing it. Robert: Having a view that one way is right and the other is wrong does not aid this endeavor, in fact it prejudices it and makes it even more difficult to see what is really happening when *all* views are seen as merely views and the moment itself is allowed to deliver its true nature directly to consciousness without concepts in the way. Sukin: But even views arise and fall don't they? Its not like it is going to be there all the time, no? Otherwise we will have to get rid of all akusala before we can develop panna. Robert: That's one way of looking at it. A less complex way of looking at it would be to say that it is all 'merely taking place'. .... one drawn from philosophy. Sukin: I was drawing you attention to the complexity and hence impossibility of pinpointing any particular activity as being a direct cause for sati and panna to arise. Robert: Well, I do know that focussing on an object causes more focussed attention. A simple fact. Is that a good thing? Sukin: I think its better than watching TV and playing video games as I do.;-) Robert: Jon gave a decent ..... Frankly, I think it's a grave error to think one must or should stick to naturally discerning everyday realities while shying away from a real practice in which mindfulness is highlighted, and by which the work with everyday realities would be greatly enhanced. Sukin: I would say that if practising Jhana was something you did as a daily thing before hearing about buddhism, then I would advise you to take tips and advice from the Tipitaka as to how to best do it. But if you have heard about jhana only after encountering buddhism and have the idea that jhana somehow can be used as a tool for developing sati, then I think you are wrong. Robert: Can anyone else? Yes or no, depending on whether they do or not. Why be particularly prejudiced against a great meditation teacher? ........ They are both teaching about ways of applying the Dhamma, both legitimate ways of doing so. But because of philosophical predispositions you can only accept the usefulness of one and not the other. I see this as a form of prejudice. Sukin: One is telling you about the way things are in general. About how development takes place, the right and wrong paths etc., leaving the rest for conditions to arise when you may be able to recognize them. The other proposes a pattern of behavior and agenda to follow and there are inevitably expectations connected to this. Robert: Have you examined it, and found that it is really true? Or is it an idea you have developed from your affiliation with a school of thought? Sukin: Thanks, I often think of this. I can never be perfectly sure, but nothing else is more appealing and makes more sense to me. Dead tired. Better rush to sleep now. I am not checking it so I expect some mistakes in this letter. best wishes, Sukin. 13447 From: Howard Date: Wed May 22, 2002 1:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Hi again, Sarah - I'd like to add a couple more thoughts on this "percept" business. The percept of "the glass I'm drinking from" SEEMS to be some "thing in the world". The concept of 'glass' (the notion of a cylindrical holder for beverages) does not so seem - it is just an idea. The concept of 'glass' arises and ceases, as I think of it and when I no longer think of it. It is impermanent. The glass I'm drinking from, however, the supposedly existing "thing in the world", though it seems impermanent is only conventionally so, and is not in reality impermanent, nor is it permanent, nor is it anything at all, precisely because THERE IS NO glass I'm drinking from except conventionally. There is just the percept, the internal mental construct which erroneously *seems* to be a thing "out there". (The percept, itself, the actual internal construct, is impermanent - it does not remain.) I think that what I'm saying here, while probably not identical with your take on pa~n~natti, may be very close to it. What do you think, Sarah? With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/21/02 10:50:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Howard writes: > My point is merely that I don't think our differences are differences > in content, but only in terminology. Perhaps the translation of > 'pa~n~natti' > as 'concept' is not the best translation. If 'pa~n~natti' denotes an > alleged > concept-reference such as the tree on my back lawn that I am > (conventionally) > looking at right now, then the translation of it as 'concept' is misleading > > to those many people who think of concepts as mere ideas. The relatively > concrete"tree on my back lawn", is, itself, a mental construct composed of > very recent memories (mainly visual) with the idea of tree (the concept per > > se) superimposed. But it is not the same as the concept of 'tree on my back > > lawn', because there is more "immediacy" to it, due to its having been > constructed from just-experienced conditions. At least that is how I > understand it. In no case do I understand it to be some external "thing". > Perhaps a translation of 'pa~n~natti' as 'percept' might come closer - I > would find that very clear. But, in any case, the "reality" is an internal > one, with any alleged external "tree" being nonexistent, or, at least, in > principle unknowable. > > 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) 13448 From: <> Date: Wed May 22, 2002 7:15am Subject: ADL ch. 9 (2) http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 9 (2) Seven types of the ahetuka vipakacittas are akusala vipaka and eight types are kusala vipaka, since there are two types of santirana-citta which are kusala vipaka. As we have seen, there are altogether eighteen ahetuka cittas. Of these eighteen ahetuka cittas fifteen are vipakacittas and three are kiriyacittas. Kiriyacittas are different from akusala cittas and kusala cittas and from vipakacittas. Akusala cittas and kusala cittas are cittas which are cause; they can motivate ill deeds and good deeds which are capable of producing their appropriate results. Vipaka-cittas are cittas which are the result of akusala kamma and kusala kamma. Kiriyacittas are cittas which are neither cause nor result. One type of ahetuka kiriyacitta is the 'five-door-adverting-consciousness', in Pali: panca-dvaravajjana-citta. ('Panca' is five, 'dvara' is door, 'avajjana' is adverting or turning towards.';) When an object impinges on one of the five senses, there has to be a citta which adverts or turns towards the object through that sense-door. When visible object impinges on the eye-sense, there has to be the adverting-consciousness which adverts towards visible object through the eye-door, or cakkhu-dvaravajjana-citta (eye-door-adverting- consciousness), before there can be seeing-consciousness (cakkhu-vinnana). When sound impinges on the ear-sense, the ear-door-adverting-consciousness (sota-dvaravajjana-citta) has to advert to the sound through the ear-door before there can be hearing-consciousness (sota-vinnana). The panca-dvaravajjana-citta merely turns towards the object which impinges on one of the five sense-doors. But it does not see or hear. The panca-dvaravajjana-citta is an ahetuka kiriyacitta, it arises without hetu (root); there is not yet like or dislike. The panca-dvaravajjana-citta is succeeded by one of the dvi-panca-vinnanas (five pairs), which is vipakacitta. Each citta which arises in the process of cittas experiencing an object has its own function. The cittas which experience an object through one of the senses do not know anything else but that object. When one, for example, is reading, the citta which sees experiences only visible object and it does not know the meaning of the letters. After the eye-door process has been completed visible object is experienced through the mind-door and then there can be other mind-door processes of cittas which know the meaning of what has been written and which think about it. Thus, there are processes of cittas which experience an object through one of the senses and processes of cittas which experience an object through the mind-door. Another type of ahetuka kiriyacitta is the mano-dvaravajjana-citta (mind-door-adverting-consciousness), which arises both in the sense-door process and in the mind-door process but performs two different functions according as it arises in each of those two kinds of processes. When an object contacts one of the sense-doors, the panca-dvaravajjana-citta (five-door-adverting-consciousness) turns towards the object, one of the dvi-panca-vinananas experiences it, sampaticchana-citta receives the object and santirana-citta investigates it. The santirana-citta is succeeded by an ahetuka kiriyacitta which experiences the object through that sense-door and 'determines' (votthapana) the object. It is actually the same type of citta as the mano- dvara vajjana-citta, (mind-door-adverting-consciousness, the first citta of the mind-door process), but when it arises in the sense-door process it can be called votthapana-citta, since it performs the function of determining the object in the sense-door process. The votthapana-citta, after it has determined the object, is, on the case of non-arahats, followed by akusala cittas or by kusala cittas. It depends on one's accumulations of akusala and kusala whether the votthapana citta will be succeeded by akusala cittas or by kusala cittas. 13449 From: <> Date: Wed May 22, 2002 7:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 8 (2)Larry/Azita Hi Sarah, Just a couple of questions in response to your reply. You wrote, "I don't think we can say that "akusala roots are what is most commonly taken for self"." What do you consider to be the basic manifestation of the particular sense of 'me' right now? You also wrote, "Likewise, vipaka (say, seeing or hearing), never becomes 'the attribute of the akusala citta" (if I understand you), but akusala cittas and cetasikas succeeding the vipaka may cling, be averse, be ignorant or have wrong view of that vipaka." Do you regard your shirt as an attribute of who you are ('who you are' being an akusala citta according to me)? Isn't your shirt a vipaka? Finally you wrote, "Instead of saying "the feeling is lobha, dosa or moha", I'd suggest there are different feelings (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral vedana) accompanying these other mental factors." What are lobha, dosa, and moha _in experience_ if not feelings? hope this leaves you hope-less, Larry 13450 From: TG Date: Wed May 22, 2002 4:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ritual (control?) Hi Robert Ep. I think you misunderstand what is meant by "no control." No control does not mean there is no volition, or effort to strive for better states. What it means is that there are only conditions interacting with each other and there is no Self that is "in control." The idea of "control" presupposes the idea of "self." It is a subtle way of grasping after Self IMO. If there is control as you say...what is it that is controling? TG In a message dated 5/19/2002 11:04:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Robert Ep writes: > "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > > > The other evidence we have about speaking conventally when talking about > > self-control, etc comes from the Suttas themselves. In the Connected > > Discourse, "A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya" by Bhikkhu Bodhi we > > read on page102 #64 > > > "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." > > > The Buddha says the same thing about himself in a Sutta from MN, but I > > forget which number, but I am sure others here will know the passage. So > as > > well as the evidence you supplied, there is also this evidence from the > > Canon that the Buddha does use such terms as a "mere expressions." > > Thanks, Ray. > My question is: Why would the Buddha use conventional speech in such a > positive > manner. In your quote above, he is saying that one may casually use 'I' or > 'you' > as a mere convention in order to communicate content, such as in the > sentence, > 'Are you hungry?' That's my sense of it. This is different. Here, he is > making > a positive command, saying: 'You should try as hard as you can to exercise > self-control.' That is not merely using conventional speech, that is > promoting > it, if that's what it in fact is. > > If you agree that this is a much more forceful use of such conventions, we > have to > ask what the purpose is in saying this? If we have 'no control' and we are > really > to 'let go' and merely study Suttas and discern realities, why on earth > would the > Buddha literally exhort people to try as hard as possible to control > themselves? > My only conclusion can be that whether 'self' is a convention or not, he > wants > people to make an effort at exercising control. This seems quite different > than > the message he could have given if 'no control' were in fact the doctrine. > He > could have said, as many on this list seem to: 'Give up the effort to > control > yourselvew, because in fact there is no self to control, and no way for > selfless > kandhas to control them. Everything arises from a cause, and the most you > can do > is try to discern the truth of the way reality functions.' This would be a > very > effective message if this is in fact what the Buddha meant to say, but at > least > for these listeners, that is apparently *not* what he wanted them to do. > > Best, > Robert Ep. > 13451 From: yuzhonghao Date: Wed May 22, 2002 8:41am Subject: [dsg] Re: ritual (control?) > Hi Robert Ep. > > I think you misunderstand what is meant by "no control." No control does not > mean there is no volition, or effort to strive for better states. What it > means is that there are only conditions interacting with each other and there > is no Self that is "in control." > > The idea of "control" presupposes the idea of "self." It is a subtle way of > grasping after Self IMO. > > If there is control as you say...what is it that is controling? > > TG TG, 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is self-control. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html Regards, Victor 13452 From: <> Date: Wed May 22, 2002 8:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 9 (2) Dear group, I'm not sure if it is really worthwhile asking these questions since we can't observe citta process, but, neverheless, I was wondering: When do cetasika manifest in citta process? What is the object of mind door adverting consciousness? It can't be another citta because then there would be two cittas at the same time. It can't be a rupa because it would have to be cognized through one of the 5 doors. How do we cognize rupa, concept, and memory through the mind door? What is the nature of the object? How is a cetasika cognized? as a qualifier of another citta? In seeing process what is going on in receiving, investigating, and determining? Does memory play a part here? Anyone else have a question about this stuff? Larry 13453 From: TG Date: Wed May 22, 2002 4:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ritual (control?) Hi Victor I'll ask you the same question. If there is "control" who or what is doing the controling? TG In a message dated 5/21/2002 5:41:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Victor writes: > 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train > others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is > self-control. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html > > Regards, > Victor > 13454 From: Howard Date: Wed May 22, 2002 4:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 9 (2) Hi, Larry - I have no answers for you. I just want to say "Good questions!" With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/21/02 8:47:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, <> writes: > Dear group, > > I'm not sure if it is really worthwhile asking these questions since we > can't observe citta process, but, neverheless, I was wondering: > > When do cetasika manifest in citta process? > > What is the object of mind door adverting consciousness? It can't be > another citta because then there would be two cittas at the same time. > It can't be a rupa because it would have to be cognized through one of > the 5 doors. How do we cognize rupa, concept, and memory through the > mind door? What is the nature of the object? > > How is a cetasika cognized? as a qualifier of another citta? > > In seeing process what is going on in receiving, investigating, and > determining? Does memory play a part here? > > Anyone else have a question about this stuff? > > Larry > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13455 From: <> Date: Wed May 22, 2002 9:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ritual (control?) Hi TG, If we translate 'control' into 'cause' then kusala and akusala cittas are causes or controllers of kamma. Larry ------------- TG wrote:Hi Victor I'll ask you the same question. If there is "control" who or what is doing the controling? TG 13456 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed May 22, 2002 1:53pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Dear Jon & All, No new information. Just more opinion ;-). > -----Original Message----- > From: Num [mailto:Num] > > Dear Jon: > > Jim: << The Pali phrase is > "satipa.t.thaanabhaavanaagaaminii pa.tipadaa". It > seems to me that "the path of practice" is either > a translation of > "pa.tipadaa" (the way) or "-gaaminii pa.tipadaa" > (the way leading to). >> > Num < Satipa.t.thaanabhaavanaagaaminii>> translated as > < satipatthana-4.>> The word "pa.tipadaa" is left > untranslated in Thai. >> > Jon: << I find it interesting that this word > should have been left > untranslated > (but I can't think what significance this might > have ;-) ). >> > > > I meant in Thai tipitaka, the word patipada is > used without being translated > in to simpler Thai word. I think Jim can give > more thorough meaning of the > word. Pati- has a board meaning. I think here it > means "toward" and pada > means " the way". Another word 'patipatti'; pati > here means "together or all > over" and patti means "attaining or reaching". > Patipatti, which usually > translated into practice, can also mean reaching > altogether, knowing all --> > knowing nama and rupa. > > << This is called the path of practice to the > development of the frames of > reference>> > < correct, at least as far as I > recall from my reading of the Visuddhimagga . > Thanks very much for the > reminder. (But I don't think it helps solve the > problem raised by Howard, > does it?).>> > > > Hmm, to me, I think the sutta speaks itself that > satipatthana in a magga > level (in 8-factored path) is the way that one > needs to attain to reach > lokuttaracitta/nibbana (conventional speaking). > If it is not the satipatthana > in 8-factored path level, > sammasati/satipatthana/sati is still in a worldly > level. So, again conventional speaking, nibbana > cannot be attained without > attaining satipatthana in 8-factorted path level. > When I read it, I do not > feel that the sutta tells us that the 8-factored > path is a preceding factor > to obtain first and then later practice > satipatthana. I do not get the sense > of chronology or practicing step here. Am I > missing something? > > Patipada is left translated in more than a few contexts in the Thai-translated Tipitakas. For example, Majhimma-pa.tipadaa (the middle way), Samma-pa.tipadaa (the right way), and Dukkha-Niroda-gamani-Patipadda (the way leading to the cessation, or magga). I guess Patipadda is translated as either the way or the practice. If one insists on doctrines (right or wrong!), one can say, Satipatthana is both 5-fold and 8-fold magga, and magga is both 5-fold and 8-fold. Therefore, satipatthana can be used interchangeably with magga. kom 13457 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed May 22, 2002 2:30pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Deciding how best to act Dear Christine and Jon, Sorry to butt in, but this is too entertaining to resist... > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonothan Abbott [mailto:Jon] > > Sometimes I feel as if there are two me's - a > reasonable, rational > > one who drags a kicking and resisting one along. :-) > > Thanks for the common sense advice. > > Well, the 'kicking and resisting one' is also > very zany and entertaining, > and it helps keep a good balance here! > Just while I am entertaining my zany friends, I need to remind myself, the entertaining friends would only lead to bad plane of existence, miserable plane of existence, and hell, or at the very least many more continued rounds of existence. The more rational friends will lead me (if it's not the entertaining friends who dress up as the rational friends) to good plane of existence, happy plane of existence, and heaven, and if we are persistent, eventually the release. Hmm.... Good friends should really be appreciated... kom 13458 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed May 22, 2002 3:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ritual (control?) Dear larry, looking at it this way, one could say that our real 'self' is each arising and falling kusala or akusala citta which causes both the content and consequences of each moment. of course it is not a 'self' in the sense of an entity, instead it is a flowing and changing reality, a process. robert ====== --- <> wrote: > Hi TG, > > If we translate 'control' into 'cause' then kusala and akusala cittas > are causes or controllers of kamma. > > Larry > ------------- > TG wrote:Hi Victor > I'll ask you the same question. If there is "control" who or what is > doing the controling? > TG > 13459 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed May 22, 2002 3:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ritual (control?) --- TG wrote: > Hi Robert Ep. > > I think you misunderstand what is meant by "no control." No control does not > mean there is no volition, or effort to strive for better states. What it > means is that there are only conditions interacting with each other and there > is no Self that is "in control." > > The idea of "control" presupposes the idea of "self." It is a subtle way of > grasping after Self IMO. > > If there is control as you say...what is it that is controling? > > TG I don't know that I have the answer to that. My point is that the Buddha clearly says that one should practice control of self, and he does so quite positively. The point is what does the Buddha mean by this, not whether I know what is controlling or not. What do you think the Buddha meant when he said we should strive hard to control our selves? He obviously meant something. My own sense is that control can be exercised without theree being a self to control or to do the controlling. I think it is limiting to assume that the Buddha is either speaking conventionally or else speaking to a 'self'. The third alternative is that he is speaking to consciousness and putting causes into effect. That is a kind of control that is not dependent on a self, but does affect the resultant consciousness. Robert Ep. =========== > > > > In a message dated 5/19/2002 11:04:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Robert Ep writes: > > > > "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > > > > > The other evidence we have about speaking conventally when talking about > > > self-control, etc comes from the Suttas themselves. In the Connected > > > Discourse, "A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya" by Bhikkhu Bodhi we > > > read on page102 #64 > > > > > "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." > > > > > The Buddha says the same thing about himself in a Sutta from MN, but I > > > forget which number, but I am sure others here will know the passage. So > > as > > > well as the evidence you supplied, there is also this evidence from the > > > Canon that the Buddha does use such terms as a "mere expressions." > > > > Thanks, Ray. > > My question is: Why would the Buddha use conventional speech in such a > > positive > > manner. In your quote above, he is saying that one may casually use 'I' or > > 'you' > > as a mere convention in order to communicate content, such as in the > > sentence, > > 'Are you hungry?' That's my sense of it. This is different. Here, he is > > making > > a positive command, saying: 'You should try as hard as you can to exercise > > self-control.' That is not merely using conventional speech, that is > > promoting > > it, if that's what it in fact is. > > > > If you agree that this is a much more forceful use of such conventions, we > > have to > > ask what the purpose is in saying this? If we have 'no control' and we are > > really > > to 'let go' and merely study Suttas and discern realities, why on earth > > would the > > Buddha literally exhort people to try as hard as possible to control > > themselves? > > My only conclusion can be that whether 'self' is a convention or not, he > > wants > > people to make an effort at exercising control. This seems quite different > > than > > the message he could have given if 'no control' were in fact the doctrine. > > He > > could have said, as many on this list seem to: 'Give up the effort to > > control > > yourselvew, because in fact there is no self to control, and no way for > > selfless > > kandhas to control them. Everything arises from a cause, and the most you > > can do > > is try to discern the truth of the way reality functions.' This would be a > > very > > effective message if this is in fact what the Buddha meant to say, but at > > least > > for these listeners, that is apparently *not* what he wanted them to do. > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. 13460 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed May 22, 2002 4:05pm Subject: [dsg] Re: ritual (control?) Hi Larry, I don't see 'control' meaning the same as 'cause'. The dictionary meaning of Control is:"Power or authority to check or restrain; restraining or regulating influence; power to direct or determine; a relation of constraint of one entity (thing or person or group) by another." The dictionary meaning of Cause is: "events that provide the generative force that is the origin of something." Cause happens from multiple conditions. But I feel Control is an entirely different thing. I could 'cause' a fire to be started on a windy day in the paddock, but I cannot 'control' what happens after that. metta, Christine > Hi TG, > > If we translate 'control' into 'cause' then kusala and akusala cittas > are causes or controllers of kamma. > > Larry > ------------- > TG wrote:Hi Victor > I'll ask you the same question. If there is "control" who or what is > doing the controling? > TG 13461 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 22, 2002 4:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A self ouside the khandas/simultaneity Dear J, --- watercolorca wrote: > Hi everyone-I'm doing Pali lesson daily and attempting to keep up. > > If you read to the end-anyone have any thoughts on "five khanadas > simutaneously come to be realized"....thanks,J. Welcome to DSG and thanks for your message. We mostly have to learn a little Pali and attempt to keep up. Glad, you're not only keeping up, but checking the detail with a fine eye as shown by the good question. This is the passage that your qu relates to (from Nyantiloka dictionary, I presume, though I can’t find it on a quick look): > Satipatthana (D.22 and M.10) Awareness of mindfullness...the monk > dwells in contemplation of the body, feelings, mind and mind-objects. > These contemplations are in reality not to be taken as merely separate > exerises but as things inseparably associated with each other. > Thereby the Satipatthana Sutta forms an illustration of the way in > which these four contemplations relating ****to the five khandas > simultanenously come to be realized, ****and finally lead to the > Insight into the Impersonality of all existence. ***** I understand the confusion and how this phrase can be misleading. As I’m sure you’re suggesting, awareness (satipatthana) can only ever take one reality as object at a time. In other words, there can’t be awareness of say, hardness and feeling, or seeing and hearing, at the same time, even though the different phenomena are ‘inseparably associated’ by conditions. However, I think we can say that as awareness develops of particular characteristics of realities, these are known to apply to other realities which are not the objects of awareness. To clarify, we can either refer to particular characteristics (visesa lakkhana) such as lobha (attachment), dosa (aversion), vedana (feeling) and so on or we can refer to common characteristics (sammana lakkhana)of all conditioned realities, i.e the ti-lakkhana of anicca, dukkha and anatta. As realities are understood as namas and rupas only (not self), or one of these characteristics becomes apparent, we could perhaps say the 5 khandhas ‘simultaneously’ come to be realized at moments of vipassana ~nana, for example. I’m not sure if this is what N. had in mind. On a side note, nibbana only has visesa lakkhana and not sammana lakkhana. Also if we refer to a reality having sabhava, it is the same as saying it has lakkhana. Similarly we can say, I think, the aim of understanding is to know realities as anatta, as lakkhana or as nama/rupa. ..... To continue the quote you (Howard?) gave just a little further while we are being particular: ..... >Mindfulness is meant > to encompass the whole personality and starts with the body as primary > and regular subject of meditation." > > There are many ways of analysis of "body" leading to insight into > anatta in all Buddhist traditions. ..... Hmm, this is definitely not what I believe the Satipatthana Sutta to be saying. As we often discuss here (and Rob K and Sukin are discussing in other threads), as soon as their is an idea of ‘order’ or ‘rule’ or object as ‘primary’ or first, then it suggests an idea of selection, control which defeats the purpose of the previous quotes on anatta. ..... > "One thing, O Monks, developed and repeatedly practiced, leads to the > attainment of wisdom. It is the contemplation on the body." (A.I and > Vis VI.2) ..... I just try to look up this quote in context, but there is a problem with the references given.Vis V1,2 is a reference to the asubha (foulness of corpses) but doesn’t have this quote. ..... I think the following quote is very helpful and accords with the point about the 8FP which Jon, Num and others have been making (i.e not steps, but simultaneous arising of mental states at path moments): ..... > "...the links of the eightfold "Path" not only do not arise one after > the other, this should not be interpreted to mean that one advances > step by step in sequence of ennumeration until one finally may reach > the destination of Nibbana. If this were true, one would have > realizied first of all Right View and penetration to the truth even > before one could hope to proceed to Right Thought and Right Action > etc. But the links in part arise simultaneously as inseparably > associated mental factors in one and the same state of consciousness. > At least four links are bound up with karmically wholesome > consciousness but Right View is not necessarily present in every > wholesome state of consciousness." ..... > "All khandas/phenomena are compared respectively, to a lump of froth, > a bubble, a mirage, a coreless plantain stem, a conjuring trick, a > m ..... As it’s quite easy to misunderstand this commonly recited quote, sometimes with suggestions that there are no characteristics and no realities at all, as in a dream (when only pannatti-concepts) are experienced, I’d like to sign off, but re-quote the commentary notes to SN, Phena Sutta again. It is apparent that it is the ti-lakkhana that are again being stressed. J, thanks for your astute question (not really answered) and look forward to more. If you can provide another initial at least (other details if and when you feel inclined, of course), it’ll prevent me getting you confused or becoming ‘over familiar’ because J is what I call Jonothan (known in cyberspace as Jon) in real life;-) Sarah ===== From the Phena Sutta (A Lump of Foam) Spk notes translated by B.Bodhi: ***** note 190: “Spk: a bubble (bubbu.la) is feeble and cannot be grasped, for it breaks up as soon as it is seized; so too feeling is feeble and cannot be grasped as permanent and stable. As a bubble arises and ceases in a drop of water and does not last long, so too with feeling: 100,000 ‘ko.tis’ of feelings arise and cease in the time of a fingersnap (one ko.ti = 10 million). As a bubble arises in dependence on conditions, so feeling arises in dependence on a sense base, an object, the defilements, and contact.” “Spk: Perception is like a mirage (marikaa) in the sense that it is insubstantial, for one cannot grasp a mirage to drink or bathe or fill a pitcher. As a mirage deceives the multitude, so does perception, which entices people with th idea that the colourful object is beautiful, pleasurable, and permanent.” ***** Sarah:Does this mean feelings, perceptions and other paramatha dhammas (realities) don’t have lakhana (characteristics) or sabhava (nature) or that they don’t exist momentarily in their different ‘activities’? No. ***** “Spk: As a plaintain trunk (kadalikkhandha) is an assemblage of many sheaths, each with its own characteristic, so the aggregate of volitional formations is an assemblage of many phenomena, each with its own characteristic.” “Spk: Consciousness is like a magical illusion (maayaa) in the sense that it is insubstantial and cannot be grasped. Consciousness is even more transient and fleeting than a magical illusion. For it gives the impression that a person comes and goes, stands and sits, with the same mind, but the mind is different in each of these activities. Consciousness deceives the multitude like a magical illusion.” ***** ====================================================== 13462 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed May 22, 2002 5:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'no control', Reply to Rob E. --- Sukin wrote: > Hi Rob, > Whew!! Finally finished reading your looong post. > Sorry about yesterday, wasn't a good day for me. > I always like reading your thoughts even if I don't fully agree, thanks > you consider from many angles. > > Hope you don't mind me not quoting you in the full, since its such > a long post I'm replying to. Also I changing the name of the subject. > > > importance to 'activity' will I feel lead to some form of > silabbataparamasa > > or the other. > > Robert: > Unfortunately do not know this term. But I am impressed by how long it is. > If you can translate I would appreciate it. > > Sukin: > Silabbataparamasa is "wrong practise", meaning anything we do with the view > that doing such things will lead to understanding. Sutta study for instance? Or is this exempt from being 'wrong practice'? > Robert: > I feel that the idea of developing kusala 'naturally' is itself an intention > imposed on the 'naturalness' of the arising moments, and I would be interested > to see > how you can get a 'natural' development out of such a situation. > > Sukin: > Vipaka arises all through life and we cannot know, less predict when which > kamma will bear fruit as sense impressions through which doorway. Our > > accumulated kilesas will condition the subsequent moments and > we will be accumulating more akusala. Sometimes however kusala can arise > because conditions for it has arisen. Whether sati and panna will arise at > any moment is beyond anyones control, so there is no *trying* to be natural. control and intention are not the same thing. intentions create results, whether immediately or later, if they are actual intentions. since every cause has an effect, this shuld be true, shoudn't it? one confuses 'control' with 'results'. certainly intentions and practices yield *results* that are in keeping with those intentions or practices. this is in keeping with the law of cause and effect, the law of kamma. if in fact it is totally unpredictable which activities will produce kusala or akusala results, then we would be living in a seemingly random, chaotic universe. Buddha's teaching is that it is not random, but direct. Yes, conditions combine in complex ways, but i think it is an error to say that everything is so complex that we have no idea what is going on. I think we can be logical creatures, as Buddha advises, and pay attention to the results of actions, and act accordingly. To think that we have to remain in an attitude of infantile hope that one day the dhamma will shine on us and bring us to the next step if we just avoid purposeful action and behave 'naturally' seems very mistaken to me. My understanding is that Buddha said we must achieve liberation *through our own efforts*, not through waiting for an outside force, and that we must clear up our own doubts through following the Dhamma and observing the results until we become *skilled*. A passive attitude and a belief in random cause and effect, albeit resulting from past kamma in some amazingly complex way, will not, in my opinion, help our progress. What it does do is put us in a passive position, one which is similar to the followers of many teachings, who disempower themselves and empower their teachers, the gurus or experts. This is not what buddha intended. The idea that there is no 'self' can be used incorrectly to disempower the aspirant for enlightenment. Buddha meant to empower us, not take away our power by saying we have no control. The relief from having a self is a *freedom*, not a handicap. > There will be understanding or there will not, as simple as that. Surely > intention > is there, but there is no seeking out already fallen states or unarisen ones. > Nor trying to 'be' more attentive. Well I disagree. The theory of cittas has its own set of escape hatches, such as the innumerable cetasikas which can cross-hatch each other in such a way as to cause a number of complex effects, and the fact that the accumulations of the cittas are passed on from one to the next. In other words, if an intention arises in one citta, it may be passed to the next one and so on and so forth. This means the opposite of what you have said here: the cittas do not merely arise and fall, they develop factors and accumulate them, and pass them down. So you *can* develop and build intentions and have systematic results. If this were not the case, I don't believe that Buddhism would be a workable approach. It can't be random, and it can't be totally passive or one may as well study supermarket coupons or the phone book. If studying the Suttas and taking good spiritual advice from trusted teachers of dhamma have slow but systematic results, then why should meditation and other intentional activities have similarly positive results? I still don't get the distinction. I know I'm being pretty tough here, but I want to get to the real bones of the issue and see if we can draw some solid conclusions at some point. > Robert: > How can we possibly factor in the.........activities and efforts is barking > up the wrong tree. > > Sukin: > Surely every individual factor comprising a moment of citta, including the > arammana influences the type and quality of the citta. A citta conditioned > > by sati and panna and other beautiful cetasikas will be quite different from > > a citta conditioned by lobha and a desire to 'catch' and know the moment. > > The former will accomplish its function to understand, the latter will defeat > > its own purpose. Well we can certainly learn and develop the right attitude towards discernment and learn to recognize those attitudes and approaches that are defeating of our purpose. This is a matter of intelligence, practice and assessment, not coincidence. > Robert: > Instead we should follow our true intention ........ most effectively follow the > path. > > Sukin: > Do you think, once you have found the path best suited to you, your sincere > intentions to follow that path will carry you through? So is it only the > question of finding your path and following it to the end? I don't understand the intention of your question, if it is not to say that this is not true. What is missing from finding the true path and following it? The question is of what the path consists, but other than that, yes, that is what is to be done. it is not 'my path' though, it is my understanding of the teachings and how to apply them in order to do what Buddha teaches. > Robert: > If there were only one answer to this question, ....... false starts and > layers of delusion, even for those who follow the dhamma as closely > > as they know how. > > Sukin: > I agree, trying out different methods must be quite stressful, but I don't > think the difficulty of the path is due to these diversions. The difficulty > > is in our deeply conditioned, faulty way of viewing reality, made harder > > by our continual accumulation of ignorance. > > Robert: > To start with, there is more than one approach to Buddhism, > > Sukin: > Buddhism as we know it, not as the Buddha taught. Or do you think that the > Mahayana teachings are the actual word of the Buddha? I am not a scholar and I don't know what the proofs are for historical validity of any teachings. What i do know is that there is wisdom in both Theravada and Mahayana. I don't have any doubt of that. > Robert: > The Mahayana school says that the Theravadan school is the lesser vehicle > for those of ordinary capacities. The Vajrayana-Tibetan school says that both > the > other schools in their ordinary practices are limited. > > Sukin: > This might interest you Rob, I have become pro Theravada less than two years > ago. Before that I read some Mahayana and a little bit about what Vajrayana was, > I never questioned their assertions about them being progressively superior to > Theravada. I believed their arguments. Interestingly at one point a couple of > months ago, > I was reminded about vajrayana, about how they teach about seeing no difference > between Nirvana and Samsara, and that their aim is to view any and every event > without choice and as equally enlightening. I compared this to K. Sujin's > attitude > towards the teachings and I saw that she encourages the same thing without > having to > go through all the hassles that the other practice puts forward as a > pre-condition. And I dare say, more simply and affectively. Well that is not to say that one is ultimately more effective than the other. We don't really know that, but we do know that there is wisdom in Buddhist teachings. > Robert: > Meanwhile the Buddha......Yet the debates go on, because we are in samsara. > > Sukin: > Yes, debating is pointless I think. > > Robert: > The concept 'Abhidhamma', .........of the mind and perception [namas and > rupas]. > > Sukin: > I agree. > > Robert: > In my opinion, one can use these sorts of things as a barometer of progress. > If the Buddha talks about feelings and realizations that mark progress on the > path, > we can look to these things. > > Sukin: > Personally I don't find it useful to measure my or anyone else's progress, > not knowing how to do it without giving importance to 'self' ;-). Well there is a path and there is a goal. If not, what is the point? If one is training to do something, one has some way of assessing whether they are heading in the right direction, doing the right process. One can't walk around in circles and be satisfied, so we have to have something to see if we are heading in the right direction, no? > Robert: > If we cannot use something .......So we have to develop some sort of real > observation of what is happening in our consciousness, even if it is very slow. > > Sukin: > I think it isn't necessary, just keep on studying and applying the teachings > in an unforced manner. well, that's okay. that's one way of following the teachings, I would say. Certainly strain and force will not be helpful. > Robert: > There have been some strong moments of clearly seeing .....me shows a > general trend towards progress on the path. > > Sukin: > Good, but is it worth clinging to?:-) You added that. Who said anything about clinging? i'm talking about whether one is heading in the right direction. Anyone, from scientist to artist, would check their results. you assume there is clinging there. > > Robert: > Shouldn't we keep track of .....taking an outside source as the measure, and > we will never reach the independence necessary to be able to discern with > surety. > > Sukin: > I think only when we have discerned the rise and fall of nama and rupa, > knowing clearly the distinction between the two, as a sotapanna has, > > can we really know for sure that what the Buddha taught is all true and > > only then will we really be independent and no more need outside confirmation. but we have to develop that capacity and we have to work in a way that will get us there. it won't happen by accident. > Robert: > I think this is different than the general practices ...... Isn't there some > intention in that decision? Sure there is. > > Sukin: > Intention is in every citta, it arises and falls with it and it takes on the > quality of the citta, being with or without sati and panna. yes, but it also accumulates and is passed on. > >And I definitely do not believe that practices of other religions, such as > > yoga, can lead to sati and panna. > Robert: > Well, I understand your point of view, but I don't think you can really know > that, can you? How would you know whether it does or not > > > > > Kusala was and is recognized by all other religions > > and I do believe that some level of kusala can be developed by performing > > activities such as yoga and tai chi, but not sati and panna. > Robert: > This seems to be an assumption on your part unless you have some other > knowledge that this is the case. > > > Sukin: > > I use sati here for sati of the level of satipatthana, which means having a > reality > > as object. I do not think other practices can lead to actually percieving > elementary > > realities. It is an assumption and will remain so until I actually tread the > path to > > its fruition, meanwhile it is based on rational thinking and faith in the > Buddha's > > teachings. in other words, it is a belief system based on Buddha's teachings. not that there's anything wrong with that. > > The kusala they > > all encourage is with some sense and form of self or the other. > > > Robert: > With respect, this is not only true ...... Ramana Maharshi and Nisargardatta > > in Advaita Vedanta, whom I believe thoroughly realized anatta through and > > through. It is so indicated in both their lives and their conversations. > > > > Sukin: > > It is hard for me at this point to give a reasonable( I have to think more ) > argument to support my claim. But hope you don't mind my pointing out > that Nisargardatta either was a chain smoker or sold cigarettes as a > living. Do you think that an enlightened person could do that? I think it's a mistake to draw assumptions in that way. Nisargardatta saw the emptiness of all phenomena and saw no reason to change his behavior. He just kept doing what he had always done. i have heard many arguments saying that one should not worry about 'fixing' this reality, but instead discern its true nature, and that is what he emphasized. > Would you choose to? A sotapanna could never do such. Besides > people like the two you mentioned above, did believe in a great > 'SELF' a 'THAT' no? no, they used the terminology of their culure, but it is clear by their words that they did not consider the SELF to be a thing, an entity, a field of being, or a separate or universal identity. they said that individual entities did not exist as such. > > They have no idea of anatta, or even anicca. > > > Robert: > I would disagree. While anatta is the clear realization of the Buddha, others > have come to see anatta in their own terms. I think it is a realization > waiting to be discovered, not an invention of the Buddha. > > > > Sukin: > > Nobody has ever said that the Buddha invented anything, he didn't even invent > buddhism;-). Anatta can be discovered, but by Buddhas only and i doubt there > has been a Paceka Buddha even, in this past 2500 years. matter of opinion. > Robert: > > I don't think this is true in the case of great sages of Hinduism......cases > are realized within other forms of practice and terminologies. > Sukin: > > Hope you don't mind that I do not want to make any comments here. that's up to you. > Robert: > The Buddha did not originate the non-conceptual realization of impermanence. > It is a standard in Hindu meditation. > Sukin: > > Are you sure that they know that consciousness is an element, rising momentarily > conditioning the next moment on and on? there is certainly a great moment-to-moment literature as to the continuous arising and changing of consciousness. as to the individual citta theory, that is a property of abhidhamma and not necessarily of Theravada in general. If not how can they see rise and fall of > individual cittas? It would surprise me greatly if you brought out some proof. to be able to see the specific content of each moment is a property of advanced meditation as well as Buddhist philosophy. as for 'individual cittas', we will both have to wait to see if they really arise and fall as single elements in a string of beads, or whether they break down to non-units in a continuous changing thread. so far the idea that there are specific bounded cittas that have clear boundaries seems quite substantialist to me and is controversial within Buddhism at large. I don't take it as a requirement for being 'Buddhist'. > Robert: > > For instance, Nisargardatta states that the self is not an entity but is > just a conceptual object of consciousness. > > > > Sukin: > > Yes perhaps( never read him) but wasn't he in this case trying to point out that > the small individual 'self' is non existent, only to show that the 'real' self was > the "SELF"? > Actually he used a more specific language than that, which referred to something much less entity-like than the SELF, although he employed that terminology also. his more specific terminology was phenomenon and noumena, which is closer to the Buddha's teaching. > > The Buddha was equally perfect in wisdom the first moment he attained > > enlightenment till the moment before he attained parinibbana. The wisdom > > of the arahants all combined do not equal to a small part of the Buddhas. > > > Robert: > I don't say you are wrong, but I would challenge whether you actually know > this to be the case. What's the evidence for this? > > > > Sukin: > > Just that to be a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha means that all the qualities have > been developed and accumulated to 100%. well I don't believe in 100% within samsara, this is a form of perfectionism to me. moments are neither perfect nor imperfect, they are what they are. the Buddha is one who has no delusions, but you really can't measure other qualities by percent. Does the buddha say he is a perfect being? Just curious. > > > Wisdom cannot be added and improved upon by sucessive generations. > > > Robert: > Another disagreement. This is to set the Buddha's words in stone, rather > than to reinvigorate them with our understanding in each generation. That which > is > set in stone becomes remote and static in my opinion. It must be put into > practice > in each of us by making it our own. > > > > Sukin: > > I think every buddhist knows that his religion is a practical religion not just > a set > of doctrines. By my statement above I meant that the original teacher's insights > can only be taken as a guide, but can never be re examined and corrected and > improved upon by its followers. Later generations can only adulterate the > teachings. I disagree. Each generation does add something to understanding. The original teachings are of the highest order, but that doesn't mean there's nothing for us to do to create a continuing tradition. > > A system of practice like yoga which has been worked upon and changed > > through time can only result in getting people cling to the superficial > > aspect of it. > > > Robert: > I disagree strongly. ...... This does not change the nature of yoga. > > Sukin: > > Sorry I made the wrong assumption, I based my conclusion on the variety > of yoga books available in the market. > > > My conclusion thus is, such practices not only do not help in buddhist > > practise, but if seen instead as being a support, can be extremely > > detrimental to development of panna. > > > Robert: > I think this is just an opinion here, ....... Buddhism can be useful. > > > Satipatthana is the *only* way. > > > Robert: > Well, that is like me saying 'meditation is the only way.' .......and so many > different factors to be developed. > > Sukin: > > Satipatthana means to be mindful of 'realities'. It can happen under whatever > circumstance, even when one is meditating, I like that. 'even when one is meditating'. do you see that there is some prejudice here against the traditional activities of Buddhism? You do realize that most Buddhists believe in meditation as the Buddha's preferred method? and make it their main practice? only that it would be harder > to come by if one thinks that one has to do certain activities (like meditation) > in order that it will arise. AGain, or if they think they will get some benefit out of reading suttas and commentarires. please tell me the difference between believing in one or the other. It is the only 'way' to enlightenment but not in > the sense that it is a programme or something. From this point of view, it can be > reached from as many number of directions as there are beings practising it. > > Robert: > > All of our activities are intentional, .......of Abhidhamma teaching that is an > intentional practice. There is nothing natural about it. It is a guided > activity > within a conceptual framework. > > Sukin: > > True > > Robert > > To not acknowledge this is very dangerous as it tends.....amazing honesty > and attention to release one's own view and be in the presence of the naked > moment. > > Sukin: > > Yes, and knowing that at the moment it arises frees us from this tendency. In meditation too. But meditation has the advantage of literally focussing the awareness, and one can still account for the intention and let go of clinging while still doing a practice. But > what about moments of seeing, hearing etc., do we doubt those moments? > Aren't these moments real? even if our sati and panna is not sharp enough to > perceive them as just elements. We can in any case know the individual > characteristics that are apparent even though clouded by the 'I' experiencing it. Meditation has a similar purpose, to simply see the nature of the mind as it appears in the moment through arising thoughts, sensations, breath, arising phenomena. it is the same thing, only concentrated. > Robert: > Having a view that one way is right and the other is wrong does not aid this > endeavor, in fact it prejudices it and makes it even more difficult to see > what is really happening when *all* views are seen as merely views and the > moment > itself is allowed to deliver its true nature directly to consciousness without > concepts in the way. > > Sukin: > > But even views arise and fall don't they? Its not like it is going to be there > all the time, no? > > Otherwise we will have to get rid of all akusala before we can develop panna. yes, but we work like demons to keep our views in place. and we keep reconstituting them and accumulating them in many moments. so they stick around even though they rise and fall again and again. so maybe we should let go rather than hold on to our views when they do arise. > Robert: > That's one way of looking at it. A less complex way of looking at it would > be to say that it is all 'merely taking place'. .... one drawn from philosophy. > > > Sukin: > I was drawing you attention to the complexity and hence impossibility of > pinpointing any particular activity as being a direct cause for sati and panna > to arise. I see that as a way of dismissing practices that have been proven to be helpful and effective over many centuries. I don't think it's the most helpful view, to see things as so complex that it is random cause and effect to us, but then to step back in say but on the other hand we should study suttas and read the commentaries. that is contradictory. we certainly think *those* activities will yield results, despite the complexity of causes. > Robert: > Well, I do know that focussing on an object causes more focussed attention. > A simple fact. Is that a good thing? > > Sukin: > I think its better than watching TV and playing video games as I do.;-) > > Robert: > Jon gave a decent ..... Frankly, I think it's a grave error to think one > must or should stick to naturally discerning everyday realities while shying > away from a real practice in which mindfulness is highlighted, and by > which the work with everyday realities would be greatly enhanced. > > Sukin: > I would say that if practising Jhana was something you did as a daily thing > before hearing about buddhism, then I would advise you to take tips and > advice from the Tipitaka as to how to best do it. But if you have heard about > jhana only after encountering buddhism and have the idea that jhana > somehow can be used as a tool for developing sati, then I think you are wrong. everything that supports discernment and the develpment of understanding is helpful. I don't have a superstition about when or how i had to hear about it. anything that is clung to and controlled is non-helpful. so in meditation one must let go of controlling results, and one must do so in sutta study as well. I still don't see the difference. > Robert: > Can anyone else? Yes or no, depending on whether they do or not. Why be > particularly prejudiced against a great meditation teacher? ........ They are > both > teaching about ways of applying the Dhamma, both legitimate ways of doing so. > But because of philosophical predispositions you can only accept the usefulness > of one and not the other. I see this as a form of prejudice. > > Sukin: > One is telling you about the way things are in general. About how development > takes place, the right and wrong paths etc., leaving the rest for conditions to > arise > when you may be able to recognize them. The other proposes a pattern of > behavior and agenda to follow and there are inevitably expectations connected > to this. well this is a good explanation. thanks for that. on the other hand, I don't believe that one follows the dhamma 'in general' and without expectations. i think all practices are in the same boat. > Robert: > Have you examined it, and found that it is really true? Or is > it an idea you have developed from your affiliation with a school of thought? > > Sukin: > Thanks, I often think of this. I can never be perfectly sure, but nothing else > is > more appealing and makes more sense to me. ah, so it is a matter of faith, predilection and instinct. we are in the same boat, just different crafts. > Dead tired. > Better rush to sleep now. > I am not checking it so I expect some mistakes in this letter. > > best wishes, > Sukin. i expect mine, which is written even later, is full of problems. but I appreciate the dialogue. best, robert 13463 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed May 22, 2002 5:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Deciding how best to act Yes Kom, I totally agree ... that's why I - the reasonable, rational one - joined this wonderful group. Though now I'm worried about what clothes you are all wearing..... :) Never thought of 'counterfeit' admirable friends before. :) No, can't be such a thing, can there? metta, Christine --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Christine and Jon, > > Sorry to butt in, but this is too entertaining to resist... > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jonothan Abbott > > > Sometimes I feel as if there are two me's - a > > reasonable, rational > > > one who drags a kicking and resisting one along. :-) > > > Thanks for the common sense advice. > > > > Well, the 'kicking and resisting one' is also > > very zany and entertaining, > > and it helps keep a good balance here! > > > > Just while I am entertaining my zany friends, I need to > remind myself, the entertaining friends would only lead to > bad plane of existence, miserable plane of existence, and > hell, or at the very least many more continued rounds of > existence. The more rational friends will lead me (if it's > not the entertaining friends who dress up as the rational > friends) to good plane of existence, happy plane of > existence, and heaven, and if we are persistent, eventually > the release. Hmm.... Good friends should really be > appreciated... > > kom 13464 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 22, 2002 5:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 8 (2)Larry/Azita Hi Larry, Excuse me, just this once (well, no promises) interspersing my comments amongst yours as I'm short of time: ..... --- <> wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Just a couple of questions in response to your reply. > > You wrote, "I don't think we can say that "akusala roots are what is > most commonly taken for self"." What do you consider to be the basic > manifestation of the particular sense of 'me' right now? ..... Anything (concept or reality) taken to be ‘me’, ‘my’, ‘mine’ or a ‘thing’ right now at moments of (micha) ditthi in particular. If you ask what objects are ‘most commonly taken for self’, surely they are the seeing, visible object, hearing, sound and so on. ..... > You also wrote, "Likewise, vipaka (say, seeing or hearing), never > becomes 'the attribute of the akusala citta" (if I understand you), but > akusala cittas and cetasikas succeeding the vipaka may cling, be averse, > be ignorant or have wrong view of that vipaka." > > Do you regard your shirt as an attribute of who you are ('who you are' > being an akusala citta according to me)? Isn't your shirt a vipaka? ..... A shirt is a concept. It doesn’t exist. Vipaka refers to specific realities. Am I misunderstanding you? ..... > Finally you wrote, "Instead of saying "the feeling is lobha, dosa or > moha", I'd suggest there are different feelings (pleasant, unpleasant, > neutral vedana) accompanying these other mental factors." What are > lobha, dosa, and moha _in experience_ if not feelings? ..... As we’re discussing a book on Abhidhamma, I think it’s helpful to be more specific. We know there are 5 khandhas. Feelings (vedana) have their own khandha (ch2), just as sanna (memory) does. Lobha, dosa and moha are another 3 of the 52 cetasikas which are all included (less vedana and sanna) in sankhara khandha. They are also the 3 unwholesome roots of all akusala cittas. It’s confusing if we refer to them as feelings, even though they are always accompanied by feelings. For example, lobha may be accompanied by pleasant feeling or by indifferent feeling. Kusala cittas may also be accompanied by pleasant feeling or indifferent feeling, so we can see that we cannot tell the mental state just from the feeling. ..... > hope this leaves you hope-less, Larry ..... Ah yes, but I question whether this leaves you question-less;-) I'd planned to look at your more recent questions too, but have to dash, so hopefully someone else like Kom will. Sarah ===== 13465 From: Howard Date: Wed May 22, 2002 1:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A self ouside the khandas/simultaneity Hi, Sarah - No, not me. With metta, Howard > To continue the quote you (Howard?) gave just a little further while we > are being particular: > ..... > >Mindfulness is meant > > to encompass the whole personality and starts with the body as primary > > and regular subject of meditation." > > > > There are many ways of analysis of "body" leading to insight into > > anatta in all Buddhist traditions. > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13466 From: Howard Date: Wed May 22, 2002 2:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'no control', Reply to Rob E. Hi, Robert (and Sukin) - In a message dated 5/22/02 5:18:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert Ep writes: > there is certainly a great moment-to-moment literature as to the continuous > arising and changing of consciousness. as to the individual citta theory, > that is > a property of abhidhamma and not necessarily of Theravada in general. > > If not how can they see rise and fall of > > individual cittas? It would surprise me greatly if you brought out some > proof. > > to be able to see the specific content of each moment is a property of > advanced > meditation as well as Buddhist philosophy. as for 'individual cittas', we > will > both have to wait to see if they really arise and fall as single elements > in a > string of beads, or whether they break down to non-units in a continuous > changing > thread. so far the idea that there are specific bounded cittas that have > clear > boundaries seems quite substantialist to me and is controversial within > Buddhism > at large. I don't take it as a requirement for being 'Buddhist'. > > ========================== Rob, there are *so* many points you raise in this long post, in addition to what I quote above, that I agree with. One major one is an addressing of an apparent tendency towards randomness, pointing it out and criticizing it. I concur that the recognition of "no control" due to "impersonality" can improperly lead to a sense of helplessness and randomness, and it is important for this pitfall to be pointed out. Also, I concur with your assessment, as expressed in what I quote above, of the string-of-beads interpretation of the dhamma theory not being a requirement for being 'Buddhist'. When it is said that conditioned dhammas are impermanent, this does not require discreteness and sharp boundaries. There may be no more to be said than simply statements of the sort "There was the experience of redness, but now there is not"; that is, impermanence merely means that conditions don't remain. On the other hand, since the Abhidhamma doesn't countenance any gaps between mindstates, perhaps the distinction between continuity and discreteness is a false distinction, with the reality being a middle-way one between these extremes. But we do have to be careful in not imposing our commonsense notions of boundaries on the details of experience. The boundaries between cittas, marked by either a change in arammana or the removal or addition of cetasikas, would best not be taken to be "realities", else we run into all the paradoxes of Zeno and Nagarjuna. At the alleged point at which a cetasika ceases, is it in effect, or not in effect, or both, or neither?! A whole mess of trouble is created in reifying boundaries. I think we need to stick with the more empirical view of "This was, and now it is not". With metta, Howard 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) 13467 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 22, 2002 7:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Howard --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Sarah and Robert - … > Robert, you and I understand concepts to be thoughts/ideas, and not > their alleged referents (which, in terms of direct experience, sometimes > exist, but most often don't.) I believe that the firm of Sarah, Jon & > Associates, Ltd (Does that have a good ring to it, Sarah? ;-)) > systematically > conflate the two, or, if not that, then, at least, when using the term > 'concept', have the alleged referents in mind whereas we have the ideas in > mind. Thus, as I see it, there are two groups of people here, one group > talking about A, the other talking about B, with A and B different, but we > are all acting as though we mean the same thing. Such conversations can > be amazingly coherent despite the fact that they shouldn't be at all! ;-)) > > With metta, > Howard I thought this was a very useful attempt to summarise and isolate the differences between us on this issue. However, on what you've said here, there is no difference that I can see. I too understand concepts to be thoughts/ideas and not their alleged referents. When I use the term 'concept' I have only ideas in mind. Any idea of an actual 'object' is just that, an idea. Now, where does that leave us, I wonder! Jon PS I speak of course for myself and not for the senior partner of the firm ;-)) 13468 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 22, 2002 8:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Howard Again, I find myself in agreement with you here, on the substance of your post (that is, putting aside your comments about the appropriateness of the designation 'concept'). --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Sarah - … > My point is merely that I don't think our differences are > differences > in content, but only in terminology. Perhaps the translation of > 'pa~n~natti' > as 'concept' is not the best translation. If 'pa~n~natti' denotes an > alleged > concept-reference such as the tree on my back lawn that I am > (conventionally) > looking at right now, then the translation of it as 'concept' is > misleading > to those many people who think of concepts as mere ideas. The relatively > concrete"tree on my back lawn", is, itself, a mental construct composed of > very recent memories (mainly visual) with the idea of tree (the concept per > se) superimposed. But it is not the same as the concept of 'tree on my > back > lawn', because there is more "immediacy" to it, due to its having been > constructed from just-experienced conditions. At least that is how I > understand it. In no case do I understand it to be some external > "thing". > Perhaps a translation of 'pa~n~natti' as 'percept' might come closer - I > would find that very clear. But, in any case, the "reality" is an > internal > one, with any alleged external "tree" being nonexistent, or, at least, > in principle unknowable. Yes, there is no alleged external "tree". There are only ever namas and rupas arising and falling away, and only those that arise with or are the object of a present mind-moment have any 'reality'. Anything else at that moment can only be a concept (mental construct). I also agree with you that pannatti does not denote 'an alleged concept-reference' (as you put it). Jon That makes it twice in one day ;-)). 13469 From: Howard Date: Wed May 22, 2002 4:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/22/02 7:53:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jon writes: > > Howard > > --- Howard wrote: > > Hi, Sarah and Robert - > … > > Robert, you and I understand concepts to be thoughts/ideas, and not > > their alleged referents (which, in terms of direct experience, sometimes > > exist, but most often don't.) I believe that the firm of Sarah, Jon & > > Associates, Ltd (Does that have a good ring to it, Sarah? ;-)) > > systematically > > conflate the two, or, if not that, then, at least, when using the term > > 'concept', have the alleged referents in mind whereas we have the ideas > in > > mind. Thus, as I see it, there are two groups of people here, one group > > talking about A, the other talking about B, with A and B different, but > we > > are all acting as though we mean the same thing. Such conversations can > > be amazingly coherent despite the fact that they shouldn't be at all! > ;-)) > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > I thought this was a very useful attempt to summarise and isolate the > differences between us on this issue. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Thank you. --------------------------------------------- > > However, on what you've said here, there is no difference that I can see. > I too understand concepts to be thoughts/ideas and not their alleged > referents. When I use the term 'concept' I have only ideas in mind. > > Any idea of an actual 'object' is just that, an idea. > > Now, where does that leave us, I wonder! > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: It leaves me mildly surprised, and it seems to leave us in complete agreement! ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Jon > > PS I speak of course for myself and not for the senior partner of the > firm ;-)) > > ============================ ;-)) 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) 13470 From: yuzhonghao Date: Wed May 22, 2002 8:33pm Subject: Re: anicca Jon and all, Is a mental construct permanent or impermanent? Is it satisfactory or unsatisfactory? Is it to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self."? Regards, Victor > > Yes, there is no alleged external "tree". There are only ever namas and > rupas arising and falling away, and only those that arise with or are the > object of a present mind-moment have any 'reality'. Anything else at that > moment can only be a concept (mental construct). > > I also agree with you that pannatti does not denote 'an alleged > concept-reference' (as you put it). > > Jon > > That makes it twice in one day ;-)). 13471 From: Howard Date: Wed May 22, 2002 4:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/22/02 8:17:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jon writes: > > Howard > > Again, I find myself in agreement with you here, on the substance of your > post (that is, putting aside your comments about the appropriateness of > the designation 'concept'). > > --- Howard wrote: > > Hi, Sarah - > … > > My point is merely that I don't think our differences are > > differences > > in content, but only in terminology. Perhaps the translation of > > 'pa~n~natti' > > as 'concept' is not the best translation. If 'pa~n~natti' denotes an > > alleged > > concept-reference such as the tree on my back lawn that I am > > (conventionally) > > looking at right now, then the translation of it as 'concept' is > > misleading > > to those many people who think of concepts as mere ideas. The relatively > > concrete"tree on my back lawn", is, itself, a mental construct composed > of > > very recent memories (mainly visual) with the idea of tree (the concept > per > > se) superimposed. But it is not the same as the concept of 'tree on my > > back > > lawn', because there is more "immediacy" to it, due to its having been > > constructed from just-experienced conditions. At least that is how I > > understand it. In no case do I understand it to be some external > > "thing". > > Perhaps a translation of 'pa~n~natti' as 'percept' might come closer - I > > would find that very clear. But, in any case, the "reality" is an > > internal > > one, with any alleged external "tree" being nonexistent, or, at least, > > in principle unknowable. > > Yes, there is no alleged external "tree". There are only ever namas and > rupas arising and falling away, and only those that arise with or are the > object of a present mind-moment have any 'reality'. Anything else at that > moment can only be a concept (mental construct). > > I also agree with you that pannatti does not denote 'an alleged > concept-reference' (as you put it). > > Jon > > That makes it twice in one day ;-)). > > ========================= Yes, indeed it does! And it "makes my day"! :-) 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) 13472 From: yuzhonghao Date: Wed May 22, 2002 8:42pm Subject: [dsg] Re: ritual (control?) TG, Read the verse again 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is self-control. See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html Regards, Victor > Hi Victor > > I'll ask you the same question. If there is "control" who or what is doing > the controling? > > TG > > > > > In a message dated 5/21/2002 5:41:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Victor writes: > > > > 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train > > others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is > > self-control. > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html > > > > Regards, > > Victor > 13473 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 22, 2002 8:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. Howard --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - … > We are in basic agreement on this Robert, but, actually, I think > that > Abidhamma is as well. As I understand it, the Buddhist perspective, and > most > explicitly so in Abhidhamma, is a phenomenalist one which doesn't > countenance objects existing independently of experience. Here I have to enter a possible disagreement, but one that I hope may also turn out to be more a matter of terminology than of substance ;-). > There is no hardness other than the experience of hardness, > at least none that can be actually known. I see a difference between the 2 assertions in your preceding statement, namely that-- (a) There is no hardness other than the hardness being experienced. (b) There is no hardness that can be actually known other than the hardness being experienced The statement at (b) is clearly so, in terms of the teachings (to my understanding). The statement at (a) needs to be qualified, I think. Hardness like any other reality arises because of conditions. In the case of the hardness that we take as being part of an inanimate object (like a table, tree or building), those conditions do not include the fact of their being the object of someone's citta. In other words, the hardness does not arise dependent on there being someone there to experience it. But speaking from the point of view of an individual, the statement at (a) is correct, because there is no hardness in the world of the present moment other than the hardness being experienced by the citta of that moment. > But there is more to not being a self-existing entity or object > with > "own being" than just not being a mind-independent "external object". Just a reminder that I for one have never asserted dhammas to be 'self-existing entities' or 'objects with own-being' (nor has anyone else on this list to my knowledge -- are you not tilting at windmills here, Howard?! ;-) ). And I certainly agree that there is no such thing as a 'mind-independent "external object"' > Even > "internal phenomena" including such experiential phenomena as sights, > sounds, > sensed odors and touches, thoughts, emotions, mind images etc, all > direct > elements of experience, fail to be self-existing entities, being mere > dependent arisings, mere fleeting things-in-relation, each being nothing > more > than its characteristics, and each arising in dependence on other > similarly > empty, fleeting conditions. No argument from me here either. I wonder what it is we've been in disagreement about all this while ;-)). Jon 13474 From: yuzhonghao Date: Wed May 22, 2002 9:00pm Subject: Convention, Beliefs, and Pragmatics of Self Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Rober... Howard and all, I suggest examining how the Buddha used the word "self" as recorded in the discourses and comparing it with how one would use the word "self." Regarding the statement "There is, in fact, no self at all right now" see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html Regards, Victor > Howard: > I would say that there is. There is, in fact, no self at all right > now. Any discerning right now is a conditioned, samsaric discerning, and it > is no self. There is no self to be found, and, thus, no self to be > annihilated. There are just conditions and the knowing of conditions, with > that knowing being yet one more condition, and with the advent of nibbana, > there is just the absence of conditions, and there is no *separate* knowing > of that absence, for that would be a condition, and thus what there *would* > be is beyond all categories, beyond description. (Even to use the word 'be' > is to be in error. To say *anything* is to be in error. Only silence would be > without error. This whole post is in error!) > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > And to me that necessitates something still existing, even though it is > > neither > > self nor form. > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. > > > ============================= > With metta, > Howard 13475 From: Joyce Short Date: Wed May 22, 2002 8:59pm Subject: Control/Questions of King Milinda/Non-occurrence Hi Sarah, Thanks for your kind response...(re: khandas/simultaneity). I'm banging away here doing review so be sure to shout when you see I've got something wrong. A question at the bottom of this if anyone has any thoughts (?) Many thanks. >>Mindfulness is meant >> to encompass the whole personality and starts with the body as primary >> and regular subject of meditation." That is from Nyanatiloka. And in practice we begin with the body in the body, (kayanupassana) although the four frames are not practiced one by one as separate exercises. See pgae 166-167 in Dictionary. >> >> There are many ways of analysis of "body" leading to insight into >> anatta in all Buddhist traditions. > ..... > Hmm, this is definitely not what I believe the Satipatthana Sutta to be > saying. As we often discuss here (and Rob K and Sukin are discussing in > other threads), as soon as their is an idea of ‘order’ or ‘rule’ or object > as ‘primary’ or first, then it suggests an idea of selection, control > which defeats the purpose of the previous quotes on anatta. Yes, I was reflecting on the "control" thread. The flow of Paticcasamuppada is conditioned by Ignorance (lack of mindfulness). "Through Ignorance are conditioned the sankharas, i.e. the rebirth-producing volitions (cetana) or "karma-formations"...."Through the karma-formations is conditioned consciousness (in the present life) etc. Pg 128.... So it would seem that the "control" aspect is mindfulness? A series of events can be identified as "me" and "mine" (I) or there can be dis-identified observing of a stream of events. This is mastered by seeing in the stream of events impersonality, impermanence and suffering. In the context of anatta one avoids the suffering implicit in questions of "self" ("controller" and "other" things to be controlled) by using an alternative strategy of dividing up experience: the Four Noble Truths of suffering, it's cause, it's cessation and the path to it's cessation. So we recognize things just as they are in the moment as they are directly experienced and then perform the appropriate duty... "Depending on the mind base there arises a series of mental activities such as thinking, imagining, depending on the body. One notes these in each case as they arise. With improved concentration the mind remains fixed on the object to which it is directed. On every occasion of noting, one notices a dual set of object (materiality) and mental state (mentality) which makes note of the object, rising together. Here one sees impermanence, suffering (the body is a collection of sufferings) Then at every time of noting it is found that elements of materiality and mentality occur according to their respective nature and conditioning and not according to one's wishes. One therefore realizes that they are 'not governable' they are not a person or living entity. Insight into non-self. Mind occurs singly, moment to moment in succession. Those who do not know this believe that one mind exists in the course of life or existence. They do not know that new minds are arising at every moment. They think that the seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking of the past and present belong to one and the same mind, and that three or four acts of seeing, hearing, knowing occur simultaneously. These are wrong views... Re: "CONTROL" -Those who do restrain the mind are sure to be released from Mara's bonds'. It is said that the mind should be contemplated (via mindfulness/awareness) at each moment of its occurrence. The mind can thus be controlled by means of contemplation. On his successful controlling of mind, the yogi will win freedom from Mara, the King of Death. It is important to note mind at each moment of its occurrence. And as soon as it is noted, the mind passes away". From Mahasi Sayadaw - Satipatthana Vipassana "In the Questions of King Milinda it is said: His consciousness, while carrying on the practice of bringing to mind (i.e. noticing), passes beyond the continuous occurrence of phenomena and alights upon non-occurrence. One who, having practiced in the correct manner, has alighted upon non-occurrence, O king, is said to have realized Nibbana." This from stages of insight Mahasi Sayadaw. Any thoughts on "non-occurrence"? Metta, Joyce 13476 From: Howard Date: Wed May 22, 2002 5:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: anicca Hi, Victor - In a message dated 5/22/02 8:34:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Victor writes: > Jon and all, > > Is a mental construct permanent or impermanent? > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: It's impermanent, Victor. No one here is questioning that so far as I know. ---------------------------------------------- > Is it satisfactory or unsatisfactory? > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Unsatisfactory, Victor. ---------------------------------------------- > Is it to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This > is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self."? > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yep, that too. ;-) ------------------------------------------------ > > Regards, > Victor > ========================== Victor, I doubt that anyone on this list thinks that any conditioned dhammas are anything other than impermanent and unsatisfactory, or that any dhammas are self/personal. When Sarah, for example, says that pa~n~natti are unchanging, I believe that is merely because pa~n~natti, understood as *referents* of mental constructs (concepts and percepts), are actually nonexistent and hence incapable of having *any* characteristics. A mental construct, itself, however - the mental phenomenon, is impermanent, ceasing whenever discernment of it ceases. Is your point in asking the rhetorical questions in your post to encourage us all to always directly notice the tilakkhana whenever we observe any dhamma, and to remind ourselves of them whenever we think of any dhamma? If that is so, then, because there is a difference between mere belief and direct seeing, such encouragement is a great idea! 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) 13477 From: Howard Date: Wed May 22, 2002 5:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/22/02 8:50:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jon writes: > > Howard > > --- Howard wrote: > > Hi, Robert - > … > > We are in basic agreement on this Robert, but, actually, I think > > that > > Abidhamma is as well. As I understand it, the Buddhist perspective, and > > most > > explicitly so in Abhidhamma, is a phenomenalist one which doesn't > > countenance objects existing independently of experience. > > Here I have to enter a possible disagreement, but one that I hope may also > turn out to be more a matter of terminology than of substance ;-). > > > There is no hardness other than the experience of hardness, > > at least none that can be actually known. > > I see a difference between the 2 assertions in your preceding statement, > namely that-- > (a) There is no hardness other than the hardness being experienced. > (b) There is no hardness that can be actually known other than the > hardness being experienced > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: There *is* a difference. Position (b) is the general phenomenalist one. Position (a) is the radical phenomenalist one which represents an admixture of phenomenalism with pragmatism - what is in principle unknowable is "as good as" nonexistent. ---------------------------------------------------- > > The statement at (b) is clearly so, in terms of the teachings (to my > understanding). > > The statement at (a) needs to be qualified, I think. Hardness like any > other reality arises because of conditions. In the case of the hardness > that we take as being part of an inanimate object (like a table, tree or > building), those conditions do not include the fact of their being the > object of someone's citta. In other words, the hardness does not arise > dependent on there being someone there to experience it. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh, but "the hardness that we take as being part of an inanimate object (like a table, tree or building)" is concept-only. There being no tables, trees, and buildings, there is no hardness possessed by them. It's actually the other way around: The occurrences of hardness directly experienced in mindstreams are compounded, along with other conditions, into concepts and percepts of such "things" as tables, trees, and buildings. -------------------------------------------------------- > > But speaking from the point of view of an individual, the statement at (a) > is correct, because there is no hardness in the world of the present > moment other than the hardness being experienced by the citta of that > moment. > > > But there is more to not being a self-existing entity or object > > with > > "own being" than just not being a mind-independent "external object". > > Just a reminder that I for one have never asserted dhammas to be > 'self-existing entities' or 'objects with own-being' (nor has anyone else > on this list to my knowledge -- are you not tilting at windmills here, > Howard?! ;-) ). And I certainly agree that there is no such thing as a > 'mind-independent "external object"' > > > Even > > "internal phenomena" including such experiential phenomena as sights, > > sounds, > > sensed odors and touches, thoughts, emotions, mind images etc, all > > direct > > elements of experience, fail to be self-existing entities, being mere > > dependent arisings, mere fleeting things-in-relation, each being nothing > > more > > than its characteristics, and each arising in dependence on other > > similarly > > empty, fleeting conditions. > > No argument from me here either. I wonder what it is we've been in > disagreement about all this while ;-)). > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: It beats me, Jon!! ;-)) I think it may all heve been a combination of terminological differences and differences in emphasis. ---------------------------------------------------- > > 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) 13478 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 22, 2002 9:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Hi, Victor, Glad to see you 'keeping an eye' on us all;-) --- yuzhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Just a suggestion that you might find useful: > > No matter what concept means to you, ask yourself these question: how > does a concept come to be? What are its conditions? ..... Following a tip from TG, may I ask you for your suggestions of responses to these questions, preferably having defined concept first? I promise to be asking myself at the same time and to share any conclusions after I hear yours;-) Sarah ===== 13479 From: yuzhonghao Date: Thu May 23, 2002 0:53am Subject: [dsg] Re: anicca Howard, It is good that you see mental construct as such, and each and every aggregate is to be seen as such. "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with 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 depleted, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'" See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html Regard, Victor > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 5/22/02 8:34:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Victor writes: > > > > Jon and all, > > > > Is a mental construct permanent or impermanent? > > > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > It's impermanent, Victor. No one here is questioning that so far as I > know. > ---------------------------------------------- > > > Is it satisfactory or unsatisfactory? > > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Unsatisfactory, Victor. > ---------------------------------------------- > > > Is it to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This > > is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self."? > > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Yep, that too. ;-) > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > > ========================== > Victor, I doubt that anyone on this list thinks that any conditioned > dhammas are anything other than impermanent and unsatisfactory, or that any > dhammas are self/personal. When Sarah, for example, says that pa~n~natti are > unchanging, I believe that is merely because pa~n~natti, understood as > *referents* of mental constructs (concepts and percepts), are actually > nonexistent and hence incapable of having *any* characteristics. A mental > construct, itself, however - the mental phenomenon, is impermanent, ceasing > whenever discernment of it ceases. > Is your point in asking the rhetorical questions in your post to > encourage us all to always directly notice the tilakkhana whenever we observe > any dhamma, and to remind ourselves of them whenever we think of any dhamma? > If that is so, then, because there is a difference between mere belief and > direct seeing, such encouragement is a great idea! > > With metta, > Howard 13480 From: yuzhonghao Date: Thu May 23, 2002 5:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Sarah, For the definition of the word "concept", check a dictionary. An online resource can be found at http://www.webster.com/ Also see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-002.html Regards, Victor --- Sarah wrote: > Hi, Victor, > > Glad to see you 'keeping an eye' on us all;-) > > --- yuzhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > > Just a suggestion that you might find useful: > > > > No matter what concept means to you, ask yourself these question: how > > does a concept come to be? What are its conditions? > ..... > Following a tip from TG, may I ask you for your suggestions of responses > to these questions, preferably having defined concept first? > > I promise to be asking myself at the same time and to share any > conclusions after I hear yours;-) > > Sarah > ===== 13481 From: Num Date: Thu May 23, 2002 1:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 9 (2) Hi Larry and ADL group: Larry: Long time no see! How are you doing? I just looked up our ADL schedule. Wow, you really keep up with it. Big admiration from me, OK. Now, I have already shipped my ADL book back, so I have to read ADL from your post. << I'm not sure if it is really worthwhile asking these questions since we can't observe citta process, but, neverheless, I was wondering: >> N: You always come up with good and difficult questions :-P. I try to share some input, which is pretty much a book-knowledge. I believe that theory is helpful esp. with practicing (mean being mindful of whatever reality here and now). I try to keep it short and (somewhat) simple, OK. << When do cetasika manifest in citta process? >> N: Simultaneously (sahajata-dhamma). << What is the object of mind door adverting consciousness? It can't be another citta because then there would be two cittas at the same time. It can't be a rupa because it would have to be cognized through one of the 5 doors. How do we cognize rupa, concept, and memory through the mind door? What is the nature of the object? >> N: Let me put in both mind-door-adverting-consciousness (mano-dvaravajjana-citta, MDAC) and five-door-adverting-consciousness (panca-dvaravajjana-citta, PDAC). Both are first citta in its own process (vithi). Both are kiriya-jati in nature. One of the differences between the two is MDAC is accompanied by viriya-cetasika while PDAC does not. It's said that b/c PDAC is passive in taking in arammana while MDAC is seeking its arammana! MDAC sometimes receives arammana sequentially after sense-door-process, sometimes does not e.g. when having citta or cetasika as its arammana. -Panca-dvaravajjana-citta can have only paramattha-arammana (pancarammana: color, sound, smell, taste and 3 tangible objects) as its arammana. The arammana of PDAC has to be in the present moment only (paccupanna-arammana). -Mano-dvaravajjana-citta can have both pancarammana (as above) and dhammarammana (all cittas, all cetasikas, 5 sense rupas (sense door), 16 fine rupas, nibbana, and pannatti) as its arammana. So all kinds of arammana can be an object of MDAC. Arammana of MDAC can be past, present, future and even time independent (pannatti and nibbana). The arammana that MDAC receives right after PDAC is just completely fallen away, so it's still called continuous-present object (paccupan-santati). Arammana of MDAC can be lokiya or lokuttara. Another way to say this is arammana of MDAC can be: 1) Kamarammana (kamacittas & cetasikas, all rupas), 2) Mahakatarammana (jhana cittas and cetasikas), 3) Pannatti-arammana, and 4) Lokuttararammana (8 lokuttara cittas, their accompanied cetasikas and nibbbana). The present citta cannot have itself as its arammana but can have the past cittas or cetasikas, which have fallen away, as its arammana. << How is a cetasika cognized? as a qualifier of another citta? >> N: The same arammana as citta, but with each of its own function. "How" is always hard to answer ;-(. Cetasika is namadhamma. Namadhamma's nature is cognizing arammana. << In seeing process what is going on in receiving, investigating, and determining? Does memory play a part here? >> N: I think so, by marking each citta's arammana. For seeing process, the same ruparammana is their object. Best wishes. Num 13482 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu May 23, 2002 6:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Hi sarah, I'll jump in if that's okay. A concept to me is the same as an idea. Would you generally agree? An idea or concept is a product of thought, rather than something that appears in the world, so I would say it rises and falls with the rising and falling of the thought that is 'about' it. If I have a concept 'cat' and I think to myself: "My cat is very pretty", that thought is full of concepts. In fact there is very little in it that is not a concept. One thing that is not a concept is the experience of thinking the thought itself, but everything *in* the thought is concept. "My" is a concept; "cat" is a concept; "Is" is a concept; "very" is a concept, based on comparison; and "pretty" is a concept, a conceptual evaluation. If I think of the image of a telephone, I see an image that doesn't actually exist in life. The experience of thinking of the telephone is actual. I am *actually* seeing the image in the moment. But the image itself is a concept, since no 'telephone' exists in actual experience. The image of the telephone is also a memory, not an actual experience in the moment. The experience of remembering is an actual experience, but the object of memory, the telephone, is a concept. So to me, the experience of thinking of a concept is actual. the concept itself really is a concept. The image of the telephone is there, the sentence "My cat is very pretty" is really said to myself, so the experience of these things being thought must be a nama. But the things within the thought, the content, is purely concept. My last thought on this is maybe a little more controvesial, I'm not sure: It thus makes sense to call these images or sentences or whatever they are 'conceptual objects'. They are not real in the world, but they are actually created as concepts in a moment of thinking, as a part of a thought only. The word 'cat' will never represent a reality, it only exists in the world of invented meanings. It is no more real than 'hobgoblin'. Yet both concepts are created as 'ideas' by language and exist as 'ideas'. To say they do not really arise as objects is true. To say that a thought takes them as its object is also true. Do you agree with this? Does it make sense? Am I missing something? Best, Robert ep. ====== --- Sarah wrote: > Hi, Victor, > > Glad to see you 'keeping an eye' on us all;-) > > --- yuzhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > > Just a suggestion that you might find useful: > > > > No matter what concept means to you, ask yourself these question: how > > does a concept come to be? What are its conditions? > ..... > Following a tip from TG, may I ask you for your suggestions of responses > to these questions, preferably having defined concept first? > > I promise to be asking myself at the same time and to share any > conclusions after I hear yours;-) > > Sarah > ===== 13483 From: <> Date: Thu May 23, 2002 7:31am Subject: ADL ch. 9 (3) http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 9 (3) After the cittas of the sense-door process have fallen away the object can be experienced through the mind-door. The mano-dvaravajjana-citta is the first citta of the mind-door process which experiences that object which has fallen away already. In the sense-door process the panca-dvara vajjana-citta adverts to the object which has not fallen away yet. For example, it adverts to visible object or sound which is still impinging on the appropriate sense-door. The mano-dvaravajjana-citta which arises in the mind-door process however, can experience an object which has fallen away already. After the mano-dvaravajjana-citta has adverted to the object it is succeeded by either kusala cittas or akusala cittas (in the case of non-arahats), which experience that same object. The mano-dvaravajjana-citta itself is neither akusala citta nor kusala citta; it is kiriyacitta. Although the votthapana-citta in the sense-door process and the mano-dvaravajjana-citta in the mind-door process are the same type of citta, an ahetuka kiriyacitta, their functions are different. In the sense-door process this citta performs the function of votthapana (determining the object) and in the mind-door process it performs the function of avajjana (adverting). Thus, whenever we deal with the mano-dvaravajjana-citta we have to know what function it is performing. When sound impinges on the earsense it can be experienced by cittas arising in the ear-door process and after that it is experienced by cittas arising in a mind-door process. Processes of cittas which experience an object through one of the five senses and through the mind-door succeed one another time and again. How can there be akusala cittas or kusala cittas in the process of cittas which experience an object through one of the sense-doors, when one does not even know yet what it is that is experienced? There can be akusala cittas or kusala cittas before one knows what it is. One can compare this situation with the case of a child who likes a brightly coloured object such as a balloon before it knows that the object is a balloon. We can have like or dislike of an object before we know what it is. Another ahetuka kiriyacitta is the hasituppada-citta (smile-producing-consciousness). Only arahats have this kind of citta. Laughing and smiling can be motivated by different kinds of cittas. When people who are not arahats smile, it is usually motivated by lobha or by kusala citta. Arahats do not have any defilements; they do not have akusala cittas. Neither do they have kusala cittas; they do not accumulate any more kamma. Instead of kusala cittas they have kiriyacittas, accompanied by sobhana (beautiful) roots, sobhana kiriyacittas. Arahats do not laugh aloud, because they have no accumulations for laughing; they only smile. When they smile the smiling may be motivated by sobhana kiriyacitta or by the ahetuka kiriyacitta which is called hasituppada-citta. Thus, of the eighteen ahetuka cittas, fifteen are vipakacittas and three are kiriyacittas. The ahetuka kiriyacittas are: 1. Panca-dvaravajjana-citta (five-door-adverting consciousness) 2. Mano-dvaravajjana-citta (mind-door-adverting- consciousness), which performs the function of adverting to the object through the mind-door when it arises in the mind-door process and which performs the function of votthapana (determining the object) when it arises in the sense-door process 3. Hasituppada-citta (smile-producing-consciousness) Those who are not arahats can have only seventeen of the eighteen ahetuka cittas. These seventeen types of ahetuka citta arise in our daily life. When an object impinges on one of the five senses, panca-dvaravajjana- citta (five-door-adverting consciousness) turns towards the object through that sense-door. This citta is followed by panca-vinnana which experiences the object, by sampaticchana-citta which receives it, by santirana-citta which investigates it and by votthapana-citta which determines the object and then by akusala cittas or kusala cittas. When the cittas of the sense-door process have fallen away the object is experienced through the mind-door. The mano-dvaravajjana-citta adverts to the object through the mind-door and is then followed by akusala cittas or kusala cittas. There is 'unwise attention' (ayoniso manasikara) to the object which is experienced if akusala cittas arise, and there is 'wise attention' (yoniso manasikara) to the object if kusala cittas arise. For example, when we see insects there may be dosa-mula-cittas (cittas rooted in aversion). Thus, there is ayoniso manasikara (unwise attention). The dosa may be so strong that one wants to kill the insects; then there is akusala kamma. If one realizes that killing is akusala and one abstains from killing, there are kusala cittas and thus there is yoniso manasikara (wise attention). If one studies Dhamma and develops vipassana (insight) it is a condition for yoniso manasikara. When we are mindful of the nama or rupa which appears through one of the six doors, there is yoniso manasikara at that moment. 13484 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu May 23, 2002 10:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 5/22/02 8:50:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Jon writes: > > > Howard > > > > --- Howard wrote: > > > Hi, Robert - > > â€| > > > We are in basic agreement on this Robert, but, actually, I think > > > that > > > Abidhamma is as well. As I understand it, the Buddhist perspective, and > > > most explicitly so in Abhidhamma, is a phenomenalist one which doesn't > > > countenance objects existing independently of experience. > > > > Here I have to enter a possible disagreement, but one that I hope may also > > turn out to be more a matter of terminology than of substance ;-). > > > > > There is no hardness other than the experience of hardness, > > > at least none that can be actually known. > > > > I see a difference between the 2 assertions in your preceding statement, > > namely that-- > > (a) There is no hardness other than the hardness being experienced. > > (b) There is no hardness that can be actually known other than the > > hardness being experienced > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > There *is* a difference. Position (b) is the general phenomenalist > one. Position (a) is the radical phenomenalist one which represents an > admixture of phenomenalism with pragmatism - what is in principle unknowable > is "as good as" nonexistent. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > > The statement at (b) is clearly so, in terms of the teachings (to my > > understanding). > > > > The statement at (a) needs to be qualified, I think. Hardness like any > > other reality arises because of conditions. In the case of the hardness > > that we take as being part of an inanimate object (like a table, tree or > > building), those conditions do not include the fact of their being the > > object of someone's citta. In other words, the hardness does not arise > > dependent on there being someone there to experience it. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Ahh, but "the hardness that we take as being part of an inanimate > object (like a table, tree or building)" is concept-only. There being no > tables, trees, and buildings, there is no hardness possessed by them. Dear Howard, I wonder if it's really correct to say that there are "no tables, trees an buildings'. Just as Buddha was unwilling to say bluntly that 'there is no self', I doubt he would assert the nonexistence of tables either. Rather, I think he might say that the idea that we experience a 'table' when we experience 'hardness' is a concept. And we can never know 'table' since the concept 'table' is a collection of experiences that each add up to only one or another direct quality. None of these ever adds up to 'table' in actual experience, only as a deductive conclusion. Experientially speaking, and in the service of knowing the reality of the present moment, 'table' does not exist except as a concept. But this does not mean that 'table' as some sort of cosmic reality outside of experience either does or doesn't exist. It just means what Jon said when he cited version (b) and said that version (a) that no other object existed except for the one experienced was much more radical, perhaps more radical than necessary. So is there a table somewhere out in the world beyond the senses of humans? Not as far as we experience directly. Still, our deductive reasoning by which we 'conceptualize' table and deal with the 'table' that we coordinate between our momentary experiences and concepts works pretty well to allow us to eat, drink and be merry, or whatever else we do on the 'table'. So it may be that there *is* something resembling a 'table', but that we just can't experience it directly all at once, and thus shouldn't confuse concept with reality. What happens if we neither confirm nor deny the existence of 'table' as an object out there, but really strive to distinguish between what we actually experience and what we *think* [conceptualize] that we experience? I think it makes for much more clear and skillful action, and more importantly, allows us to begin to discern the actuality of the mind and senses which leads us towards the necessary sati and panna needed for awakening. And in the meantime I think it's also skillful to be mindful of how we use concepts in order to 'navigate' in samsara. It's not as if the need to use a fork goes away because one develops a bit of discernment. So how do we use concepts in the moment to coordinate the idea of 'fork' with the getting of the food to the mouth? Pretty interesting. Perhaps an arahant can navigate eating a meal using only the immediate sensations of hardness/coolness/roughness/sourness/under-the-tongueness/swallowing/etc., without forming a concept of 'food' or 'fork', which would explain the Buddhist meditation on food in which it takes five minutes to take and swallow one bite. Anyway, I wonder what you think about this? Distinguishing between concept and nama/rupa is important, but concepts also seem necessary. Best, Robert 13485 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu May 23, 2002 10:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 5/22/02 8:50:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Jon writes: > > > Howard > > > > --- Howard wrote: > > > Hi, Robert - > > â€| > > > We are in basic agreement on this Robert, but, actually, I think > > > that > > > Abidhamma is as well. As I understand it, the Buddhist perspective, and > > > most explicitly so in Abhidhamma, is a phenomenalist one which doesn't > > > countenance objects existing independently of experience. > > > > Here I have to enter a possible disagreement, but one that I hope may also > > turn out to be more a matter of terminology than of substance ;-). > > > > > There is no hardness other than the experience of hardness, > > > at least none that can be actually known. > > > > I see a difference between the 2 assertions in your preceding statement, > > namely that-- > > (a) There is no hardness other than the hardness being experienced. > > (b) There is no hardness that can be actually known other than the > > hardness being experienced > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > There *is* a difference. Position (b) is the general phenomenalist > one. Position (a) is the radical phenomenalist one which represents an > admixture of phenomenalism with pragmatism - what is in principle unknowable > is "as good as" nonexistent. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > > The statement at (b) is clearly so, in terms of the teachings (to my > > understanding). > > > > The statement at (a) needs to be qualified, I think. Hardness like any > > other reality arises because of conditions. In the case of the hardness > > that we take as being part of an inanimate object (like a table, tree or > > building), those conditions do not include the fact of their being the > > object of someone's citta. In other words, the hardness does not arise > > dependent on there being someone there to experience it. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Ahh, but "the hardness that we take as being part of an inanimate > object (like a table, tree or building)" is concept-only. There being no > tables, trees, and buildings, there is no hardness possessed by them. Dear Howard, I wonder if it's really correct to say that there are "no tables, trees an buildings'. Just as Buddha was unwilling to say bluntly that 'there is no self', I doubt he would assert the nonexistence of tables either. Rather, I think he might say that the idea that we experience a 'table' when we experience 'hardness' is a concept. And we can never know 'table' since the concept 'table' is a collection of experiences that each add up to only one or another direct quality. None of these ever adds up to 'table' in actual experience, only as a deductive conclusion. Experientially speaking, and in the service of knowing the reality of the present moment, 'table' does not exist except as a concept. But this does not mean that 'table' as some sort of cosmic reality outside of experience either does or doesn't exist. It just means what Jon said when he cited version (b) and said that version (a) that no other object existed except for the one experienced was much more radical, perhaps more radical than necessary. So is there a table somewhere out in the world beyond the senses of humans? Not as far as we experience directly. Still, our deductive reasoning by which we 'conceptualize' table and deal with the 'table' that we coordinate between our momentary experiences and concepts works pretty well to allow us to eat, drink and be merry, or whatever else we do on the 'table'. So it may be that there *is* something resembling a 'table', but that we just can't experience it directly all at once, and thus shouldn't confuse concept with reality. What happens if we neither confirm nor deny the existence of 'table' as an object out there, but really strive to distinguish between what we actually experience and what we *think* [conceptualize] that we experience? I think it makes for much more clear and skillful action, and more importantly, allows us to begin to discern the actuality of the mind and senses which leads us towards the necessary sati and panna needed for awakening. And in the meantime I think it's also skillful to be mindful of how we use concepts in order to 'navigate' in samsara. It's not as if the need to use a fork goes away because one develops a bit of discernment. So how do we use concepts in the moment to coordinate the idea of 'fork' with the getting of the food to the mouth? Pretty interesting. Perhaps an arahant can navigate eating a meal using only the immediate sensations of hardness/coolness/roughness/sourness/under-the-tongueness/swallowing/etc., without forming a concept of 'food' or 'fork', which would explain the Buddhist meditation on food in which it takes five minutes to take and swallow one bite. Anyway, I wonder what you think about this? Distinguishing between concept and nama/rupa is important, but concepts also seem necessary. Best, Robert 13486 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 23, 2002 11:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Hi Rob Ep, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Hi sarah, > I'll jump in if that's okay. Anytime. No formalities her. What you say below sounds 'spot on' to me too, including the 'controversial' part;-)) So much agreement these days. You'd better keep it to refer to when you forget what you agreed to;-). .....and so, the ti-lakkhana of anicca, dukkha and anatta refer to the paramattha dhammas included in the 5khandhas that *exist*, are conditioned and can be known -- in other words what the Teachings are explaining in all 3 parts of the Tipitaka. That is why when we talk about impermanence (anicca), for example, it is referring to the characteristic of seeing, visible object or thinking, but not to 'my pretty cat' or any other concept. Many thanks, for your carefully considered post. Appreciate (as Num would say;-)) Sarah ======= > A concept to me is the same as an idea. Would you generally agree? An > idea or > concept is a product of thought, rather than something that appears in > the world, > so I would say it rises and falls with the rising and falling of the > thought that > is 'about' it. If I have a concept 'cat' and I think to myself: "My cat > is very > pretty", that thought is full of concepts. In fact there is very little > in it > that is not a concept. One thing that is not a concept is the > experience of > thinking the thought itself, but everything *in* the thought is concept. > "My" is > a concept; "cat" is a concept; "Is" is a concept; "very" is a concept, > based on > comparison; and "pretty" is a concept, a conceptual evaluation. If I > think of the > image of a telephone, I see an image that doesn't actually exist in > life. The > experience of thinking of the telephone is actual. I am *actually* > seeing the > image in the moment. But the image itself is a concept, since no > 'telephone' > exists in actual experience. The image of the telephone is also a > memory, not an > actual experience in the moment. The experience of remembering is an > actual > experience, but the object of memory, the telephone, is a concept. > > So to me, the experience of thinking of a concept is actual. the > concept itself > really is a concept. The image of the telephone is there, the sentence > "My cat is > very pretty" is really said to myself, so the experience of these things > being > thought must be a nama. But the things within the thought, the content, > is purely > concept. > > My last thought on this is maybe a little more controvesial, I'm not > sure: > > It thus makes sense to call these images or sentences or whatever they > are > 'conceptual objects'. They are not real in the world, but they are > actually > created as concepts in a moment of thinking, as a part of a thought > only. The > word 'cat' will never represent a reality, it only exists in the world > of invented > meanings. It is no more real than 'hobgoblin'. Yet both concepts are > created as > 'ideas' by language and exist as 'ideas'. To say they do not really > arise as > objects is true. To say that a thought takes them as its object is also > true. > > Do you agree with this? Does it make sense? Am I missing something? 13487 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 23, 2002 0:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Victor, --- yuzhonghao wrote: > Sarah, > > For the definition of the word "concept", check a dictionary. An > online resource can be found at http://www.webster.com/ Thankyou. When I use 'concept', I am referring to pa~n~natti as elaborated in several posts under concepts at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts I believe these details of what is included in pannatti in Buddhist texts to be far broader and more explicit than the definition of concepts in the dictionary. > Also see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-002.html Is paticca samuppada (as discussed in this link) talking about concepts or realities? What is the significance? Sarah ====== 13488 From: manji Date: Thu May 23, 2002 0:32pm Subject: RE: [dsg] concepts and realities. Perhaps the difference between concepts and reality falls in with sanna. When sanna marks, it marks objects of the mind door or the sense doors. When sanna recollects, the recollection is concept. This recollection/concept seems to arise so fast that there is an incomplete experience of the object which is the proximate cause of the recollection. This seems to present quite a bit of trouble in the fact that there can be taking this concept for reality, where then this concept becomes a full object of the mind door. This process (taking concepts for reality) obstructs concentration and in depth penetration of objects, however... With concentration comes sanna again, except this time it is marking. So the clever monks sits thinking concepts are taken care of, but all the while the there is marking, marking. This marking, through concentration, becomes so powerful that the recollection then may arise seeming to be just as real as reality. This process can serve as a testament to why it is so easy to take concepts for reality, or for that matter, self. This process is evident in daily life all the way through all the Jhanas... and then some. This stood out from /Cetasikas/, pg.39: ======================================= We read in the Middle Length Sayings (I, no. l8, Discourse of the Honey Ball) about the origin of perceptions and obsessions and their ending. Mahå- Kaccana gave to the monks an explanation about what the Buddha had said in brief: Visual consciousness, your reverences, arises because of eye and visual object; the meeting of the three is sensory impingement (phassa); feelings are because of sensory impingement; what one feels one perceives; what one perceives one reasons about; what one reasons about obsesses one; what obsesses one is the origin of the number of perceptions and obsessions which assail a man in regard to visual object cognisable by the eye, past, future, present… ======================================= and this: The footnote of /Cetasikas/, pg 35: 1 The Visuddhimagga (XIV, 3-5) explains the difference between saññå, citta and paññå by way of a simile. Saññå is like the mere perception of a coin by a child who does not know its value. Citta is like the villager who knows its value. Paññå is like the money-changer who penetrates its true characteristics. ......................... this sanna, this marking and recollection, this is dukkha... and this dukkha? Is it a mere recollection from the conditioning of teaching? Or is there real dukkha? Oh yes friend, this sanna, there is dukkha. There is cause... time to go, bye bye... Buddham saranam gacchami, Dhammam saranam gacchami, Sangham saranam gacchami. -manji- > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Epstein > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 10:22 PM > Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. 13489 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu May 23, 2002 0:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Thanks, Sarah. one or two comments below: --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Rob Ep, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Hi sarah, > > I'll jump in if that's okay. > > Anytime. No formalities her. What you say below sounds 'spot on' to me > too, including the 'controversial' part;-)) So much agreement these days. > You'd better keep it to refer to when you forget what you agreed to;-). ha ha, that's very true! > .....and so, the ti-lakkhana of anicca, dukkha and anatta refer to the > paramattha dhammas included in the 5khandhas that *exist*, are conditioned > and can be known -- in other words what the Teachings are explaining in > all 3 parts of the Tipitaka. That is why when we talk about impermanence > (anicca), for example, it is referring to the characteristic of seeing, > visible object or thinking, but not to 'my pretty cat' or any other > concept. is that because that which isn't actual can not be either permanent or impermanent? > Many thanks, for your carefully considered post. : ) > Appreciate (as Num would say;-)) > > Sarah > ======= : ) robert 13490 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 23, 2002 1:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Control/Questions of King Milinda/Non-occurrence HI Joyce, LOL, that was a fun reappearance after a very long holiday here;-) I had worked out you were from Canada, English native speaker, well-read in the texts and following the posts carefully. Thanks for not keeping us in suspense any longer. ..... --- Joyce Short wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks for your kind response...(re: khandas/simultaneity). I'm banging > away here doing review so be sure to shout when you see I've got > something > wrong. ..... Likewise.... and we’re all free to interpret texts as we like (Victor, that’s VERY conventional language;-)). Thanks for the dict page refs too. ..... > >>Mindfulness is meant > >> to encompass the whole personality and starts with the body as > primary > >> and regular subject of meditation." > > That is from Nyanatiloka. And in practice we begin with the body in the > body, (kayanupassana) although the four frames are not practiced one by > one > as separate exercises. See pgae 166-167 in Dictionary. ..... Oh, the pages are different in the copy of the Dict (new one which replaced the old moth-eaten one) in front of me. I understand that kayanupassana is taught as the first foundation of mindfulness in the Satipatthana Sutta. I don’t however understand there to be (or can be) any rule about order of objects for sati to be aware of. However, don’t we tend so very easily to take “body’ for self. Don’t we have the idea of seeing and hearing people and things all day long? From the comm. and sub comm to the Satipatthana Sutta, we read: ***** >>In this body,... there is seen no body, man, woman or anything else. Beings engender wrong belief, in many ways,.... Therefore the men of old said: What he sees that is not (properly) seen; What is seen, that he does not (properly) see; Not seeing (properly) he is shackled clean; And he, the shackled fool, cannot get free. What he sees = What man or woman he sees. Why, is there no seeing of man or a woman with the eye? There is. "I see a woman," "I see a man." -- these statements refer to what he sees by way of ordinary perception. That perception, owing to wrong comprehension, does not get at the sense-basis [rupayatana] in the highest sense, philosophically, through the falsely determined condition of material form [viparita gahavasena miccha parikappita rupatta]. Or the meaning is: the absence of perception which is called the seeing of primary and derived materiality, beginning with things such as the hair of the head, owing to non-cognizability of the collective nature of an object like a man or woman by eye-consciousness [kesadibhutupadaya samuhasankhatam ditthi na hoti acakkhuviññana viññeyyatta]. What is seen that he does not properly see = He does not see, according to reality by the eye of wisdom, the sense-basis which exists, the collection of primary and derived materiality beginning with hair of the head and the like [yam rupayatanam kesadibhutupadaya samuhasankhatam dittham tam pañña-cakkhuna bhutato na passati]. Not seeing properly he is shackled = Not seeing this body as it actually is, with the eye of wisdom, he thinks: "This is mine, this am I, this is my self," and is bound with the fetter of defilement [imam attabhavam yathabhutam paññacakkhuna apassanto etam mama esohamasmi eso me attati kilesa bandhanena bajjhati].>> ***** It seems to me that when there is an idea of selection or order, it suggests an idea of self that can select or order or at least a desire for a particular object. So, in summary, while I really like and appreciate most of what Nyantiloka has written and the dictionary is a wonderful resource as we all find, some comments such as those which suggest ‘we begin with the body in the body’ are misleading to me. I’ve just found on p196 something similar. ..... > Yes, I was reflecting on the "control" thread. The flow of > Paticcasamuppada > is conditioned by Ignorance (lack of mindfulness). "Through Ignorance > are > conditioned the sankharas, i.e. the rebirth-producing volitions (cetana) > or > "karma-formations"...."Through the karma-formations is conditioned > consciousness (in the present life) etc. Pg 128.... > > So it would seem that the "control" aspect is mindfulness? ..... You’ve introduced all the ‘sensitive’ topics into your post, Joyce, which makes me a little hesitant to respond in case I give any offence, unknowingly;-( However, as you ask, I’d say that the ‘“control” aspect’ is an illusion. In the ‘flow’ above, we see the conditioned nature of realities which are anatta. While there is ignorance, they are not known as they really are. ..... >A series of > events can be identified as "me" and "mine" (I) or there can be > dis-identified observing of a stream of events. This is mastered by > seeing > in the stream of events impersonality, impermanence and suffering. In > the > context of anatta one avoids the suffering implicit in questions of > "self" > ("controller" and "other" things to be controlled) by using an > alternative > strategy of dividing up experience: the Four Noble Truths of suffering, > it's > cause, it's cessation and the path to it's cessation. So we recognize > things > just as they are in the moment as they are directly experienced and then > perform the appropriate duty... ..... Thankyou for these comments and the Mahasi quote which followed (snipped just for now). Let me suggest only that it is the duty of sati to be aware, panna to know and so on. There is no strategy as such that is necessary or duty to be performed by anything or anyone other than the various mental factors, which will perform these duties accordingly by conditions. In order for the very highly developed wisdom which understands the 4NT to begin to develop, it’s helpful to know more about all the various mental and physical phenomena which can be directly understood at any time, in any order, if there are the appropriate conditions. I remember from before that you have studied and considered carefully, Joyce, so I don’t wish to persuade or sound dogmatic, but am happy to discuss further. ..... > > "In the Questions of King Milinda it is said: His consciousness, while > carrying on the practice of bringing to mind (i.e. noticing), passes > beyond > the continuous occurrence of phenomena and alights upon non-occurrence. > One > who, having practiced in the correct manner, has alighted upon > non-occurrence, O king, is said to have realized Nibbana." > > This from stages of insight Mahasi Sayadaw. Any thoughts on > "non-occurrence"? ..... It sounds (without reading the full passage) like it is saying that by understanding conditioned phenomena, the wisdom (i.e. lokuttara cittas) realize the unconditioned reality, i.e. nibbana. Just my guess, Thanks for some excellent points and I hope I haven’t trodden on too many toes....Pls know that any questioning of what I or anyone else says will always be appreciated by many others. Sarah ====== 13491 From: Howard Date: Thu May 23, 2002 9:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. Hi, Robert - In a message dated 5/22/02 10:23:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert Ep writes: > > --- Howard wrote: > > Hi, Jon - > > > > In a message dated 5/22/02 8:50:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > Jon writes: > > > > > Howard > > > > > > --- Howard wrote: > > > > Hi, Robert - > > > â€| > > > > We are in basic agreement on this Robert, but, actually, I > think > > > > that > > > > Abidhamma is as well. As I understand it, the Buddhist perspective, > and > > > > most explicitly so in Abhidhamma, is a phenomenalist one which > doesn't > > > > countenance objects existing independently of experience. > > > > > > Here I have to enter a possible disagreement, but one that I hope may > also > > > turn out to be more a matter of terminology than of substance ;-). > > > > > > > There is no hardness other than the experience of hardness, > > > > at least none that can be actually known. > > > > > > I see a difference between the 2 assertions in your preceding > statement, > > > namely that-- > > > (a) There is no hardness other than the hardness being experienced. > > > (b) There is no hardness that can be actually known other than the > > > hardness being experienced > > > > > --------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > There *is* a difference. Position (b) is the general phenomenalist > > > one. Position (a) is the radical phenomenalist one which represents an > > admixture of phenomenalism with pragmatism - what is in principle > unknowable > > is "as good as" nonexistent. > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > The statement at (b) is clearly so, in terms of the teachings (to my > > > understanding). > > > > > > The statement at (a) needs to be qualified, I think. Hardness like any > > > other reality arises because of conditions. In the case of the > hardness > > > that we take as being part of an inanimate object (like a table, tree > or > > > building), those conditions do not include the fact of their being the > > > object of someone's citta. In other words, the hardness does not arise > > > dependent on there being someone there to experience it. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Ahh, but "the hardness that we take as being part of an inanimate > > object (like a table, tree or building)" is concept-only. There being no > > tables, trees, and buildings, there is no hardness possessed by them. > > Dear Howard, > I wonder if it's really correct to say that there are "no tables, trees an > buildings'. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: From my perspective, it is conventionally false but ultimately (and pragmatically) true. That's my perspective - perspective (a), but I'm not suggesting it be anyone else's. ---------------------------------------------------- Just as Buddha was unwilling to say bluntly that 'there is no self',> > I doubt he would assert the nonexistence of tables either. Rather, I think > he > might say that the idea that we experience a 'table' when we experience > 'hardness' > is a concept. And we can never know 'table' since the concept 'table' is a > collection of experiences that each add up to only one or another direct > quality. > None of these ever adds up to 'table' in actual experience, only as a > deductive > conclusion. Experientially speaking, and in the service of knowing the > reality of > the present moment, 'table' does not exist except as a concept. But this > does not > mean that 'table' as some sort of cosmic reality outside of experience > either does > or doesn't exist. It just means what Jon said when he cited version (b) > and said > that version (a) that no other object existed except for the one > experienced was > much more radical, perhaps more radical than necessary. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Conventionally there are tables, and there is a keyboard that I am typing on, and a chair I am sitting on. What is more, I am perceiving all these things "out there". That's conventional truth, and it enables me to function quite nicely in this world, this intersubjective realm of experience, which is MIND MADE. But when I look carefully - very carefully, I actually only experience what the Abhidhammikas call paramattha dhammas, and these are all "in here", not "out there" - and, of course, impermanent, unsatisfactory, impersonal, and insubstantial. ------------------------------------------------------- > > So is there a table somewhere out in the world beyond the senses of humans? > > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think so. I'm actually not even sure what that would mean. --------------------------------------------------------- Not> > as far as we experience directly. Still, our deductive reasoning by which > we > 'conceptualize' table and deal with the 'table' that we coordinate between > our > momentary experiences and concepts works pretty well to allow us to eat, > drink and > be merry, or whatever else we do on the 'table'. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: No disagreement. The patterns of relations among actually experienced conditions are such that our minds are able to create this world of apparent things, and navigate within it. ----------------------------------------------------- > > So it may be that there *is* something resembling a 'table', but that we > just > can't experience it directly all at once, and thus shouldn't confuse > concept with > reality. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, the only thing I know for sure about that is that there is, in principle, no way of knowing such a thing "out there" which is responsible for our experience of table, for all we ever experience is the very content of experience, itself. ----------------------------------------------------- > > > What happens if we neither confirm nor deny the existence of 'table' as an > object > out there, but really strive to distinguish between what we actually > experience > and what we *think* [conceptualize] that we experience? > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: What happens if we neither confirm nor deny the existence of a self? I think that is Victor's position. But the pragmatist position is that whatever is not known, and is in principle unknowable is effectively nonexistent. --------------------------------------------------- I think it makes for much> > more clear and skillful action, and more importantly, allows us to begin to > discern the actuality of the mind and senses which leads us towards the > necessary > sati and panna needed for awakening. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. Whatever an individual finds helpful is that person's business. I don't want to even begin to attempt to foist my position on you or anyone. It makes sense to me. That's all. Could I be all wrong? Sure!! ---------------------------------------------------- > > And in the meantime I think it's also skillful to be mindful of how we use > concepts in order to 'navigate' in samsara. It's not as if the need to use > a fork > goes away because one develops a bit of discernment. So how do we use > concepts in > the moment to coordinate the idea of 'fork' with the getting of the food to > the > mouth? Pretty interesting. > > Perhaps an arahant can navigate eating a meal using only the immediate > sensations > of > hardness/coolness/roughness/sourness/under-the-tongueness/swallowing/etc., > without forming a concept of 'food' or 'fork', which would explain the > Buddhist > meditation on food in which it takes five minutes to take and swallow one > bite. > > Anyway, I wonder what you think about this? Distinguishing between concept > and > nama/rupa is important, but concepts also seem necessary. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: The world we live in is a world of concepts, and concepts are needed to function in it. I expect this is even so for a Buddha. I just don't think a Buddha (or arahant) is taken in by those concepts. ------------------------------------------------------- > > Best, > Robert > > ============================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13492 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 23, 2002 1:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Hi Rob Ep, > > You'd better keep it to refer to when you forget what you agreed > to;-). > > ha ha, that's very true! ;-) > is that because that which isn't actual can not be either permanent or > impermanent? ..... Right. We don’t need a Buddha to teach us about stories and concepts...there is no lack of expertise here. the Teachings are concerned (as the radical phenomenologists would say too, eh Howard) with what can be directly known and experienced. We can think and think for ever, but never come up with the truth. ..... Sarah ===== P.S. (silly and frivolous-be warned) Rob, I'm also thinking that if you're still struggling to finish your book on acting and 'live' role-plays, we could maybe help out with a little cross-dressing (as Chris & Kom were discussing this I think), drag out a few of the more zany members (I mean sensible and rational is all very well, but it doesn’t sell books), have Erik instructing us on a few debate strategies with all the gesticulations and posturing, have As change places with Bs, you and Nina reading posts backwards and upside down, Frank attaining jhanas in his vigorous astanga series, Wynn and friends attempting miracles.....Oh and you and Sukin falling asleep as you write booklets to each other at 3am.....Num speaking Pali ..hmm, talk about concepts and proliferations. Of course, dialogue is no prob...you’re spoilt for choice in the archives here;-) ..... 13493 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 23, 2002 8:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K] Hi Dan, Thanks for taking another comment of mine in such good humour. One little question here: onco111 wrote: > Robert, > Interesting perception, Robert. As you say, central to the effort is > knowing not just the difference between sati and samadhi but also the > difference between sati with panya and sati without panya, and > knowing not just in a theoretical sense, but knowing as the dhammas > arise and pass away. Silabbataparamasa is not necessarily akusala, > but neither is it liberating. ..... Can you give me an example of silabbataparamasa which 'is not necessarily akusala' ? Surely wrong view and attachment are always involved. Thanks, Sarah ====== Sarah ====== 13494 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Thu May 23, 2002 9:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. --- Some useful observations, Manji. thanks robert "manji" wrote: > Perhaps the difference between concepts and reality falls in with sanna. > When sanna marks, it marks objects of the mind door or the sense doors. > When sanna recollects, the recollection is concept. > > This recollection/concept seems to arise so fast that there is an > incomplete experience of the object which is the proximate cause of the > recollection. This seems to present quite a bit of trouble in the fact > that there can be taking this concept for reality, where then this > concept becomes a full object of the mind door. This process (taking > concepts for reality) obstructs concentration and in depth penetration > of objects, however... > > With concentration comes sanna again, except this time it is marking. So > the clever monks sits thinking concepts are taken care of, but all the > while the there is marking, marking. This marking, through > concentration, becomes so powerful that the recollection then may arise > seeming to be just as real as reality. This process can serve as a > testament to why it is so easy to take concepts for reality, or for that > matter, self. This process is evident in daily life all the way through > all the Jhanas... and then some. > > This stood out from /Cetasikas/, pg.39: > ======================================= > We read in the Middle Length Sayings (I, no. l8, Discourse of the Honey > Ball) about the origin of perceptions and obsessions and their ending. > Mahå- > Kaccana gave to the monks an explanation about what the Buddha had said > in brief: > > Visual consciousness, your reverences, arises because of eye and visual > object; the meeting of the three is sensory impingement (phassa); > feelings are because of sensory impingement; what one feels one > perceives; what one perceives one reasons about; what one reasons about > obsesses one; what obsesses one is the origin of the number of > perceptions and obsessions which assail a man in regard to visual object > cognisable by the eye, past, future, present… > ======================================= > > and this: > > The footnote of /Cetasikas/, pg 35: > > 1 The Visuddhimagga (XIV, 3-5) explains the difference between saññå, > citta and paññå by way of a simile. Saññå is like the mere perception of > a coin by a child who does not know its value. Citta is like the > villager who knows its value. Paññå is like the money-changer who > penetrates its true characteristics. > > ......................... > > this sanna, > this marking and recollection, > this is dukkha... > > and this dukkha? Is it a mere recollection from the conditioning of > teaching? Or is there real dukkha? Oh yes friend, this sanna, there is > dukkha. There is cause... > > time to go, > bye bye... > > Buddham saranam gacchami, > Dhammam saranam gacchami, > Sangham saranam gacchami. > > -manji- > > > 13495 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 23, 2002 9:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Hi Howard, --- Howard wrote: > My point is merely that I don't think our differences are > differences > in content, but only in terminology. Perhaps the translation of > 'pa~n~natti' > as 'concept' is not the best translation. If 'pa~n~natti' denotes an > alleged > concept-reference such as the tree on my back lawn that I am > (conventionally) > looking at right now, then the translation of it as 'concept' is > misleading > to those many people who think of concepts as mere ideas. The relatively > > concrete"tree on my back lawn", is, itself, a mental construct composed > of > very recent memories (mainly visual) with the idea of tree (the concept > per > se) superimposed. But it is not the same as the concept of 'tree on my > back > lawn', because there is more "immediacy" to it, due to its having been > constructed from just-experienced conditions. At least that is how I > understand it. In no case do I understand it to be some external > "thing". > Perhaps a translation of 'pa~n~natti' as 'percept' might come closer - I > > would find that very clear. ..... Maybe we can translate pannatti as concepts and percepts as I note you've done elsewhere, or better still, just refer to pannatti. ..... >But, in any case, the "reality" is an > internal > one, with any alleged external "tree" being nonexistent, or, at least, > in > principle unknowable. ..... OK. When we look out of the window and seeing sees its visible object (or for Dan, there is the seeing of visible object;-)), I'm not sure whether it helps to refer to this reality as internal, but I understand and agree with your point. (Visible object is classified as an external ayatana). Howard, if you ever make a copy of your own simple Pali-English or English-pali glossary, I'd like a copy to help me understand the way others like yourself use terms. It might also be helpful for others coming from a similar background to yourself, too (though there many not be so many from a Mahayana/radical phenomenology/Peter Harvey/Goenka/DSG one) hmm.. Sarah ===== Sarah ===== 13496 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 23, 2002 9:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Hi again Howard! I forget if I'm agreeing or not with my partner, but both the percepts and the concepts you refer to below (as I understand) are included under the broad pannatti umbrella. Remember pannatti cover ideas of what is real, not real, of concrete or abstract and much more. so I think you are elaborating some of the different kinds of pannatti in effect. It's true as you say, that as the thinking of these pannatti arises and ceases, so in effect do the concepts thought about. But, as you stress, in reality, only the thinking and other paramattha dhammas are impermanent, because pannatti are pannatti and by definition, not real. When you mention the percepts at the end, I have an idea you are not distinguishing between the citta which thinks and the pannatti as object, which is why you refer to it as impermanent. that's my best take....(apologies for any misunderstanding) Sarah ===== --- Howard wrote: > Hi again, Sarah - > > I'd like to add a couple more thoughts on this "percept" > business. The > percept of "the glass I'm drinking from" SEEMS to be some "thing in the > world". The concept of 'glass' (the notion of a cylindrical holder for > beverages) does not so seem - it is just an idea. The concept of 'glass' > > arises and ceases, as I think of it and when I no longer think of it. It > is > impermanent. The glass I'm drinking from, however, the supposedly > existing > "thing in the world", though it seems impermanent is only conventionally > so, > and is not in reality impermanent, nor is it permanent, nor is it > anything at > all, precisely because THERE IS NO glass I'm drinking from except > conventionally. There is just the percept, the internal mental construct > > which erroneously *seems* to be a thing "out there". (The percept, > itself, > the actual internal construct, is impermanent - it does not remain.) > I think that what I'm saying here, while probably not identical > with > your take on pa~n~natti, may be very close to it. What do you think, > Sarah? 13497 From: <> Date: Thu May 23, 2002 10:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ritual (control?) Hi Christine, I will concede there is a bit of a leap from 'cause' to 'control.' I just thought it might be useful to look at this question from a slightly different perspective. The Buddha says _both_ we can and cannot control our consciousness. Looking for a controller is a good way to glimpse no-self. Understanding that good thoughts lead to good consequences is a good way to run our lives. Larry 13498 From: <> Date: Thu May 23, 2002 10:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 8 (2)Larry/Azita Hi Sarah, you wrote: If you ask what objects are 'most commonly taken for self', surely they are the seeing, visible object, hearing, sound and so on. L: I think you misunderstand me. I wasn't asking about an object but rather the sense of self itself that arises before anything is identified *with.* I would contend that this is a feeling. By 'feeling' I don't mean pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral but rather the feeling of like, dislike, and confusion. If this wrecks havoc in your well ordered mind we could call these cetasikas, but I was attempting to convey something in the language of the 'untaught manyfolk.' Anyway, my main contention is that neither dukkha nor 'self' is an identity problem. Both are a problem of lobha, dosa, and moha. best regards, Larry 13499 From: Howard Date: Thu May 23, 2002 7:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Hi, Sarah - > > Hi Howard, > > --- Howard wrote: > > My point is merely that I don't think our differences are > > differences > > in content, but only in terminology. Perhaps the translation of > > 'pa~n~natti' > > as 'concept' is not the best translation. If 'pa~n~natti' denotes an > > alleged > > concept-reference such as the tree on my back lawn that I am > > (conventionally) > > looking at right now, then the translation of it as 'concept' is > > misleading > > to those many people who think of concepts as mere ideas. The relatively > > > > concrete"tree on my back lawn", is, itself, a mental construct composed > > of > > very recent memories (mainly visual) with the idea of tree (the concept > > per > > se) superimposed. But it is not the same as the concept of 'tree on my > > back > > lawn', because there is more "immediacy" to it, due to its having been > > constructed from just-experienced conditions. At least that is how I > > understand it. In no case do I understand it to be some external > > "thing". > > Perhaps a translation of 'pa~n~natti' as 'percept' might come closer - I > > > > would find that very clear. > ..... > Maybe we can translate pannatti as concepts and percepts as I note you've > done elsewhere, or better still, just refer to pannatti. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: This sounds good to me. I see the concepts as mentally constructed templates and the percepts as mental constructs involving fresh memories of paramattha dhammas overlayed by concepts. So they are different, but, yes, it is clear that the term 'pa~n~natti' subsumes both of these. --------------------------------------------------------- > ..... > > >But, in any case, the "reality" is an > > internal > > one, with any alleged external "tree" being nonexistent, or, at least, > > in > > principle unknowable. > ..... > OK. When we look out of the window and seeing sees its visible object (or > for Dan, there is the seeing of visible object;-)), I'm not sure whether > it helps to refer to this reality as internal, but I understand and agree > with your point. (Visible object is classified as an external ayatana). > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I understand that usage. Visual consciousness "internal" and visual object "external", but I take these as describing the experiential *sense* of these, the "feel" of them, rather than any literal outside and inside. --------------------------------------------------- > > Howard, if you ever make a copy of your own simple Pali-English or > English-pali glossary, I'd like a copy to help me understand the way > others like yourself use terms. It might also be helpful for others coming > from a similar background to yourself, too (though there many not be so > many from a Mahayana/radical phenomenology/Peter Harvey/Goenka/DSG one) > hmm.. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: You certainly have a good handle on the package of lakkhana which constitutes "Howard"!! ;-)) ------------------------------------------------------- > > Sarah > ===== > > Sarah > ===== > =========================== 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) 13500 From: Howard Date: Thu May 23, 2002 7:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 5/23/02 9:38:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Sarah writes: > > Hi again Howard! > > I forget if I'm agreeing or not with my partner, but both the percepts and > the concepts you refer to below (as I understand) are included under the > broad pannatti umbrella. Remember pannatti cover ideas of what is real, > not real, of concrete or abstract and much more. so I think you are > elaborating some of the different kinds of pannatti in effect. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree. ---------------------------------------------- > > It's true as you say, that as the thinking of these pannatti arises and > ceases, so in effect do the concepts thought about. But, as you stress, in > reality, only the thinking and other paramattha dhammas are impermanent, > because pannatti are pannatti and by definition, not real. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: The concept of 'tree' is a thought. It can arise and cease as a mind object. It is impermanent. --------------------------------------------------- When you> > mention the percepts at the end, I have an idea you are not distinguishing > between the citta which thinks and the pannatti as object, which is why > you refer to it as impermanent. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think so. A percept and the knowing of the percept arise together and interdependently, as is always the case with vi~n~nana and its object. At the moment (already gone! ;-)), I see the word 'word'. Of course, there is no thing which is the word 'word' that I see - there is just the percept, the mental construct built from actual direct experiences overlayed by the concept of the word 'word'. -------------------------------------------------- > > that's my best take....(apologies for any misunderstanding) > > Sarah > ===== ============================= With metta, Howard P.S. But, hey, you know? What's in a name??? (That has a good ring to it, hmm? ;-)) > --- Howard wrote: > Hi again, Sarah - > > > > I'd like to add a couple more thoughts on this "percept" > > business. The > > percept of "the glass I'm drinking from" SEEMS to be some "thing in the > > world". The concept of 'glass' (the notion of a cylindrical holder for > > beverages) does not so seem - it is just an idea. The concept of 'glass' > > > > arises and ceases, as I think of it and when I no longer think of it. It > > is > > impermanent. The glass I'm drinking from, however, the supposedly > > existing > > "thing in the world", though it seems impermanent is only conventionally > > so, > > and is not in reality impermanent, nor is it permanent, nor is it > > anything at > > all, precisely because THERE IS NO glass I'm drinking from except > > conventionally. There is just the percept, the internal mental construct > > > > which erroneously *seems* to be a thing "out there". (The percept, > > itself, > > the actual internal construct, is impermanent - it does not remain.) > > I think that what I'm saying here, while probably not identical > > with > > your take on pa~n~natti, may be very close to it. What do you think, > > 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) 13501 From: <> Date: Thu May 23, 2002 11:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 9 (2) Hi Num, good to hear from you and thanks for the answers. I only realized later that 'universal cetasikas' meant arising with every citta. So contact, feeling, perception, volition, one-pointedness, life faculty, and attention all arise with adverting consciousness, sense consciousness, receiving, investigting, and determining consciousnesses and also mind door adverting consciousness. I take it that lobha, dosa, moha, alobha, adosa, amoha may or may not arise in 5 door process. Would they arise with every citta in 5 door process? I still don't understand mind object. What is a 'past citta'? Is it a citta or something else? Is a pannatti aramanna a citta or something else? Is memory a citta or something else? I think a lot of this confusion could be cleared up if we had a clear understanding of memory. Saying sanna marks its object for memory is not saying enough. We need more understanding of memory and more understanding of sanna. I am very surprised that in a system that depends so heavily on memory so little is known about this function. I've been toying with the idea that sati is memory and satipatthana is very near memory (upatthana means standing near). This may account for the sense of presence and objectivity. One consciousness cognizing another consciousness that is so near it seems current but really isn't ('presence' in this case would be a memory). The main problem with this theory is that sati isn't a universal cetasika but sanna is. Maybe sanna and sati work together. Anyway, I hope you are enjoying your vacation. Relaxing, doing nothing, just watching the sun shine and the grass grow. Larry 13502 From: yuzhonghao Date: Fri May 24, 2002 0:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Sarah, Whatever concept means to you, I suggest seeing its condition and cause. Regards, Victor --- Sarah wrote: > Victor, > > --- yuzhonghao wrote: > Sarah, > > > > For the definition of the word "concept", check a dictionary. An > > online resource can be found at http://www.webster.com/ > > Thankyou. When I use 'concept', I am referring to pa~n~natti as elaborated > in several posts under concepts at: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts > > I believe these details of what is included in pannatti in Buddhist texts > to be far broader and more explicit than the definition of concepts in the > dictionary. > > > Also see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12- 002.html > > Is paticca samuppada (as discussed in this link) talking about concepts or > realities? What is the significance? > > Sarah > ====== 13503 From: yuzhonghao Date: Fri May 24, 2002 0:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Sarah, Whatever concept means to you, I suggest seeing its condition and cause. Regards, Victor --- Sarah wrote: > Victor, > > --- yuzhonghao wrote: > Sarah, > > > > For the definition of the word "concept", check a dictionary. An > > online resource can be found at http://www.webster.com/ > > Thankyou. When I use 'concept', I am referring to pa~n~natti as elaborated > in several posts under concepts at: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts > > I believe these details of what is included in pannatti in Buddhist texts > to be far broader and more explicit than the definition of concepts in the > dictionary. > > > Also see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12- 002.html > > Is paticca samuppada (as discussed in this link) talking about concepts or > realities? What is the significance? > > Sarah > ====== 13504 From: onco111 Date: Fri May 24, 2002 4:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K] Excellent, Sarah! You caught me averaging. I do so appreciate your sharp observations. I meant that if someone wants to give alms to win merit or to put flowers on an alter to please God or to stand up in front of friends and family to publicly pledge to be faithful to and stick together with another in marriage or to take five precepts in a ceremony, it's not a bad thing. Of course, during any of these rituals, there are bound to be akusala and kusala moments arising and passing away. The balance very often tilts toward the kusala, even if there happen to be many moments of silabbataparamasa mixed in. But I think you are right to note that at the moments of silabbataparamasa, surely attachment and wrong view arise -- not to condemn the partaking in the ritual, though, just pointing out how wrong view may arise. Dan --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Dan, > > Thanks for taking another comment of mine in such good humour. One little > question here: > > onco111 wrote: > Robert, > > > Interesting perception, Robert. As you say, central to the effort is > > knowing not just the difference between sati and samadhi but also the > > difference between sati with panya and sati without panya, and > > knowing not just in a theoretical sense, but knowing as the dhammas > > arise and pass away. Silabbataparamasa is not necessarily akusala, > > but neither is it liberating. > ..... > Can you give me an example of silabbataparamasa which 'is not necessarily > akusala' ? Surely wrong view and attachment are always involved. > > Thanks, > > Sarah > ====== 13505 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri May 24, 2002 4:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Sarah, Can you please explain how concepts are not impermanent because not real? I don't get the connection. if something is unreal but it is thought of, what is not impermanent about that? It seems to me that the opposite of impermanent is permanent. Are you saying that that which is unreal must be permanent? i can't see what that could possibly mean, since something that is not real, rather than being permanent, doesn't even exist in the first place. It only exists when thought of, since it has no other existence, and thus would still be quite impermanent as far as I can see. Best, Robert Ep. ====== --- Sarah wrote: > Hi again Howard! > > I forget if I'm agreeing or not with my partner, but both the percepts and > the concepts you refer to below (as I understand) are included under the > broad pannatti umbrella. Remember pannatti cover ideas of what is real, > not real, of concrete or abstract and much more. so I think you are > elaborating some of the different kinds of pannatti in effect. > > It's true as you say, that as the thinking of these pannatti arises and > ceases, so in effect do the concepts thought about. But, as you stress, in > reality, only the thinking and other paramattha dhammas are impermanent, > because pannatti are pannatti and by definition, not real. When you > mention the percepts at the end, I have an idea you are not distinguishing > between the citta which thinks and the pannatti as object, which is why > you refer to it as impermanent. > > that's my best take....(apologies for any misunderstanding) > > Sarah > ===== > --- Howard wrote: > Hi again, Sarah - > > > > I'd like to add a couple more thoughts on this "percept" > > business. The > > percept of "the glass I'm drinking from" SEEMS to be some "thing in the > > world". The concept of 'glass' (the notion of a cylindrical holder for > > beverages) does not so seem - it is just an idea. The concept of 'glass' > > > > arises and ceases, as I think of it and when I no longer think of it. It > > is > > impermanent. The glass I'm drinking from, however, the supposedly > > existing > > "thing in the world", though it seems impermanent is only conventionally > > so, > > and is not in reality impermanent, nor is it permanent, nor is it > > anything at > > all, precisely because THERE IS NO glass I'm drinking from except > > conventionally. There is just the percept, the internal mental construct > > > > which erroneously *seems* to be a thing "out there". (The percept, > > itself, > > the actual internal construct, is impermanent - it does not remain.) > > I think that what I'm saying here, while probably not identical > > with > > your take on pa~n~natti, may be very close to it. What do you think, > > Sarah? > > 13506 From: Num Date: Fri May 24, 2002 1:32am Subject: Phenapinda sutta Hi Sarah: I read your quote from a commentary below. Well, this will turn out to be akusala can condition kusala and vice versa ;-) The thing that caught my attention from the sutta was the plantain. When I was in the Caribbean, I had a lot of plantain and breadfruit with meal. I like it a lot. Esp. when it was charcoal-broiled, it smelled and tasted so good. I then checked the sutta further from accesstoinsight, the translation was a little bit different. I like a simile of sankara-khandha (fabrications or aggregate of volitional formations in your quote) with a banana tree a lot. In Thailand I enjoyed working in my garden on my own. Every time I cut the banana from its tree, I cut its truck in to small pieces and put it back to the banana trees as an organic fertilizer. I heard about this simile before ( but never read the whole sutta), so every I cut a banana tree it reminded me of the simile. (A banana and a plantain look the same, to me). Yesterday, I had a tennis lesson very early morning then went in to work and went running in a park in the evening. The weather was really nice yesterday. I was kind of tired (I am getting old !!) After a dinner and a shower, I did my usual sitting meditation. B/c I was so tired, I fell asleep couple times during the meditation. So I decided to jump into bed early. 11 pm is very early for me. I got up around 4 am. (5 hours of sleep is normal for me). So I decided to look up the Phena sutta and its commentary from my CD-rom. In Thai it called Phenapinda (a lump of foam)-sutta. Nothing about koti was mentioned. In Thai attakatha, both Burmese and Sinhala Pali were referred to. This came to my thought. B/c of my memory and my clinging to the smell and taste of a broiled plantain, I was turned on by your quote to read the sutta further. B/c of the tiredness and dina-midda during my meditation, I went to bed early and then got up early enough to look up the sutta further on my Thai CD-rom. B/c of my sensual enjoyment in gardening, the simile of a banana tree is really caught my attention :-) OK, let talk about the sutta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-095.html Here are some parts from the sutta: ***************************** Form (rupa) is like a glob of foam; feeling (vedana), a bubble; perception (sanna), a mirage; fabrications (sankara), a banana tree; consciousness (vinnana), a magic trick . . . . . . That's the way it goes:it's a magic trick, an idiot's babbling. It's said to be a murderer. No substance here is found . . . . . Thus a monk, persistence aroused (sati), should view the aggregates by day & by night, mindful, alert; should discard all fetters; should make himself his own refuge; should live as if his head were on fire -- in hopes of the state with no falling away (nibbana). ********************************* <> Commentary from the Phena Sutta (A Lump of Foam) Spk notes translated by B.Bodhi: ***** note 190: "Spk: a bubble (bubbu.la) is feeble and cannot be grasped, for it breaks up as soon as it is seized; so too feeling is feeble and cannot be grasped as permanent and stable. As a bubble arises and ceases in a drop of water and does not last long, so too with feeling: 100,000 'ko.tis' of feelings arise and cease in the time of a fingersnap (one ko.ti = 10 million). As a bubble arises in dependence on conditions, so feeling arises in dependence on a sense base, an object, the defilements, and contact." "Spk: Perception is like a mirage (marikaa) in the sense that it is insubstantial, for one cannot grasp a mirage to drink or bathe or fill a pitcher. As a mirage deceives the multitude, so does perception, which entices people with th idea that the colourful object is beautiful, pleasurable, and permanent." "Spk: As a plaintain trunk (kadalikkhandha) is an assemblage of many sheaths, each with its own characteristic, so the aggregate of volitional formations is an assemblage of many phenomena, each with its own characteristic." "Spk: Consciousness is like a magical illusion (maayaa) in the sense that it is insubstantial and cannot be grasped. Consciousness is even more transient and fleeting than a magical illusion. For it gives the impression that a person comes and goes, stands and sits, with the same mind, but the mind is different in each of these activities. Consciousness deceives the multitude like a magical illusion." <> *********************************** When I first read the sutta, I told myself it was very beautifully said. At the end of the sutta, as I quoted "Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick". I asked myself: why a rupa is compared to the foam in Konka river, vedana with the bubble, sanna with the mirage, other cetasikas(sakarakhanda) with the banana tree, and vinnana with the magic trick? Your quote explains it very well. You did not put in the simile of rupa and the foam. It said Rupa (form) is liked a foam b/c of its lakkhana: annicca/dukkha/anatta. The foam formed up, stayed as foam for a while then broken or flew away to the sea. The atthakatha said that b/c the foam is flowing away, so it's wise to see this as: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self". (We see this pretty frequent, Thanks Victor for always reminding us). Vedana (feeling) was compared with a bubble of a rain in the water. A raindrop is like an arammana, the water in a pond is like a sensebase, the wave of the water is kilesa and the wind is like phassa. Without the wind and the rain, there is no wavy water. Sanna (perception) is well explained. Sankara (fabrications or aggregate of volitional formations). I like the simile if the banana/plantain tree a lot. The tree consists of multiple layers or sheaths. Each layer is different with its own shade of color but forms up together as a banana tree. Each cetasika has its own lakkhana but forms up together and almost impossible to discern. We usually take the formation as "this is me, this is mine and this is myself". Yes, when I peel the trunk, there is no heartwood in a banana tree. Vinnana (consciousness) is really like magic. Khandha is like an executer. No matter how beautiful the formation is. It will be self-executed. I also like the sentence from the last part of the sutta, "should make himself his own refuge; should live as if his head were on fire". To me this sutta is full with hidden treasures. Thanks and anumodhana. Num 13507 From: <> Date: Fri May 24, 2002 7:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Hi Robert, if I may stick my conceptual nose in here. I think the idea behind this 'concept' broohaha is that concepts are principles, and as such they are timeless, neither permanent nor impermanent. Principles can be mentally manipulated as in mathematics but you can't really observe 1+1=2. So in that sense principles are not real (observable), but they may still be true as with 'impermanence' for example (a true concept). IMO this concept concept gets muddled if we say no names have real referents. In that case the names of paramattha dhammas would be meaningless. Also, IMO, this concept of concepts gets even further muddled if we say all combinations of paramattha dhammas are unreal. If, by 'dhamma', we mean 'functionality', and if, in combining functionalities we create new functionalities, then we create new dhammas and new realities. These new functionalities are no less real than basic functionalities (paramattha dhammas) but they aren't 'basic'. [I modified this last idea from something RML Gethin said in "The Buddhist Path To Awakening"] Well, I hope this settles this issue once and for all. best wishes, Larry 13508 From: <> Date: Fri May 24, 2002 8:15am Subject: ADL ch. 9 (4) http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 9 (4) When there are two people in the same situation, one person may have ayoniso manasikara and the other may have yoniso manasikara. This depends on their accumulations. We read in the 'Kindred Sayings' (lV, Salayatanavagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Fourth Fifty, Ch.V, par. 202, Lustful) about the monk who, after he has experienced an object through one of the six doors, has ayoniso manasikara, and about the monk who has yoniso manasikara. We read that Maha-Moggallana said to the monks: Friends, I will teach you the way of lusting and also of not lusting.... And how, friends, is one lustful? Herein, friends, a monk, seeing object with the eye, feels attachment for objects that charm, feels aversion from objects that displease, abides without mindfulness of the body, and his thoughts are mean. He realizes not, in its true nature, that emancipation of heart, that emancipation of wisdom, wherein those evil, unprofitable states that have arisen cease without remainder. This monk, friends, is called 'lustful after objects cognizable by the eye, nose, tongue... objects cognizable by the mind'; When a monk so abides, friends, if Mara comes upon him by way of the eye, Mara gets an opportunity. If Mara comes upon him....by way of the mind, Mara gets access, gets opportunity.... So dwelling, friends, objects overcome a monk, a monk overcomes not objects. Sounds overcome a monk, a monk overcomes not sounds. Scents, savours, tangibles and mind-states overcome a monk, a monk overcomes not sounds, scents, savours, tangibles and mind-states. This monk, friends, is called 'conquered by objects, sounds, scents, savours, tangibles and mind-states, not conquerer of them.' Evil, unprofitable states, passion-fraught, leading to rebirth overcome him, states unhappy, whose fruit is pain, whose future is rebirth, decay and death. Thus, friends, one is lustful. And how, friends, is one free from lust? Herein, friends, a monk, seeing an object with the eye, is not attached to objects that charm, nor averse from objects that displease.... Tasting a savour with the tongue...with mind cognizing a mind-state, he is not attached to mind-states that charm, nor is he averse from mind-states that displease, but dwells with mindfulness of the body, 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 monk, friends, is called 'not lustful after objects cognizable by the eye... not lustful after mind-states cognizable by mind.' Thus dwelling, friends, if Mara comes 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, 'conquerer of objects, sounds, scents, savours, tangibles and mind-states,'; He is conquerer, 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. Questions 1. What is kiriyacitta? 2. When we smile, is it always motivated by lobha? 3. Can akusala cittas and kusala cittas arise in a sense-door process? 13509 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Fri May 24, 2002 9:05am Subject: ritual(Dan) A letter from Dan --- ..., "onco111" wrote: Dear D, D: Do you agree that we should spend our time with kinds in happiness, or will what ever bad mood will do? --> Dan: We'd all like to be free from dosa all the time, but sometimes bad moods do arise. Is it better to understand them as they arise? Or to try to create pleasant sensations to cover up the bad mood? We can always think "happy, happy, happy," or "I want pleasure, always to have pleasant sensations, never any dosa," but this is not reality, and it is not the way out of sansara. Both lobha and dosa arise from the same source: craving and ignorance. These things are so clear in children. But adults are lot like children: Always wanting to free from dosa but not seeing the danger in lobha. DD: Dan if you know another process in plain English that fits with your use of the word "satipatthana" please provide. --> Dan: No. I know no English word that fits well with my use of the word "satipatthana." And you are right to note that no 'method' is specified. Satipatthana cannot be forced or controlled or willed to arise. It arises for brief moments when conditions are ripe. Those conditions include listening to the true Dhamma and wise attention (yoniso manasikara). D: I think we can come to some understanding about silabbataparamasa. If there is a direct cause/ effect relationship that can be seen then that is wisdom, when there is no relationship between the action and hope for results, then that is ignorance and can be called silabbataparamasa. --> Dan: Wonderful sentence, If you mean 'action' as an activity or practice, then you have it exactly backwards. If you mean 'action' as 'volition', then you have it exactly right. Silabbataparamasa is mistaking practice/ritual/method for 'action' and (wrongly) seeing a direct cause/effect relationship between that kind of 'action' and arising of wisdom. D: Example, Feeding a famous monk on his birthday so that a heavenly life or some merit will come in some future life. Another example. Sitting in meditation retreat waiting for the bell to ring, thinking, I'll meditate after lunch. --> Dan: Wonderful examples! In the act of feeding a famous monk on his birthday, consciousness arises and passes away innumerable times. At some moments there may arise a greedy and deluded consciousness: "I want to store up my merit!" At some moments there may arise pure motives of generosity: "May he live comfortably and with good health and good cheer." Also, in some cases there may be no moments of generosity. In other cases there may be no moments of greed and delusion. The merit is not so much in the action qua practice/ritual/method but in the action qua volition. Although giving is powerful and good, there still may be a proliferation of greedy and deluded moments before and after the 'giving' action. This can happen if there is the wrong view: "I will feed a famous monk on his birthday so that I can gain a heavenly life in the future." The volition of giving is good, but wrong view is not eliminated so long as that equation of "gain merit by giving to famous monk" is viewed as a method for generating gain. The same goes for the meditation retreat sitting. At some moments there may arise a greedy and deluded consciousness: "I want to attain such-and-such a state because of the merit/pleasantness/wisdom I will gain." At some moments there may arise pure thoughts: "Whatever arises is bound to pass away. No need to cling to such ephemeral, impersonal, changing phenomena as self." In some cases there may be no moments of pure thoughts. In other cases there may be no moments of greed and delusion. The merit is not so much in the action qua practice/ritual/method but in the action qua volition from moment to moment. Although jhana is powerful and good, there still may be a proliferation of greedy and deluded moments before and after the jhana. This can happen if there is the wrong view: "I will practice samatha so that I can be happy, happy, happy. It's even better than sex!" By all means, practice samatha, practice jhana. But how can wrong view be eliminated when samatha is viewed as a ritual for gaining merit? D: Sitting in meditation doing the practice (training) properly is not an empty ritual. Riding the mind of hindrances in a moment by moment activity is not empty ritual. Ritual need not be empty, it depends on the state of mind. --> Dan: Agreed. Ritual need not be empty. But silabbataparamasa refers to the 'non-empty' rituals as well as the empty ones. D: responding to "justify as righteous because it involves so much effort and concentration" This seems to discount concentration, but as you well know right concentration is a factor of the path, so when you say "righteous" it seems that you are using it as a dirty word. If we belittle concentration, then we can more easily reject it from the daily practice. --> Dan: "Righteous" is a function of "rightness", not of effort or concentration. Effort and concentration can easily be wrong effort and wrong concentration. It would be a huge mistake to belittle concentration, but the distinction between 'right concentration' and 'wrong concentration' must also be emphasized. The type of jhana that people so often refer to is a form of right concentration, as the Buddha made clear by so many references to it (the other kind is the jhana is with seeing characteristics as object rather than object as object, i.e. supramundane jhana). But what is the view of jhana during the non-jhana times? If it is viewed as something to be taken up immediately, without delay, a number of problems are raised. First, there is then little effort to understand reality as it is at this moment as opposed to reality as you'd like it to be. Second, there is too easily a cultivation of lobha -- "Oh, I wish I were somewhere else! Oh, how I need that cushion and that quiet room. Oh, if only those hindrances weren't there! Then, I'd really be happy!" Third, there is cultivation of self view, of the view that there is one who directs and controls the arising of kusala states. Thanks. Dan --- End forwarded message --- 13510 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Fri May 24, 2002 9:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca --- Robert Epstein wrote: Sarah, Can you please explain how concepts are not impermanent because not real? I don't get the connection. if something is unreal but it is thought of, what is not impermanent about that? It seems to me that the opposite of impermanent is permanent. Are you saying that that which is unreal must be permanent? i can't see what that could possibly mean, since something that is not real, rather than being permanent, doesn't even exist in the first place. It only exists when thought of, since it has no other existence, and thus would still be quite impermanent as far as I can see. Best, Robert Ep. Dear Rob.E. This might explain: The Dhamma Theory Philosophical Cornerstone of the ABHIDHAMMA Y. Karunadasa The Wheel Publication No. 412/413 (Buddhist Publication society) Karunadasa: """because pannattis are without corresponding objective reality, the commentaries call them asabhava-dhammas -- things without a real nature -- to distinguish them from the real elements of existence.Since sabhava, the intrinsic nature of a dhamma, is itself the dhamma, from the point of view of this definition what is qualified as asabhava amounts to an abhava, a non-existent in the final sense. It is in recognition of this fact that the three salient characteristics of empirical reality -- origination (uppada), subsistence (thiti), and dissolution (bhanga) -- are not applied to them. For these three characteristics can be predicated only of those things which answer to the Abhidhammic definition of empirical reality. Again, unlike the real existents, pannattis are not brought about by conditions (paccayatthitika). For this same reason, they are also defined as "not positively produced" (aparinipphanna). Positive production (parinipphannata) is true only of those things which have their own individual nature (avenika-sabhava). Only a dhamma that has an own- nature, with a beginning and an end in time, produced by conditions, and marked by the three salient characteristics of conditioned existence, is positively produced. 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)." 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). 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. 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."">> best wishes robert 13511 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri May 24, 2002 9:23am Subject: RE: [dsg] anicca Dear Roberts K, This is a very nice explanation. Do you by any chance know why Pannatti may be explained as anatta (although not as impermanence or dukha)? kom > -----Original Message----- > From: robertkirkpatrick.rm > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 6:12 PM > Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca > > > --- Robert Epstein > wrote: > Sarah, > > Best, > Robert Ep. > Dear Rob.E. > This might explain: > The Dhamma Theory > Philosophical Cornerstone of the ABHIDHAMMA > Y. Karunadasa The Wheel Publication No. 412/413 (Buddhist > Publication society) > Karunadasa: > """because pannattis are without corresponding objective reality, the > commentaries call them asabhava-dhammas -- things without a real > nature -- > to distinguish them from the real elements of existence.Since > sabhava, the > intrinsic nature of a dhamma, is itself the dhamma, from the point > of view > of this definition what is qualified as asabhava amounts to an > abhava, a > non-existent in the final sense. It is in recognition of this fact > that > the three salient characteristics of empirical reality -- origination > (uppada), subsistence (thiti), and dissolution (bhanga) -- are not > applied > to them. For these three characteristics can be predicated only of > those > things which answer to the Abhidhammic definition of empirical > reality. > Again, unlike the real existents, pannattis are not brought about by > conditions (paccayatthitika). For this same reason, they are also > defined > as "not positively produced" (aparinipphanna). Positive production > (parinipphannata) is true only of those things which have their own > individual nature (avenika-sabhava). Only a dhamma that has an own- > nature, > with a beginning and an end in time, produced by conditions, and > marked by > the three salient characteristics of conditioned existence, is > positively > produced. > > 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)." 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). > 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. 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."">> > best wishes > robert > 13512 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Fri May 24, 2002 9:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Dear Kom, Not really, Kom. best wishes robert "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Roberts K, > > This is a very nice explanation. Do you by any chance know why Pannatti may > be explained as anatta (although not as impermanence or dukha)? > > kom > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: robertkirkpatrick.rm > > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 6:12 PM > > Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca > > > > > > --- Robert Epstein > > wrote: > > Sarah, > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. > > Dear Rob.E. > > This might explain: > > The Dhamma Theory > > Philosophical Cornerstone of the ABHIDHAMMA > > Y. Karunadasa The Wheel Publication No. 412/413 (Buddhist > > Publication society) > > Karunadasa: > > """because pannattis are without corresponding objective reality, the > > commentaries call them asabhava-dhammas -- things without a real > > nature -- > > to distinguish them from the real elements of existence.Since > > sabhava, the > > intrinsic nature of a dhamma, is itself the dhamma, from the point > > of view > > of this definition what is qualified as asabhava amounts to an > > abhava, a > > non-existent in the final sense. It is in recognition of this fact > > that > > the three salient characteristics of empirical reality -- origination > > (uppada), subsistence (thiti), and dissolution (bhanga) -- are not > > applied > > to them. For these three characteristics can be predicated only of > > those > > things which answer to the Abhidhammic definition of empirical > > reality. > > Again, unlike the real existents, pannattis are not brought about by > > conditions (paccayatthitika). For this same reason, they are also > > defined > > as "not positively produced" (aparinipphanna). Positive production > > (parinipphannata) is true only of those things which have their own > > individual nature (avenika-sabhava). Only a dhamma that has an own- > > nature, > > with a beginning and an end in time, produced by conditions, and > > marked by > > the three salient characteristics of conditioned existence, is > > positively > > produced. > > > > 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)." 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). > > 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. 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."">> > > best wishes > > robert 13513 From: abbott_hk Date: Fri May 24, 2002 1:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Dear Kom & Rob K, Yes, it's a wonderful quote, thanks Rob - far more helpful than my clumsy attempts. Actually, I raised yr question with K.Sujin, Kom and I understand we can we refer to pannatti as anatta in the sense that there is no self or atta anywhere and so we can say there is no 'atta' in what is real or imaginary. Of course, calling pannatti anatta in this way is not the same as understanding the characteristic of anatta of conditioned realities with panna. One or two other points may come to mind (what I mentioned about lakkhana and sabhava to Joyce was one). Sarah ====== --- "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Roberts K, > > This is a very nice explanation. Do you by any chance know why Pannatti may > be explained as anatta (although not as impermanence or dukha)? > > kom 13514 From: Sukinder Date: Sat May 25, 2002 8:35am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: 'no control', Reply to Rob E.(Booklet) Hi Rob, After many obstacles I am now managing to respond. Starting with taking my wife to immigration to extend her visa, paying a heavy fine for overstaying and then coming to work late. Decided to write from home later that night, but younger son would not sleep until almost midnight, meanwhile other son starts to cough, decided not to leave room in case he needs attention. Planned to write in morning, but "yahoo 'my groups' " wasn't responding. Left home to come to workplace to use computer here, remembered on the way that this is friday, day to have lunch at mother's place. As usual she stuffs me and I feel discomfort for the rest of the day. But just remembered that all this is just concept and story, even the idea that stomach is full, is just thinking, uncomfortable feeling does not have to be connected to the story about mother stuffing me. And the feeling does not necessarily have to originate from my belly. So now having done a bit of breaking down of conventional reality in terms of it being just that, I am feeling better now. Still stuck with sakkaya ditthi however. Oh well! Rob, let me say at the outset, that I like reading your views very much, however having very little experience of dhamma myself, I find that my own response often tend towards self- justification rather than -clarification. So I hope you don't mind me leaving out parts of your post to which my response would be clearly akusala. Also being a junior within a group of junior seekers of dhamma, my response should not be taken to represent any one else's, less so the Abhidhamma or Therevada position. I would be more comfortable had I had the knowledge and capability to quote the tipitaka to support my understandings. The teachings would at least put me more or less on track, otherwise the tendency is toward interpreting in terms of personal inclination. Now I go the the post: > Sukin: > Silabbataparamasa is "wrong practise", meaning anything we do with the view > that doing such things will lead to understanding. R: Sutta study for instance? Or is this exempt from being 'wrong practice'? S: The aim of study, is intellectual knowledge. Whether there will be understanding of what is read or heard depend on conditions. There can be study with no understanding, just accumulating lots of words. According to what I've heard, the tipitaka is full of descriptions about all the different realities, the right path and the wrong path. Don't you think it advisable to read about all these realities which inevitably arises through the course of our lives and find out what will lead to what, before deciding that a particular activity is condusive to understanding? R: control and intention are not the same thing. intentions create results, whether immediately or later, if they are actual intentions. since every cause has an effect, this shuld be true, shoudn't it? one confuses 'control' with 'results'. certainly intentions and practices yield *results* that are in keeping with those intentions or practices. this is in keeping with the law of cause and effect, the law of kamma. S: I get what you are saying about intention, and this is why I commentated last time about finding one's path and following it with all sincerity, whether just this would guarantee understanding. At this point I'd like to add, that when people following the Buddha's path say such things as they wan't to attain 'final liberation' or that they want 'out of samsara', they don't realy mean it. Why, because if they consider how much attachment they still had, they will have to admit that they still cling strongly to the senses. So if our intentions our not pure, the result will not be so. And where best to know what our real inclinations are toward than in normal every day circumstance? For eg., a person can be driven to tears hearing some dhamma, at that moment he may wish to become a monk, would it be advisable for him to do so? R: if in fact it is totally unpredictable which activities will produce.........albeit resulting from past kamma in some amazingly complex way, will not, in my opinion, help our progress. What it does do is put us ..............we have no control. The relief from having a self is a *freedom*, not a handicap. S: I agree that such descriptions can lead to the idea of passivity. But here we are talking about understanding as the aim, and I believe that panna is the opposite of passivity and allowing circumstace to thrust us here and there. Avija in fact is what gets us 'blown by the wind of circumstance', panna 'rides with the wind' of reality and goes against the tide of convention. Understanding any situation is the goal. In the conventional world, we do and are bound by duty to do things with expectation of results, but what the outcome will be there is no being confused or surprised or carried away if there is understanding that it was not "us" who brought about that result, just a complex set of conditions. S: > There will be understanding or there will not, as simple as that. Surely > intention is there, but there is no seeking out already fallen states or unarisen ones. > Nor trying to 'be' more attentive. R: Well I disagree. The theory of cittas has its own set of escape hatches, such as the innumerable cetasikas which can cross-hatch each other in such a way as to cause a number of complex effects, and the fact that the accumulations of the cittas are passed on from one to the next. In other words, if an intention arises in one citta, it may be passed to the next one and so on and so forth. S: It will pass on how strongly and what other object may condition the proceeding cittas and whether it will be kusala or akusala is hard to predict. R: This means the opposite of what you have said here: the cittas do not merely arise and fall, they develop factors and accumulate them, and pass them down. So you *can*develop and build intentions........................ then why should meditation and other intentional activities have similarly positive results? I still don't get the distinction. S: The law of cause and effect is precise but there being different intensities and innumerable causes it is impossible to isolate one condition and base the result on that. R: I know I'm being pretty tough here, but I want to get to the real bones of the issue and see if we can draw some solid conclusions at some point. S: Not to worry, I am enjoying it and am very greatful. R: Well we can certainly learn and develop the right attitude towards discernment and learn to recognize those attitudes and approaches that are defeating of our purpose. This is a matter of intelligence, practice and assessment, not coincidence. S: Agreed that this does happen, but can we be sure that it will? We do know on the other hand, that kusala or akusala conditions more of the same in terms of accumulated tendencies, why not then we assess, based on the teachings to see what is right and what is not from the very beginning, which is now? The avija associated with the activity (a concept) ie., sitting cross legged, closing one's eyes etc., will condition more of the same on and on. Yes the act of studying sutta, whether sitting or standing or walking or lying down can also be accumulated the same way, therefore it is very important to have an excellent teacher like K. Sujin and a group like DSG :-) to remind us about detachment and to show the significance of going beyond mere theory to actual application in daily life. Panna even a little leads to some level of detachment and tendency away from silabbataparamasa. > Sukin: > Buddhism as we know it, not as the Buddha taught. Or do you think that the > Mahayana teachings are the actual word of the Buddha? R: I am not a scholar and I don't know what the proofs are for historical validity of any teachings. What i do know is that there is wisdom in both Theravada and Mahayana. I don't have any doubt of that. S: One does learn from any situation in life, but that depends on whether we learn to understand from the position of our own experience of reality or we learn to imitate based on other's understandings. When I read a Mahayana text now, it seems more to direct toward a "doing" kind of thing, which goes against how I view the world now. This is not to deny some very good reminders in there especially with regard to parami. But this is clearly just my point of view. R: Well that is not to say that one is ultimately more effective than the other. We don't really know that, but we do know that there is wisdom in Buddhist teachings. S: Sorry I wasn't clear. What I meant was that it was more effective in terms of the number of people approaching it, with or without prior knowledge can gain to a large or lesser extent. > Sukin: > Personally I don't find it useful to measure my or anyone else's progress, > not knowing how to do it without giving importance to 'self' ;-). R: Well there is a path and there is a goal. If not, what is the point? If one is training to do something, one has some way of assessing whether they are heading in the right direction, doing the right process. One can't walk around in circles and be satisfied, so we have to have something to see if we are heading in the right direction, no? S: Surely there is always a danger of going astray, and it would be a shame indeed to have come in contact with the teachings and still go wrong. But this is a conventional way of seeing things, doing something, gauging it and testing ground. But can one really know what activity is going to lead to what. There is a path and there is a goal, but that goal is the understanding of the present moment. Perhaps with greater and greater precision, but is there any need to worry whether the precision is increasing or not? We still have to come back to the moment don't we? On the other hand, if one measures ones progress in terms of tendency for kusala, I feel that even if we are studying dhamma, if the aim is development of panna, it is possible that strong akusala arises from time to time which may have not been so before we studied dhamma. But this should not be evidence that there is no progress. The aim is panna and so instead of trying to control our behavior as before, there may be conditions for the otherwises hidden kilesas, manifest themselves in terms of akusala actions. But I do agree that in the long run it must be less, otherwise we are doing something wrong. > Sukin: > Good, but is it worth clinging to?:-) R: You added that. S: Sorry! R: Anyone, from scientist to artist, would check their results. you assume there is clinging there. S: Yes, I think so, maybe subtle but surely there must be. > can we really know for sure that what the Buddha taught is all true and > only then will we really be independent and no more need outside confirmation. R: but we have to develop that capacity and we have to work in a way that will get us there. it won't happen by accident. S: Again, nothing is accidental, attempting to keep track or not will not change what the result will be from studying and applying the teachings. Measuring progress will condition an attempt to do something in relation to the result. *What will be that something to do?!* > Sukin: > Intention is in every citta, it arises and falls with it and it takes on the > quality of the citta, being with or without sati and panna. R: yes, but it also accumulates and is passed on. S: If it is akusala, then akusala accumulates. Besides lobha can come in anytime, even after kusala moment. R: I think it's a mistake to draw assumptions in that way. Nisargardatta saw the emptiness of all phenomena and saw no reason to change his behavior. He just kept doing what he had always done. i have heard many arguments saying that one should not worry about 'fixing' this reality, but instead discern its true nature, and that is what he emphasized. S: I made the comment with some reluctance, he is in any case a much superior person to myself. But smoking cannot be any thing but a manifestation of kilesa. You are supposed to keep the five precepts perfectly once you become a sotapanna. R: to be able to see the specific content of each moment is a property of advanced meditation as well as Buddhist philosophy. as for 'individual cittas', we will both have to wait to see if they really arise and fall as single elements in a string of beads, or whether they break down to non-units in a continuous changing thread. so far the idea that there are specific bounded cittas that have clear boundaries seems quite substantialist to me and is controversial within Buddhism at large. I don't take it as a requirement for being 'Buddhist'. S: Yet out of bhavanga where there is no experience of anything, arises a sense door adverting citta which conditions the sense consciousness. After that there may be sati of the level of satipatthana to be mindful of a reality 'just arisen'. This may be theory only, but based on someone else's experience, it is said that at the moment of satipatthana, there is only the object of the citta, no observer observing anything, just that reality, "no self" anywhere, split second, and back to normal way of seeing things, ie., with subject / object duality. This makes sense to me. The boudary clear or subsumed by the conditions conditioning it is not an issue. Undoubtedly there arises a visesa lakkhana to show the individuality and uniqueness of that arising But I don't take the knowledge of deatils to be a requirement for becoming a buddhist either ;-). R: well I don't believe in 100% within samsara, this is a form of perfectionism to me. moments are neither perfect nor imperfect, they are what they are. the Buddha is one who has no delusions, but you really can't measure other qualities by percent. Does the buddha say he is a perfect being? Just curious. S: 100% means he had perfectly accomplished the paramis that were a precondition for becoming a samma sambuddha. Never mind about the exact figure, whether it was 99.99%, or 95%, the point is he did not need any further development nor could there be. He accomplished everything that was needed to accomplish. R: I disagree. Each generation does add something to understanding. The original teachings are of the highest order, but that doesn't mean there's nothing for us to do to create a continuing tradition. S: NO. If the teachings were something 'thought out', then I agree that you can review and improve on it. But the wisdom of the Buddha was not a result of "thinking about" reality. The insight he gained had no relation to the culture and history of his time. All the Buddhas past and future will necessarily have the same understanding. Anyone else is just a factor in the opposite direction, ie., polluting the original insight. > Sukin: > Yes, and knowing that at the moment it arises frees us from this tendency. R: In meditation too. But meditation has the advantage of literally focussing the awareness, and one can still account for the intention and let go of clinging while still doing a practice. S: If this is your experience I'm happy for you. > what about moments of seeing, hearing etc., do we doubt those moments? > Aren't these moments real? even if our sati and panna is not sharp enough to > perceive them as just elements. We can in any case know the individual > characteristics that are apparent even though clouded by the 'I' experiencing it. R: Meditation has a similar purpose, to simply see the nature of the mind as it appears in the moment through arising thoughts, sensations, breath, arising phenomena. it is the same thing, only concentrated. S: Allow me to say something here. We have accumulated avijja of realities through all doorways. In order to understand seeing consciousness, it must arise first. If we don't know realities through all doorways we will continue to have doubts about it. It is not a matter of closing eyes and noting 'thinking', 'hearing' and expect one day to develop understanding of eye-consciousness and visible objects. There must be no picking and choosing. This is why understanding must be natural, in daily life. If avijja arises much in relation to seeing for instance, then ignoring it would make it harder to understand. The idea of meditation itself is a problem for me, if someone suggest what is called "post meditation" ie., the idea of carrying mindfulness over to daily activities. This seems absurd to me. R: yes, but we work like demons to keep our views in place. and we keep reconstituting them and accumulating them in many moments. so they stick around even though they rise and fall again and again. so maybe we should let go rather than hold on to our views when they do arise. S: If views are seen as just views and not reality, they would automatically have less appeal. The problem is we have so much attachment to views, that even right theoretical view can be clung to. But that is not the object of studying the teachings, it must be done with detachment. R: I see that as a way of dismissing practices that have been proven to be helpful and effective over many centuries. I don't think it's the most helpful view, to see things as so complex that it is random cause and effect to us, but then to step back in say but on the other hand we should study suttas and read the commentaries. that is contradictory. we certainly think *those* activities will yield results, despite the complexity of causes. S: Study and know that it is only theory. Study more theory and know that it is different from direct experience. When there is direct experience, know what is direct experience, the theory will have less appeal. But direct experience will happen only when the conditions are right. So you study more to understand 'Theoretically'. It is not to study theory in order to have direct experience, it is just to understand theory and that it is not the experience itself. Whew! Never worked so hard all my life. Hope I have at least accumulated some parami or the other ;-). Hopefully you Rob, will be able to make our mails shorter, I didn't know how to. Sorry everyone else. Best wishes, Sukin. 13515 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri May 24, 2002 6:48pm Subject: Present moment/ illusory future Dear All, Buddhism emphasises that the past is an idealised fantasy, the future illusory, and that reality can only be found in the present moment. In order to live in the present moment, Buddhism encourages us to be "mindful" or fully conscious of what we are doing. Not only are we then living wholly in the present, but we are set free from living in vain regret for the past, or dreaming about the future. Just a brief diversion to 'dream about the illusory future' for a moment..... .... Looking at visible object, colours, feeling hardness, hearing rustling sound - thinking Qantas ticket to Bangkok. Hard to live in the present moment when there are only 16 days before leaving Brisbane and hoping to end up in Bangkok, before joining everyone else going to Sri Lanka. But who can tell ... life is an unpredictable adventure....and, just in case the snakes had slipped from our minds.... "According to Sri Lanka National Museum's Manuscript Series (Vol. VIII) and the Sinhala Palm Leaf Manuscripts Medical Vol. IV (Treatment for snake bites), there are five kinds of venomous snakes in Sri Lanka. They are the Mapila (Cat-snake), the Karawala (Krait), the Naya (Cobra), the Tit-polonga (Russell's viper) and the Kunakatuwa (Humped-nose viper)." Does (anyone apart from me) think it is a little worrying that the Treatment for snake bites is kept on Palm Leaf Manuscripts? :-) metta, Christine 13516 From: Sarah Date: Fri May 24, 2002 8:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 8 (2)Larry/Azita Hi Larry, Yes, I think I did misunderstand you (as I suspected at the time), probably because it was in an ADL study context. You mention a ‘sense of self that arises before anything is identified *with*.’ You suggest this is a ‘feeling of like, dislike and confusion’. Let me assure you while we’re ont the topic of ‘untaught manyfolk’, that there is nothing ‘well-ordered’ about my mind. I just came home from my Tai Chi class in which I was most embarrassed, having forgotten everything I learnt last week after the disruption of the long weekend away. Still, as Sukin has just reminded us with so many helpful daily life details, there can be sati at these times of conventional forgetting and awareness of the embarrassment (dosa, mana, clinging to self and so on). I think the feeling of ‘sense of self’ you refer to is thinking (about concepts, of course) and not necessarily in words or long thoughts at all. It can creep in so quickly and as you suggest, is accompanied by like, dislike or moha. There may be ditthi (wrong view) too, or it may just be attachment to self. Only sati and panna can know precisely. When I referred to objects such as seeing, visible object and so on, I was suggesting that without these realities in the sense door processes, there would be no thinking, likes or dislikes. Therefore, there has to be the development of understanding of realities appearing or experiencing through six doorways. As Manji just quoted so helpfully (thanks Manji for all your excellent quotes): ======================================= We read in the Middle Length Sayings (I, no. l8, Discourse of the Honey Ball) about the origin of perceptions and obsessions and their ending. Mahå- Kaccana gave to the monks an explanation about what the Buddha had said in brief: Visual consciousness, your reverences, arises because of eye and visual object; the meeting of the three is sensory impingement (phassa); feelings are because of sensory impingement; what one feels one perceives; what one perceives one reasons about; what one reasons about obsesses one; what obsesses one is the origin of the number of perceptions and obsessions which assail a man in regard to visual object cognisable by the eye, past, future, present… ======================================= Larry, I fully agree with you that all the problems in life come down to the akusala roots and in particular to moha (ignorance) and ditthi (wrong view). Thanks for your patience with my misguided comments before. I also really appreciate that you are studying abhidhamma IN DAILY LIFE. However detailed it is, the test of its value is only in the understanding of phenomena appearing now. It doesn’t matter if we don’t master or remember all the details. Talking of which, I’ve now long forgotten the embarrassment of the Tai Chi class, thanks;-) Sarah ===== 13517 From: Num Date: Sat May 25, 2002 1:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 9 (2) Hi Larry, Let me bring this up. As it mentioned in Milindapanha, Ven. Nagasena said to the King Milinda that to discern citta and it accompanied cetasikas is very difficult, like to compartmentalize the ingredients of a soup when you taste the soup or to analyze the sea water in the ocean to see which part of the water comes from what river. The following is from the post K.Sukin wrote to Rob E. I think both quotes complement each other pretty well. K.Sukin is a very wise man. *********************** <> <> ******************* <> N: In a non-arahant person, one or more of the six root-cetasikas co-arise with cittas in javana sub-process of both PDAC and MDAC. All other cittas in the process are ahetuka. In an arahant, two or more of the sobana roots (alobha, adosa and/or panna) co-arise with cittas in javana sub-process of both PDAC and MDAC (It's called sobana roots b/c an arahant no longer has kusala citta, all citta in javana sub-process become kiriya citta). The smiling process of an arahant can be rooted (mahakiriya-somanassa) or rootless (hasitupada vithi). The bhavanga-citta remains the same, as the patisandhi-citta, through out life. In human plane, it can be with kusala-ahetuka vipaka or kusala-hetuka vipaka citta (with or without panna). <> N: "Past citta" is citta that has already fallen away. An object of MDAC can be namadhamma (e.g. citta, cetasika). We talk about something really fast here. In daily life sometimes we have past or recent past vedana, rupa, cetasika, or citta as an object of the current citta. I think sanna also plays a role here. From Satipatthana-sutta: The Contemplation of Consciousness, <<"And how, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating consciousness in consciousness? "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands the consciousness with lust, as with lust; the consciousness without lust, as without lust; the consciousness with hate, as with hate; the consciousness without hate, as without hate; the consciousness with ignorance, as with ignorance; the consciousness without ignorance, as without ignorance; the shrunken state of consciousness, as the shrunken state; the distracted state of consciousness, as the distracted state; the state of consciousness become great, as the state become great; the state of consciousness not become great, as the state not become great; the state of consciousness with some other mental state superior to it, as the state with something mentally higher; the state of consciousness with no other mental state superior to it, as the state with nothing mentally higher; the quieted state of consciousness, as the quieted state; the state of consciousness not quieted, as the state not quieted; the freed state of consciousness as freed; and the unfreed state of consciousness, as unfreed. >> <> N: Pannatti can be arammana of citta. <> N: No, sanna cetasika is sanna-khandha. It's a cetasika. <> N: May I refer you to the useful posts on dsg: Sanna (memory, perception) 5880, 8384, 10098, 10141, 10378, 11085, 11923. <> N: Sati is a conditioned reality. Sanna is a proximate cause of sati. Sati has a manifestation of attending its arammana. Sanna is one of the 5-khandha. There are a lot of schools/views about nature of sanna by various schools of thought during the Bhuddha time as mentioned in 62 wrong views in Brahmajala-sutta. I think sanna is very crucial. <> N: Thanks. My vacation will start 3 weeks from now. Best wishes and happy Memorial Day weekend. Num 13518 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat May 25, 2002 6:26am Subject: Much ado over nothing? re Useful Posts Dear Sarah, Jon, and All, I often study the Useful Posts to learn and reflect on the Dhamma, and have found them an invaluable resource. They have been a primary learning tool for me, second only to current discussions on List. But I have felt uncomfortable and reluctant to study them lately, ever since seeing the "eXTReMe Tracking" Logo at the bottom of the index page, which was apparently installed on 28 March. Did I miss the post broaching this subject with the members ? http://extremetracking.com/open;geo?login=dsgup I realise that collecting and collating statistics is (sometimes) useful. My personal opinion is that my reading habits, when I am on- line, and how often I visit a site are my own private business. I believe individual identity is not one of the statistics being kept (from a look at the Summary) but I think we all know who comes from the Domain of 'au', whose server is iprimus.com.au and who has had 17 contacts or 77.27% of the total. Could we be told a little more about the Tracker, why it is there, and what it is hoped to achieve? Does it matter whether it is known that a thousand people a year (or just ten) visit the Useful Posts? I acknowledge that I may be being oversensitive on this issue. I have recently been involved in robust debate over the ethics of cameras in staff toilets and locker areas, and a tracking system for when individual cars enter and leave the Staff Car park at the hospital. (I was on the 'no' side of the debate, as you may have guessed :)) - had a win on the staff toilets/lockers, and a loss on the carpark tracker.) Anyway, Just my thoughts, metta, Christine 13519 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Sat May 25, 2002 8:33am Subject: Re: Much ado over nothing? re Useful Posts --- Dear Chris. and all, I guess before the debate on this begins I should mention that on my site www.abhidhamma.org I installed a tracker way back that gives me all sorts of statistics on how many visits, what country even IP. My ones a hidden one as I originally installed a non-hidden one like the one you mention that sarah and jon have apparently installed but I didn't like the look of it on the page. What are my reasons for this? Mainly vanity as I wanted to see how many people were visiting the site and how diverse they were. the count buttons (different from trackers)give no info but with the trackers you can see who is a new visitor as against and old, what country etc. and so get a better idea. I actually haven't looked at the stats for months as the novelty soon wears off but if anyone is interested here is a the stats on country of origin for a couple of months (I just went to the site and got it): Countries Number of visits US Commercial 384 Network 375 Australia 107 Japan 94 US Educational 66 Netherlands 50 Singapore 49 Thailand 49 United Kingdom 48 Canada 46 Malaysia 24 Italy 19 Belgium 16 Switzerland 14 United States 13 Spain 12 Germany 9 New Zealand 8 Austria 7 Sweden 6 Poland 6 Czech Republic 5 France 5 US Government 5 Non-Profit Org 5 Croatia (Hrvatska) 5 Un. Arab Emirates 5 Israel 4 US Military 4 Hong Kong 3 Indonesia 3 Taiwan 3 Brazil 3 Brunei Darussalam 3 Uruguay 2 South Africa 2 Romania 2 Chile 2 Argentina 2 Greece 2 Korea (South) 2 Finland 2 Hungary 1 Slovak Republic 1 Denmark 1 Mexico 1 Norway 1 Iceland 1 India 1 Macedonia 1 Ecuador 1 Nepal 1 best wishes robert "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Sarah, Jon, and All, > > I often study the Useful Posts to learn and reflect on the Dhamma, > and have found them an invaluable resource. They have been a primary > learning tool for me, second only to current discussions on List. But > I have felt uncomfortable and reluctant to study them lately, ever > since seeing the "eXTReMe Tracking" Logo at the bottom of the index > page, which was apparently installed on 28 March. Did I miss the > post broaching this subject with the members ? > http://extremetracking.com/open;geo?login=dsgup > I realise that collecting and collating statistics is (sometimes) > useful. My personal opinion is that my reading habits, when I am on- > line, and how often I visit a site are my own private business. I > believe individual identity is not one of the statistics being kept > (from a look at the Summary) but I think we all know who comes from > the Domain of 'au', whose server is iprimus.com.au and who has had 17 > contacts or 77.27% of the total. > Could we be told a little more about the Tracker, why it is there, > and what it is hoped to achieve? Does it matter whether it is known > that a thousand people a year (or just ten) visit the Useful Posts? > I acknowledge that I may be being oversensitive on this issue. I > have recently been involved in robust debate over the ethics of > cameras in staff toilets and locker areas, and a tracking system for > when individual cars enter and leave the Staff Car park at the > hospital. (I was on the 'no' side of the debate, as you may have > guessed :)) - had a win on the staff toilets/lockers, and a loss on > the carpark tracker.) > > Anyway, Just my thoughts, > metta, > Christine 13520 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat May 25, 2002 9:51am Subject: Re: Much ado over nothing? re Useful Posts Dear Robert, and All, I agree that this is a widespread practice. Though I can't quite see what benefits would obtain to a buddhist list knowing where their 'customers' are coming from. The 'product' can hardly be changed to suit what people are looking for nowadays. :) And I don't think anybody has an advertising budget.... My understanding of the situation on dsg, is that it is not a case of monitoring from where one-off or repeat hits by the general world population are originating. Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought the Useful Posts were only open to this comparatively small family of members. I wonder what would be the reason (other than curiosity) to observe 'who' is looking at 'what', and at 'which times' they are doing it? My major unsettledness probably comes as a projection onto dsg of concern at a growing intrusion of observational/monitoring devices in life-in-general. It makes me smile, Robert, to hear you admit to vanity .... and it is hard to keep any heat in the discussion after such a confession.:) metta, Christine --- "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: > --- > Dear Chris. and all, > I guess before the debate on this begins I should mention that on my > site www.abhidhamma.org I installed a tracker way back that gives me > all sorts of statistics on how many visits, what country even IP. My > ones a hidden one as I originally installed a non-hidden one like > the one you mention that sarah and jon have apparently installed but > I didn't like the look of it on the page. > What are my reasons for this? Mainly vanity as I wanted to see how > many people were visiting the site and how diverse they were. the > count buttons (different from trackers)give no info but with the > trackers you can see who is a new visitor as against and old, what > country etc. and so get a better idea. I actually haven't looked at > the stats for months as the novelty soon wears off but if anyone is > interested here is a the stats on country of origin for a couple of > months (I just went to the site and got it): > Countries Number of visits > US Commercial 384 > Network 375 > Australia 107 > Japan 94 > US Educational 66 > Netherlands 50 > Singapore 49 > Thailand 49 > United Kingdom 48 > Canada 46 > Malaysia 24 > Italy 19 > Belgium 16 > Switzerland 14 > United States 13 > Spain 12 > Germany 9 > New Zealand 8 > Austria 7 > Sweden 6 > Poland 6 > Czech Republic 5 > France 5 > US Government 5 > Non-Profit Org 5 > Croatia (Hrvatska) 5 > Un. Arab Emirates 5 > Israel 4 > US Military 4 > Hong Kong 3 > Indonesia 3 > Taiwan 3 > Brazil 3 > Brunei Darussalam 3 > Uruguay 2 > South Africa 2 > Romania 2 > Chile 2 > Argentina 2 > Greece 2 > Korea (South) 2 > Finland 2 > Hungary 1 > Slovak Republic 1 > Denmark 1 > Mexico 1 > Norway 1 > Iceland 1 > India 1 > Macedonia 1 > Ecuador 1 > Nepal 1 > best wishes > robert > "christine_forsyth" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, Jon, and All, > > > > I often study the Useful Posts to learn and reflect on the Dhamma, > > and have found them an invaluable resource. They have been a > primary > > learning tool for me, second only to current discussions on List. > But > > I have felt uncomfortable and reluctant to study them lately, ever > > since seeing the "eXTReMe Tracking" Logo at the bottom of the > index > > page, which was apparently installed on 28 March. Did I miss the > > post broaching this subject with the members ? > > http://extremetracking.com/open;geo?login=dsgup > > I realise that collecting and collating statistics is (sometimes) > > useful. My personal opinion is that my reading habits, when I am > on- > > line, and how often I visit a site are my own private business. I > > believe individual identity is not one of the statistics being > kept > > (from a look at the Summary) but I think we all know who comes > from > > the Domain of 'au', whose server is iprimus.com.au and who has had > 17 > > contacts or 77.27% of the total. > > Could we be told a little more about the Tracker, why it is there, > > and what it is hoped to achieve? Does it matter whether it is > known > > that a thousand people a year (or just ten) visit the Useful Posts? > > I acknowledge that I may be being oversensitive on this issue. I > > have recently been involved in robust debate over the ethics of > > cameras in staff toilets and locker areas, and a tracking system > for > > when individual cars enter and leave the Staff Car park at the > > hospital. (I was on the 'no' side of the debate, as you may have > > guessed :)) - had a win on the staff toilets/lockers, and a loss > on > > the carpark tracker.) > > > > Anyway, Just my thoughts, > > metta, > > Christine 13521 From: <> Date: Sat May 25, 2002 10:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 9 (2) Thanks Num, for your clarifications and suggestions. I'm going to look though my books for more on sanna this weekend. If I find anything new I'll post it. One thought that has occured to me is that we have a list of different rupa, a list of different vedana, a list of different sankhara, and a list of different citta, but no list (that I know of) of different sanna. That's interesting. Larry 13522 From: <> Date: Sat May 25, 2002 10:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 8 (2)Larry/Azita Hi Sarah, even I don't understand what I'm saying. Ego is such a difficult thing to identify. You could call it attachment, but when viewed in satippatthana it is just attachment. It's like light looking for dark. Larry 13523 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 25, 2002 10:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Much ado over nothing? re Useful Posts Christine The Tracker button was put there by Kom who helps a lot behind the scenes and has certain (limited) moderator privileges for that purpose. Kom was interested to know the number of visitors to the Useful Posts site and, as far as I know, that is the only information that the function gives. Sarah and I are definitely not concerned about the identity of visitors to that page (or any other part of the list), and we will ask Kom to remove the button if in fact it gives information other than just the number of visitors. We realise that privacy is a sensitive issue for some members. As this issue is off-topic, we would ask that any further correspondence on this subject be off-list. We can assure you we will respond sympathetically to any such issues raised by members. We do not wish anything to detract from the dhamma discussion on the list. Thanks for raising the point, and for your co-operation. Jon & Sarah --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Sarah, Jon, and All, > > I often study the Useful Posts to learn and reflect on the Dhamma, > and have found them an invaluable resource. They have been a primary > learning tool for me, second only to current discussions on List. But > I have felt uncomfortable and reluctant to study them lately, ever > since seeing the "eXTReMe Tracking" Logo at the bottom of the index > page, which was apparently installed on 28 March. Did I miss the > post broaching this subject with the members ? > http://extremetracking.com/open;geo?login=dsgup > I realise that collecting and collating statistics is (sometimes) > useful. My personal opinion is that my reading habits, when I am on- > line, and how often I visit a site are my own private business. I > believe individual identity is not one of the statistics being kept > (from a look at the Summary) but I think we all know who comes from > the Domain of 'au', whose server is iprimus.com.au and who has had 17 > contacts or 77.27% of the total. > Could we be told a little more about the Tracker, why it is there, > and what it is hoped to achieve? Does it matter whether it is known > that a thousand people a year (or just ten) visit the Useful Posts? > I acknowledge that I may be being oversensitive on this issue. I > have recently been involved in robust debate over the ethics of > cameras in staff toilets and locker areas, and a tracking system for > when individual cars enter and leave the Staff Car park at the > hospital. (I was on the 'no' side of the debate, as you may have > guessed :)) - had a win on the staff toilets/lockers, and a loss on > the carpark tracker.) > > Anyway, Just my thoughts, > metta, > Christine > 13524 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 25, 2002 11:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Num --- Num wrote: > Dear Jon: > > Jim: << The Pali phrase is "satipa.t.thaanabhaavanaagaaminii > pa.tipadaa". It > seems to me that "the path of practice" is either a translation of > "pa.tipadaa" (the way) or "-gaaminii pa.tipadaa" (the way leading to). > >> > Num < Satipa.t.thaanabhaavanaagaaminii>> translated as < satipatthana-4.>> The word "pa.tipadaa" is left untranslated in Thai. >> > Jon: << I find it interesting that this word should have been left > untranslated > (but I can't think what significance this might have ;-) ). >> > > > I meant in Thai tipitaka, the word patipada is used without being > translated > in to simpler Thai word. I think Jim can give more thorough meaning of > the > word. Pati- has a board meaning. I think here it means "toward" and pada > > means " the way". Another word 'patipatti'; pati here means "together or > all > over" and patti means "attaining or reaching". Patipatti, which usually > translated into practice, can also mean reaching altogether, knowing all > --> > knowing nama and rupa. On 'patipada' Thanks for clarifying the 'untranslated' point; my apologies for not seeing the obvious meaning in your comment. Perhaps the most frequently-met use of this term is in the description of the 4th NOble Truth as 'dukkha nirodha gamini patipada' which to my recollection is invariably translated as something like 'path leading to the extinction of suffering' (never as 'practice'). On 'patipatti' I believe this term is translated into Thai as 'tyyng ch'po'. Does this give the same sense as you have indicated above? Some may find it helpful, as I do, to think of patipatti in the context of the 3 levels of understanding, namely-- pariyatti (theoretical understanding) patipatti (application of the theory) pativedhi (realisation). Any moment of satipatthana would qualify as 'patipatti' under this 3-fold grouping. Jon 13525 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 25, 2002 11:24am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Kom --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Jon & All, ... > Patipada is left translated in more than a few contexts in > the Thai-translated Tipitakas. For example, > Majhimma-pa.tipadaa (the middle way), Samma-pa.tipadaa (the > right way), and Dukkha-Niroda-gamani-Patipadda (the way > leading to the cessation, or magga). I guess Patipadda is > translated as either the way or the practice. > > If one insists on doctrines (right or wrong!), one can say, > Satipatthana is both 5-fold and 8-fold magga, and magga is > both 5-fold and 8-fold. Therefore, satipatthana can be used > interchangeably with magga. Thanks for your comments. I agree with the connection you make between satipatthana and magga. As I understand it, the commentaries explain that a moment of satipatthana is a moment of mundane path-consciousness. Nevertheless, I tend to think that when the Buddha used the term 'Noble Eightfold Path' in addressing listeners who were ripe for enlightenment he was referring exclusively to supramundane consciousness. Jon 13526 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 25, 2002 11:28am Subject: RE: [dsg] Deciding how best to act Kom --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Christine and Jon, > > Sorry to butt in, but this is too entertaining to resist... > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jonothan Abbott [mailto:Jon] > > > Sometimes I feel as if there are two me's - a > > reasonable, rational > > > one who drags a kicking and resisting one along. :-) > > > Thanks for the common sense advice. > > > > Well, the 'kicking and resisting one' is also > > very zany and entertaining, > > and it helps keep a good balance here! > > > > Just while I am entertaining my zany friends, I need to > remind myself, the entertaining friends would only lead to > bad plane of existence, miserable plane of existence, and > hell, or at the very least many more continued rounds of > existence. The more rational friends will lead me (if it's > not the entertaining friends who dress up as the rational > friends) to good plane of existence, happy plane of > existence, and heaven, and if we are persistent, eventually > the release. Hmm.... Good friends should really be > appreciated... I agree with what you say about the value of good friends. However, we should be careful not to 'typecast' too readily. Zany types can have a genuine interest in the teachings and in supporting another's interest in the teachings. And there are plenty of rational types with serious wrong view!! Jon 13527 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 25, 2002 11:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: anicca Victor --- yuzhonghao wrote: > Jon and all, > > Is a mental construct permanent or impermanent? > Is it satisfactory or unsatisfactory? > Is it to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This > is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self."? Interesting questions. Consider this: do we take mental constructs as being permanent and satisfactory in the same way that we take the visible object, sound or consciousness as being permanent and satisfactory? I think not. To my understanding of the texts, the 'direct knowledge' that the Buddha spoke of was addressed to the experiencing of the dhammas that constitute the 5 khandhas (which, again to my understanding, do not include purely mental constructs). I think the reason for this emphasis could be that taking mental constructs for being self or satisfactory is not a problem that needs to be specifically addressed, whereas taking say lobha or visible object for self or satisfactory is a problem that needs to be directly addressed. Jon 13528 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 25, 2002 11:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. Howard --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert (and Nina) - > > The position you take here, Rob, seems to go a bit beyond mine. > Something which is like a "star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash > of > lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream" > has a > mirage-like quality, but it is not absolutely nothing. Dhammas exist, > but in > a middle-way, dependent, and not self-supporting manner (despite the > root mean > ing of 'dhamma'). The question is exactly what does one mean by a > "reality". > I do NOT see hardness as having to be hardness of "something". There are > just > the characteristics and functionalities, but no "things" that possess > them, > except conventionally (that is: only in a manner of speaking). The Again, I agree with you here, particularly where you say that hardness is not the hardness *of something* but is just hardness. The 'thing' that we take as possessing the hardness is just another concept/conventional reality. > The characteristics are real in the sense of being elements of > experience, but are unreal in the sense of not being self-existent. > This is my take on the matter. I will 'pass' on the second part of this assertion, since the idea of 'self-existence' is not one I am familiar with (unless it means the same as 'conditioned'). > My fear is that the constant reference to "realities" tends > towards a substantialist perspective. Well this is altogether another issue. But I think we shouldn't let a matter of terminology cloud the real issue (namely, what is meant by realities as that term is found in the texts, and what is the significance of realities in the teachings). As it happens I don’t share your concern, and I'm content to go along with the Theras who seemed to know an awful lot more about these things than anyone today does. I can see a case for "realties" used to distinguish phenomena from "concepts", even though the phenomena in question are ultimately insubstantial. Jon 13529 From: Howard Date: Sat May 25, 2002 7:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/24/02 11:46:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Jon writes: > I can see a case for "realties" used to distinguish > phenomena from "concepts", even though the phenomena in question are > ultimately insubstantial. > =========================== That's not "bad", Jon. It doesn't make me uncomfortable! ;-)) 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) 13530 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat May 25, 2002 1:49pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Deciding how best to act Dear Jon, I am sorry to have sounded somewhat stereotypical of people. I didn't mean to be. I meant to point out that we should appreciate the value of kusala, and beware of the faults of akusala. The zany friend, and the logical (maybe serious? --- nah... the peaceful) friends are metaphorical of akusala and kusala (as Christine was talking about two different kinds of friends within herself.) The akusala is very entertaining to me, but there also are many faults with it. There are also many akusala that cross-dress as kusala. Lobha (micha-sati) can dress up as Sati (samma-sati). We need to be thorough while studying the dhammas, and it is important to clearly differentiate our good friends (kusala), and our not-so-good, but very entertaining friends (akusala). I wouldn't label Christine as not-so-good friend, despite how entertaining she is ;-). Being attached to her because how entertaining she is, now that has many faults... kom > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonothan Abbott [mailto:Jon] > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 8:29 PM > Subject: RE: [dsg] Deciding how best to act > > > > Just while I am entertaining my zany friends, I need to > > remind myself, the entertaining friends would > only lead to > > bad plane of existence, miserable plane of > existence, and > > hell, or at the very least many more continued rounds of > > existence. The more rational friends will lead > me (if it's > > not the entertaining friends who dress up as > the rational > > friends) to good plane of existence, happy plane of > > existence, and heaven, and if we are > persistent, eventually > > the release. Hmm.... Good friends should really be > > appreciated... > > I agree with what you say about the value of good > friends. However, we > should be careful not to 'typecast' too readily. > Zany types can have a > genuine interest in the teachings and in > supporting another's interest in > the teachings. And there are plenty of rational > types with serious wrong > view!! 13531 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat May 25, 2002 2:04pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Dear Jon, More opinion, obviously... ;-) > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonothan Abbott [mailto:Jon] > > I agree with the connection you make between > satipatthana and magga. As I > understand it, the commentaries explain that a > moment of satipatthana is a > moment of mundane path-consciousness. This may be unrelated. I was discussing with Num today about this particular point. One thing we agreed with each other is that Satipatthana is counted as 4 of the 37 Bodhi-pacaya-dhamma (???). Satipatthana 4 must first be developed before all the sammpayutta-dhamma can be called Sammapathan 4, Iddhibat 4, ..., Magga 8. At the point of magga, all 37 factors become perfected (at the appropriate level). By this definition, I understand Satipatthana to be part of magga. > > Nevertheless, I tend to think that when the > Buddha used the term 'Noble > Eightfold Path' in addressing listeners who were > ripe for enlightenment he > was referring exclusively to supramundane consciousness. > I don't have such confidence yet. Somehow when the word magga is used, sometimes (I think) it is interpreted in the commentaries as being both mundane and supra-mundane. And I also understand that we all have to start somewhere besides at the perfection, and even then it is still called the path, just a very dangerous (for falling wayside, being fooled by akusala and micha-dithi) one... kom 13532 From: jonoabb Date: Sat May 25, 2002 5:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sitting and mindfulness [Anders] Victor --- "yuzhonghao" wrote: > Jon, > > Regarding "learning by understanding and applying", what about it? > > Regards, > Victor To my reading of the teachings, an understanding at a theoretical level about the different dhammas and their properties/characteristics (pariyatti) is a necessary prerequisite for seeing dhammas as they truly are (patipatti). This is why the Buddha gave such importance to listening to the dhamma and associating with the wise/good friend, not only at the beginning level but throughout the development of the path right up to arahantship. I see this approach as truly emulating those who listened to the Buddha's teaching during his lifetime. We should keep in mind that those listeners included not only monks who had a developed practice of samatha, but also monks with no such accumulations and lay-people leading `ordinary' lives. As you will know from your reading of the suttas (which I can see is very extensive) some of the householders attained enlightenment on hearing the Buddha's teaching, while some (such as Anathapindika) were followers who were already sotapanna but continued to attend frequently and ask questions. What those varied listeners had in common was not their status or lifestyle but their developed understanding (direct knowledge) of the presently arising phenomena, based on a correct conceptual understanding of the Buddha's teaching. So by `understanding and applying' I mean `pariyatti' and `patipatti'. Jon > > --- yuzhonghao wrote: > > > the unnamed monk the Buddha mentioned in the discourse is a model > > > that I would emulate. And this is how I learn how to establish > > > mindfulness from reading the Satipatthana Sutta: following the > > > examples in the discourse and emulate them. It is a process > > > of "learning by doing" and takes repetitive practice. 13533 From: Sarah Date: Sat May 25, 2002 8:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K] Hi Dan, --- onco111 wrote: > Excellent, Sarah! My goodness, is this the same Dan that started the 1.1. Discouraging series this time last year that had me quaking and shaking, wondering when the dreaded 1.2 would come, I ask?? ..... >You caught me averaging. ..... Is that averaging between kusala and akusala or between right and wrong ritual?? ..... >I do so appreciate your > sharp observations. ..... Likewise...just a little teamwork and I always welcome your comments too, in spite of the shakes;-) ..... > I meant that if someone wants to give alms to win merit or to put > flowers on an alter to please God or to stand up in front of friends > and family to publicly pledge to be faithful to and stick together > with another in marriage or to take five precepts in a ceremony, it's > not a bad thing. Of course, during any of these rituals, there are > bound to be akusala and kusala moments arising and passing away. The > balance very often tilts toward the kusala, even if there happen to > be many moments of silabbataparamasa mixed in. But I think you are > right to note that at the moments of silabbataparamasa, surely > attachment and wrong view arise -- not to condemn the partaking in > the ritual, though, just pointing out how wrong view may arise. ..... Yes, all agreed, though I wouldn't like to say in general in which way the balance tilts. Like you suggest, exactly the same functions and processes can be followed with right view or wrong view. Whenever there is the idea that any of the rituals will lead of themselves to the development of satipatthana or nibbana, there are moments of silabbataparamasa, as I understand. This is why we can never tell from outer appearances what the understanding is at these times. Hi to Lisa too, Sarah ===== 13534 From: onco111 Date: Sat May 25, 2002 10:52pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "ritual" [Robert K] Sarah: My goodness, is this the same Dan that started the 1.1. Discouraging series this time last year that had me quaking and shaking, wondering when the dreaded 1.2 would come, I ask?? --> Dan: Thanks for the reminder! I'll get working on it. See you soon! 13535 From: Num Date: Sun May 26, 2002 1:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 9 (2) Dear Larry and ADL group. << N: In a non-arahant person, one or more of the six root-cetasikas co-arise with cittas in javana sub-process of both PDAC and MDAC. All other cittas in the process are ahetuka. >> Opppp, I have to edit my statement. Kom just reminded me that the tadalambana citta, which have a function of knowing the arammana in continuation from the javana-citta, can be 8 maha-vipaka citta (kamavacara-sahetuka-vipaka citta) or 3 of the santirana citta (ahetuka). Thanks Kom. Enchante' ;-) Num 13536 From: jonoabb Date: Sun May 26, 2002 5:05pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Num, Kom & others A further thought on this, or perhaps I am only just 'getting' what you have been saying. In the sutta we are discussing, the reference to the development of mindfulness could be meant as a reference to magga citta/nibbana. If that's the interpretation, then giving the Noble Eightfold Path as the way leading to this would 'fit'. But this is only speculation. I would like to see how similar references elsewhere are explained in the commentaries. Jon > Dear Jon: > > Jim: << The Pali phrase is "satipa.t.thaanabhaavanaagaaminii pa.tipadaa". It > seems to me that "the path of practice" is either a translation of > "pa.tipadaa" (the way) or "-gaaminii pa.tipadaa" (the way leading to). >> > Num < Satipa.t.thaanabhaavanaagaaminii>> translated as < satipatthana-4.>> The word "pa.tipadaa" is left untranslated in Thai. >> > Jon: << I find it interesting that this word should have been left > untranslated > (but I can't think what significance this might have ;-) ). >> > > > I meant in Thai tipitaka, the word patipada is used without being translated > in to simpler Thai word. I think Jim can give more thorough meaning of the > word. Pati- has a board meaning. I think here it means "toward" and pada > means " the way". Another word 'patipatti'; pati here means "together or all > over" and patti means "attaining or reaching". Patipatti, which usually > translated into practice, can also mean reaching altogether, knowing all --> > knowing nama and rupa. > > << This is called the path of practice to the development of the frames of > reference>> > < recall from my reading of the Visuddhimagga . Thanks very much for the > reminder. (But I don't think it helps solve the problem raised by Howard, > does it?).>> > > > Hmm, to me, I think the sutta speaks itself that satipatthana in a magga > level (in 8-factored path) is the way that one needs to attain to reach > lokuttaracitta/nibbana (conventional speaking). If it is not the satipatthana > in 8-factored path level, sammasati/satipatthana/sati is still in a worldly > level. So, again conventional speaking, nibbana cannot be attained without > attaining satipatthana in 8-factorted path level. When I read it, I do not > feel that the sutta tells us that the 8-factored path is a preceding factor > to obtain first and then later practice satipatthana. I do not get the sense > of chronology or practicing step here. Am I missing something? > > > Num 13537 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 26, 2002 9:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Path of Discrimination, to Num op 21-05-2002 04:30 schreef Num op Num >Hi Num, nice to hear from you, you made me laugh, because I could predict what you would answer about helping with PSM (Path of Discrimination). What I had in mind: it is helpful if you just make a few notes of the sessions and also share with us what you discussed privately with your aunt about this subject. It should not be a heavy task, what do you think? I can look up my Thai co too. Jim has everything in Pali, but he does not have his library now. As far as I know this book, in English, is not on line, but we could just indicate the subject and give a short outline of it. I think it is not such a good idea to try to finish the whole book, it is not something one can absorb by reading it all. But I like to know, what are they reading now in Bgk? Maybe just a para or two, I am sure the pace is going to be very slow, as Howard suggested. I liked your post about the plaintain tree. Appreciative, Nina. Num: PS. Sarah, thanks for updating my profile. I will keep sneaking in as time > permits. Sorry, I have no special power:-( I still live a life of a > layperson, who enjoys working and having fun at the same time :-) BTW, I have > not finished reading PSM yet. Nina and Larry and for those who are interested > in PSM: I cannot make a commitment at this point. If the time is not too > unkind, I am more than willing to share what I will learn from PSM session, > although my understanding will be very limited. > 13538 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun May 26, 2002 9:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg]what is real? Dear Rob Ep, I am just catching up with my mail, and meanwhile so many good things have been said by others that I do not know what to add. I try to follow some of your questions. R: my problem with calling the momentary manifestations of > the > khandas 'realities' is greater than that, because my question is: Are these > momentary manifestations actually 'real'? What is their status? Is it > correct to > think of them as 'real'? Howard in his signature and others at other times > have > quoted Buddha saying that we should regard this life as an illusion, a > fleeting > dream, not substantial, but a kind of trick of the mind. Do we call the > events > that arise in a dream 'realities'? It seems contradictory to me. N: The khandhas are momentary, but they are real. Sarah pointed out that seeing life as foam, etc. should not be misunderstood, otherwise we would conclude that our whole life is nonsense, that accumulation and development of understanding and all good qualities were not possible. Seeing is very real, but it vanishes immediately. But we do not yet realize impermanence, and we take realities, as I wrote before, into a whole, for self, as a person. The Buddha said: do not cling to I or mine, what we take for self are nama and rupa which do not last. If we believe that they last and are self we live with illusions. You have doubts about what is reality and what is not. You do not doubt that there was birth, and to be more precise: the moment of rebirth-consciousness, and that there will be death, to be more precise: dying-consciousness. In between is what we call life: seeing, hearing, attachment, anger. Everybody has anger, you do not doubt that there is anger, do you? It is one of the five khandhas, the khandha of formations or activities. You can experience that anger is different from attachment, you do not doubt about this, do you? Verify this for yourself. You can experience that seeing is different from hearing, that they have different objects and arise at different sensebases. You can verify this to yourself. You also asked about hardness: where and on what basis does hardness occur? When it impinges on the bodysense which can be all over the body where there is sensitivity. That is for a short moment the bodybase, but it falls away. It is real, prove it to yourself. Panna and all good qualities can be developed and thus accumulated, this is not an illusion. So, we should not say that our whole life is an illusion. R: If the > purpose > of the path is to awaken from the dream of samsara, the illusion that we are > separate individuated beings with internal entities, and that what we perceive > is > filtered through the operations of the mind, I would agree that it is a highly > important thing to be able to distinguish between what we are really > experiencing > in the moment, and to be able to tell whether it is a concept or a perceived > reality. N: Yes, that is most important. I find what Rob K quoted from Karunadasa about pannatti being unproduced and not arisen by conditions most helpful. I also find very helpful what Sukin said about studying with detachment, study of the present moment, leading to direct experience. And then what Howard said I like very much, about the clinging to the self: N: When one develops understanding of nama and rupa little by little it will also become clearer what is reality, what is not reality. But not immediately, can we be patient enough? R: But to stop there and to say that the experience of 'hardness', 'sadness', or > other momentary experiences are 'real', and that they are the final reality, > seems > to me to rob us of the understanding that these too are *unreal*, that they > are > momentary manifestations of perception or thought, dependent on human > consciousness for their appearance. There seems to be an empiricist idea in > calling dhammas 'realities', that things exist in the world apart from human > apprehension. The fact that we perceive 'hardness' or 'sadness' does not mean > that they are real, it only proves that these things occur in the mind, > without > which we perceive nothing. N: Does hardness occur in the mind? A citta experiences hardness just for a moment (sorry, Dan). It falls away and hardness falls away. Nama and rupa are entirely different and cannot be mixed. How could there be solidity arising in the mind? There was another matter brought up by Howard: is only the colour that is experienced real? But what about the colour at the back, or the sounds in the wood not heard by you when you are not there. There are many rupas arising and falling away, but if there are not the right conditions they are not experienced. For the experience of visible object there have to be visible object that impinges on the eyesense so that seeing can arise that experiences it. R: I believe Buddha asked us to suspend any judgment about whether there is a > 'real > world' outside of us or not, N: the Buddha was the knower of the worlds in many ways: he knew the other planes of existence, and all world systems. Planes of existence: these are words that designate the conditions for different kinds of results, pleasant and unpleasant. These results are realities.The Buddha knew all. They are real, but we cannot fathom them. See, what is reality is not necessarily experienced by us. R: Are the kandhas actual structures that exist in a real world? I > think > that to draw the conclusion that they are is to say that we live in an > objective > universe which is actual and substantial. And this would then be a > substantialist > view which leads to real object and entity. > It is hard for me to imagine the sensation of 'hardness' being real, without > it > somehow implying a 'real object' that is hard. 'Hardness' cannot float about > or > exist by itself, there is no 'hardness' that stands on its own and makes an > impression on a person. N: Hardness does not float about by itself, quite right. The four great Elements of solidity, cohesion, heat and motion always arise together and support one another. Visible object appears now, it does not float by itself, it is supported by the four great elements and other rupas, it arises and falls away in a group, kalapa, of rupas. But when visible object is experienced, the other elements in that group, like solidity are not experienced. Prove it. You can prove all this for yourself. When a harsh sound hurts the ear, it is painful; it is hardness that is experienced at one moment, and sound at another moment. These objects cannot be experienced at the same time. R: Hardness is a quality of something that is hard. If we say the 'hardness' is 'real', rather than merely > an > experience of the perceiving organ, then we assert by implication that the > 'wood' > is also real, and that that which is made of wood is also real, even though we > admit that we cannot perceive it all at once, but only one rupa at a time. N: The wood is not real, it is a conglomeration of different realities, and we think of the idea of wood, because of sanna. We remember what wood is because of previous experiences. R: So that leaves me with the question, are objects real according to Buddha? Do > we > live in an empirically objective universe, apprehended imperfectly by us as > perceiving subjects? Can we ever assume that there is a world of 'realities' > either within or beyond our own mental and perceptual functions, which are > thoroughly caused by the interaction of the kandhas? > > The objects and thoughts that we perceive through the cittas are in every case > productions of mental processes, through mental or sensory doors. To me it is > very uncertain that anything that we apprehend in these ways can be called > 'realities'. I would prefer to think of them as 'manfestations', 'arisings', > or > 'creations of perceptual/mental processes'. I just don't see how we can > assume > anything that is a 'reality' beyond the mind itself, from which all our > experiences arise. N: If we see citta as a creator of all we experience there still is a (hidden) illusion of self, now disguised as a creator of what is experienced. No owner, no creator is there. R: I think it makes a difference which way we look at this, as to what there is > to > awaken from. N: You touch on essential points and you really want to know what is real, what are realities. I was not so happy with the translation of paramattha dhammas as final entities, by Ven. Bodhi. I have some trouble with philosophical terms, so I asked my sister about them. Entity: in Greek: Ousia (pronounce usia). Meaning, to be, being, and also, as I understood, implying possession, what is mine. But I am not sure now whether I understood this in the right way. Aritoteles: substance is ousia. Latin: substantia. We inherited a lot of ideas from Greek philosophy, even without knowing this. Also the idea of subject and object (for Dan!). I found it helpful to forget all about what I learnt (phenomenology, existentialism) and try to find out what can be proven right now. Doubt arises, but also that is real, is it not? Only the sotapanna has eradicated doubt. Thus, I would rather use the word element, dhatu, instead of entity that, as you said, suggests substantiality. Now, dhatu is from the same root as dhamma, to bear; it bears its own characteristic. But dhamma has many different meanings. Element indicates impersonality, not a person. However, we can, as said before, use any translation of paramattha dhamma, so long as we understand the meaning. You also said, the mind is constant but the contents are changing. As regards concepts being the object, I think the opposite is true: several cittas in a process may think of a concept like wood. Cittas change, but they have still the object of wood. So, I would rather not say: concepts fall away together with the citta. In a general sense we can say that when you stop thinking of a concept it is not there, but that is not the same as the impermanence of citta that arises from conditions and then falls away. And again, think of Karunadasa's article. When the object of citta is not a concept it is a reality. Control:in Pali: samvara. It can also be translated as guarding. As Victor quoted: self control is difficult. O.K. to use this word, so long as we take it in the right sense: sati is guarding the six doors, and then akusala does not arise. You have many pertinent questions about what is reality, they are very good. It cannot be clear all at once what is real, only in the course of the development of insight, direct experience of realities or elements. As Sarah quoted before from the "Dispeller of Delusion", Ch 2: It is panna that is already developed which can resolve the whole of a person into various elements that do not last and are no-self. Do not be surprised that there is still doubt of what is real. There is a way to learn the truth, but this is not a fast way. Many conditions have to be fulfilled, such as study, asking questions, investigation of what appears right now. The development of all good qualities, the paramis, perfections. Best wishes for your study, investigation of realities, proving the truth for yourself, Nina. 13539 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 26, 2002 10:10pm Subject: Zany Snake Corner Dear Christine (& Lucy), It may seem that we women make up at least 77.27% of the zany DSG members, but hopefully that’s another illusion;-) ..... --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hard to live in the present moment when there are only 16 days > before leaving Brisbane and hoping to end up in Bangkok, before > joining everyone else going to Sri Lanka. But who can tell ... > life is an unpredictable adventure....and, just in case the snakes > had slipped from our minds.... > "According to Sri Lanka National Museum's Manuscript Series (Vol. ..... I’m quite sure that out of the 160+members of the group going to Sri Lanka (5 coaches and long lobby waits....hmmm), you’ll be the only one to have researched the museum by internet in advance, Chris. At least we all know where the snake bite treatments are kept now, anyway;-) Let me assure you, however that my students have insisted that snakes haven’t slipped from my mind ever since I presented my offering which, Lucy (hope you’re back by now - surely a week’s up?-), I’m glad to say was much appreciated despite a loss of some colour and some disappointment that it had been frozen and de-frosted (rather than professionally preserved). It has led to plenty of discussions, essays and snake projects and only one call from a parent wondering if it could be true that there was a REAL snake in class. I also caught the second half of a fascinating TV program about the 10 most dangerous snakes in the world and how to grasp them correctly. I was half-listening, half-writing a post and half doing a few other things, but it certainly sounded as though approx. 99.9% of these snakes were not in Sri Lanka but in Australia, and in particular in.... Queensland! (I’m also almost as sure that there was a reference to a snake “gulping” its dinner of a rat down......) So what have I learnt? I’ve learnt to read the “Snake Simile” with greater respect than ever. What is the purpose of studying the Teachings? We discussed the monks in the Mulapariyaya sutta who were puffed up with conceit from all they had studied. In the Snake Simile, how easily the Teachings can be wrongly grasped and how they can lead to more mana (conceit) and other harm if they are not studied with the right purpose: ***** (From Snake Simile, transl by Nyanaponika, wheel 48/9): “Suppose, monks, a man wants a snake, looks for a snake, goes in search of a snake. he then sees a large snake, and when he is grasping its body or its tail, the snake turns back on him and bites his hand or arm or some other limb of his. And because of that he suffers death or deadly pain. And why? Because of his wrong grasp of the snake. Similarly, O monks, there are some foolish men who study the Teaching; having studied it, they do not wisely examine the purpose of those teachings. To those who do not wisely examine the purpose, these teachings will not yield insight. They study the Teaching only to use it for criticizing or for refuting others in disputation. they do not experience the (true) purpose for which they (ought to ) study the Teaching. To them these teachings wrongly grasped, will bring harm and suffering for a long time. And why? Because of their wrong grasp of the teachings.” ***** The man who grasps it correctly (on the TV and in the sutta), “holds it down firmly” with a “forked stick” and then “catches it firmly by the neck”. Similarly, those who rightly grasp the Teachings “study the Teaching; and having learned it, they examine wisely the purpose of those teachings. To those who wisely examine the purpose, these teachings will yield insight.” We are also reminded that if we do not know the purpose of what is said, we should question it, “or else (ask) those monks who are wise”. ..... Do we understand the ‘purpose’ of our studies or practice at this moment? Are we learning to grasp the snake correctly or just learning to “refute others in disputation”? I really appreciate the reminders about the purpose and like Num’s super post about stories and kilesa leading to wise reflection of the Phena Sutta, so some of our zany snake discussions have led me to consider the Snake Sutta again and more about the true purpose of study. Sarah p.s There's bound to be thinking about the future and making plans as we are now.....if there is awareness of thinking or any other reality at these times, this shows an appreciation of the right purpose of our studies as I understand. =================== 13540 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 26, 2002 10:47pm Subject: Conqueror or Conquered Dear All, I’d been feeling rather tired all day and was still lost in stories about students, classes and domestic issues when I read the most recent extract from ADL and was given the perfect reminders about wise and unwise attention and being ‘overcome’ by what is appearing through the 6 doorways: ..... “. We read in the 'Kindred Sayings' (lV, Salayatanavagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Fourth Fifty, Ch.V, par. 202, Lustful) about the monk who, after he has experienced an object through one of the six doors, has ayoniso manasikara, and about the monk who has yoniso manasikara. We read that Maha-Moggallana said to the monks: Friends, I will teach you the way of lusting and also of not lusting.... And how, friends, is one lustful? Herein, friends, a monk, seeing object with the eye, feels attachment for objects that charm, feels aversion from objects that displease, abides without mindfulness of the body, and his thoughts are mean. He realizes not, in its true nature, that emancipation of heart, that emancipation of wisdom, wherein those evil, unprofitable states that have arisen cease without remainder. This monk, friends, is called 'lustful after objects cognizable by the eye, nose, tongue... objects cognizable by the mind'; When a monk so abides, friends, if Mara comes upon him by way of the eye, Mara gets an opportunity. If Mara comes upon him....by way of the mind, Mara gets access, gets opportunity.... So dwelling, friends, objects overcome a monk, a monk overcomes not objects. Sounds overcome a monk, a monk overcomes not sounds. Scents, savours, tangibles and mind-states overcome a monk, a monk overcomes not sounds, scents, savours, tangibles and mind-states. This monk, friends, is called 'conquered by objects, sounds, scents, savours, tangibles and mind-states, not conquerer of them.' Evil, unprofitable states, passion-fraught, leading to rebirth overcome him, states unhappy, whose fruit is pain, whose future is rebirth, decay and death. Thus, friends, one is lustful. “ ***** We go on to read about the one who is ‘not lustful after objects...’, not conquered by what appears throught the doorways: “ Such a monk, friends, is called, 'conquerer of objects, sounds, scents, savours, tangibles and mind-states,'; He is conquerer, 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.” ***** All day we can be lost in concepts, conquered by objects, but at a brief moment of sati, panna (wisdom) can ‘conquer’ . I also liked Dan’s comments about the wish to be free from dosa (aversion) and not seeing the danger in lobha: >> Dan: We'd all like to be free from dosa all the time, but sometimes bad moods do arise. Is it better to understand them as they arise? Or to try to create pleasant sensations to cover up the bad mood? We can always think "happy, happy, happy," or "I want pleasure, always to have pleasant sensations, never any dosa," but this is not reality, and it is not the way out of sansara. Both lobha and dosa arise from the same source: craving and ignorance. These things are so clear in children. But adults are lot like children: Always wanting to free from dosa but not seeing the danger in lobha.<< ***** As Larry has been suggesting, when there is no awareness, there will always be a ‘sense’ of self and the lobha, dosa and other realities are bound to be taken for me, my, mine. Just being reminded of the *lust* for what is experienced now and how these are only namas and rupas, no self or substance to be found, can condition sati and panna to conquer ‘these evil, unprofitable states”. Sarah ====== 13541 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Sun May 26, 2002 11:39pm Subject: oh death Dear Group, Heard a fine tape today; "Oh Death" by Ralph Stanley (74 years old). Sung in a drawnout, haunting voice with no instrumental accompaniment. Some of the Lyrics: Ohh, Death Wooo-oh, Death Won't you spare me over til another year. Well what is this that I can't see With ice cold hands takin' hold of me? Well I am death, none can excel I'll open the door to heaven or hell I'll fix your feet til you can't walk I'll lock your jaw til you can't talk I'll close your eyes so you can't see This very hour , come and go with me Leave the body and leave it cold To draw up the flesh off of the frame Dirt and worm both have a claim O, Death O, Death Won't you spare me over til another year Oh, death how you're treatin' me You've close my eyes so I can't see Well you're hurtin' my body You make me cold Oh death please consider my age Please don't take me at this stage O, death woooO, death Won't you spare me over til another year Won't you spare me over til another year Wont you spare me over til another year 13542 From: Howard Date: Sun May 26, 2002 7:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg]what is real? Hi, Nina - > There was another matter brought up by Howard: is only the colour that is > experienced real? But what about the colour at the back, or the sounds in > the wood not heard by you when you are not there. There are many rupas > arising and falling away, but if there are not the right conditions they > are > not experienced. For the experience of visible object there have to be > visible object that impinges on the eyesense so that seeing can arise that > experiences it. > ========================== You raise an important point here, Nina. As one answer, I would say that this is where conditionality and intersubjectivity enter in. "The sounds in the wood not heard by you when you are not there" are only presumed, as is true for whatever is "currently transpiring" on the far side of the moon. But such a presumption, read in a certain way, is not without basis, for there is a lawfulness to events. A (subjunctive) conditionality along the lines of "Should such & such a sequence of conditions be observed, then certain other condtions would be observed", along with the recognition of multiple streams of experience interacting to form an "intersubjective reality", can serve as an alternative to the view of a self-existing "external reality". But leaving the question of robustness to the radical phenomenalist view asid for a while, I would like to address the use of the term 'reality' for paramattha dhammas. My only hesitancy in the use of the term is that it carries a connotation of substantial and independent existence. But there is, from my perspective, a sense in which paramattha dhammas have a reality that is lacking in concepts. That sense is that concepts "project outwards" to alleged "things" in an external world, whereas paramattha dhammas do not. When hardness is discerned, there is just the direct experience of hardness, something immediately (without mediation) and internally apprehensible, and it is not until the percept of, for example, a table arises that we seem to experience that hardness as a characteristic of an "external thing". In that sense, I actually *like* the term 'reality', though I would prefer, say, 'actuality', which seems to me to less "loaded". 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) 13543 From: <> Date: Mon May 27, 2002 6:13am Subject: mind-door process Greetings dsg, here is some info about mind-door process from "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" ch. IV, guide to #12 The limited or sense-sphere mind-door process is itself twofold: (1) that consequent to a five-door process (pancadvaranubandhaka), and (2) the independent process (visumsiddha). (1) Just as when a gong is struck once by a baton, the gong sends forth a continuous stream of reverberations, so when one of the five sense doors has been impinged upon once by a sense object, after the five door process has ceased the past sense object comes into range at the mind door and sets off many sequences of mind-door processes. Because these cognitive processes come as the sequel to a five-door process, they are known as 'consequent processes'. They are counted as fivefold by way of the five sense-door processes which they follow. Ledi Sayadaw explains that it is in these consequent processes that distinct recognition of the object occurs; such recognition does not occur in a bare five-door process itself. An eye-door process, for example, is followed first by a conformational mind-door process (tadanuvattika manodvaravithi), which reproduces in the mind door the object just perceived in the sense-door process. Then comes a process grasping the object as whole (samudayagahika); then a process recognizing the colour (vannasallakkhana); then a process grasping the entity (vatthugahika); then a process recognizing the entity (vatthusallakkhana); then a process grasping the name (namagahika); then a process recognizing the name (namasallakkhana). "The process grasping the object as a whole" is the mind-door process perceiving as a whole the forms repeatedly perceived in individual frames by the two preceding processes, the original sense-door process and the conformational mind-door process. This process exercises a synthesizing function, fusing the perception of distinct "shots" of the object into the perception of a unity, as in the case of a whirling fire-brand perceived as a circle of fire. It is only when this has occurred that recognition of the colour is possible. When the recognition of the colour occurs, one recognizes the colour, "I see blue." When the recognition of the entity occurs, one recognizes the entity or shape. When the recognition of the name occurrs, one recognizes the name. Thus, Ledi Sayadaw asserts, it is only when a recognitional process referring to one or another specific feature occurs that one knows, "I see this or that specific feature." (2) An 'independent mind-door process' occurs when any of the six objects enters the range of cognition entirely on its own, not as a consequence of an immediately preceding sense-door process. The question may be raised how an object can enter the range of the mind door independently of a proximate sensory impingement. Ledi Sayadaw cites various sources: through what was directly perceived earlier, or by inference from what was directly perceived; through what was learnt by oral report, or by inference from what was learnt by oral report; on accont of belief, opinion, reasoning, or reflective acceptance of a view; by the power of kamma, psychic power, disturbance of the bodily humours, the influence of a diety, comprehension, realization, etc. He explains that if one has clearly experienced an object even once, at a later time - even after a hundred years or in a future life - dependent on that object a condition may be set for the vibravation of the bhavanga. The mind that has been nurtured on such an input of prior experiences is extremely susceptible to their influence. When it encounters any sense object, that object may tigger off in a single moment mental waves extending to many thousands of objects previously perceived. The mental continuum, constantly being excited by these causal influences, is always seeking an opportunity to emerge from the bhavanga and acquire a clear cognition of an object. Therefore the mental factor of attention present in the bhavanga repeatedly causes the bhavanga to vibrate, and it directs consciousness again and again to advert to objects which have gained conditions to appear. Even though the bhavanga citta has its own object, Ledi Sayadaw explains, it occurs in the mode of inclining towards some other object. As a result of this perpetual 'buzz" of activity in the bhavanga, when an object acquires sufficient prominence through other operative conditions, it draws the continuum of consciousness out of the bhavanga, and then that object comes into the range of cognition at the mind door. 13544 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 27, 2002 2:26pm Subject: Friends..... Dear Friends, I have a little news to share: 1. Ranil (an occasional poster on DSG) has just got married. We look forward to meeting him and his new bride when we visit Sri Lanka and wish them joy and happiness. 2. I spoke to Mike Nease by telephone a couple of days ago. He’s well, pretty upbeat and very busy doing several jobs. He’s now in his own flat and sends everyone his regards. Sarah ====== 13545 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 27, 2002 3:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] giving protection, abhaya dana Dear Stigan, Kom & Nina, >>Stigan: Thank-you for your replies, they are very helpful. As well as forgiveness would abhayadaana also include "giving protection to beings when they have become frightened on account of fire,water,lions tigers and other wild beasts?" ie. In a bush fire where animals are being burnt, the "saving" them from the fire. Or when someone is being attacked by "wild animals" and you have the means to protect them? Would these cases be concidered Abhayadaana?<< ***** According to the Pali dict. in front of me, abhaya as we know means free from fear or danger or fearless as in Dhp 258. I raised S’s question with K.Sujin last weekend concerning abhayadana. I understand (but don’t have textual references) that it means forgiveness, non-harm and is a kind of dana with no object as we know. When there is abhyadana, there is abhyapata (sp?) or non-hatred. There can be.non-harm whenever we are friendly, abhava (sp?), ready to help, wishing for the welfare of others. So, yes, there can be abhyadana in these examples above or at any time we help or speak out, if it is without anger or any ill-will. K.Sujin gave the example of visiting the zoo with abhyadana. >>Kom:When I hear K. Sujin on tape, I understood that this means strictly forgiving. However, looking at the description now, it seems to be more than forgiving. When we help other people from dangers, be it through directly helping, or counseling, it also seems like it is also abhaya dana. The gift of the dhamma is obviously the most elavated type of abhaya dhamma. We help other people in reaching the true abhaya, nibbana. ***** I don’t even understand that the people (or animals) have to be in danger. When there is just the wishing of non-harm or wishing for their welfare (as at the zoo), it can be abhayadana. (Actually, it seems very close to metta to me.) I like your last example, but the very brief discussion was interrupted before I had a chance to raise this aspect..... Sarah ====== 13546 From: abhidhammika Date: Mon May 27, 2002 8:34pm Subject: Kamma In Color: A New Modern Commentary Dear Dhamma Friends How are you? The following modern commentary on Vittaara Suttam on Four Groups of Actions has been written in response to the requests made by Joyce Short, Venerable Dhammarati, and Upasaka Howard. This English language commentary is not to replace the standard Pali commentary on that Suttam. In fact, it has been based on the latter as if it were a modern English language subcommentary on it, which again is not to replace the standard Pali subcommentary either. I hope you also find this new commentary useful. With kind regards, Suan Lu Zaw _________________________________________________________ A New Commentary On Vitthāra Suttam By Suan Lu Zaw Our actions do not have colors in the ultimate sense. But, the Buddha included dark actions and white actions in this Suttam as if actions had colors. What the Buddha was doing here was using figurative speech to offer us vivid illustration of actions we are capable of doing and their outcomes. In this new commentary on Vitthaara Suttam, I planned to offer the representative interpretation in line with the Buddha's use of selective examples in the original Suttam. In other words, my interpretation would be a narrowly focussed one with the function of pinpointing the most obvious phenomena. After all, the Suttanta approach is always partial and never intended to be comprehensive. Vitthaara Suttam contains five paragraphs. The Paragraph One is significant because the Buddha, here, confirmed the phenomenon of our actions having their results in the next life. This paragraph is the answer to those sceptics who have doubts about whether the Buddha actually taught Samsaara that is the serial rebirths. The Buddha unmistakably declared that he had personally realized them with extraordinary wisdom. The Paragraph Two defined the meaning of dark action. Here, the Buddha limited the range of the meaning of the dark action to those actions carried out with anger. We need to remember this limitation placed on the meaning of the adjective "dark (kanha)". In this paragraph, the adjective "dark" covers only those actions with anger. The next important thing to note is the strength of anger. We can know the strength of anger if we know its results. The Buddha described miserable hellish world as the destination to which the actions with this anger would lead. And he also described the resulting feeling as really miserable harh feeling (ekantadukkham). This means that, in order to get such hellish existence and feeling, the violent actions must have been carried out with full-strength anger. This type of anger that leads to dark action referred to in Paragraph Twb is well documented in Abhidhamma Pitaka. Dhammasanganii, the First Book of Abhidhamma, describes the arising of the unhealthy mental event with displeasure and strong anger (akusala cittam uppannam hoti domanassasahagatam patighasampayuttam). The Paragraph Three defined the meaning of white action. Here, the Buddha described the white action as those actions carried out with dis-anger. As all healthy minds come with dis-anger according to Abhidhamma, we can know for sure that white action refers to those actions originated from healthy efficacious mental events (kusalacittaani). All we need to do here is to determine which healthy efficacious consciousness the Buddha was referring to in the Paragraph Three. As the Buddha had chosen the existence and feeling of Subhakinha Brahma gods as the outcome of the white action carried out with dis-anger, we know for sure that the healthy efficacious consciousness in the Paragraph Three is the Jhaana consciousness. Now, as the final step, we need to find out which Jhaana consciousness is responsible for rebirth in the Subhakinha Brahma world. In this regard, Vibhanga, the second book of Abhidhamma, becomes handy. In Section 1026, Vibhanga, we found the following question and answer. "Tatiyaam jhaanaam paniitaam bhaavetvaa kattha upapajjanti? Tatiyaam jhaanaam paniitaam bhaavetvaa subhakinhaanaam devaanaam sahabyataam upapajjanti." "Where are they reborn by having developed the superior Third Jhaana (tatiyam jhaanam paniitam)? They are reborn in the world of Subhakinha Brahmas by having developed the superior Third Jhaana." Thus, we now know that the white action in the Paragraph Three refers to the development of the Third Jhaana consciousness at the superior level. Paragraph Four demands our careful reading. Particular attention should be paid to the dark action and the white action carried out in the conext of Paragraph Four. Is the dark action here the same as the dark action in Paragraph Two? And, is the white action in Paragraph Four similar to the white action in Paragraph Three? The answers to those questions are No. How do we know that the actions are not the same although they have the same adjectives "dark" and "white"? We know that the actions are not the same because their results are different. Let us take a closer look at the results of the actions in Paragraph Four. The white actions here lead to rebirths as human beings, as sensuous gods and as mansion-owning halfway beings. The Pali commentary on Vitthaara Suttam defined gods in Paragraph Four as sensuous gods. "Ekacce ca devaati ettha pana kaamaavacaradevaa datthabbaa. … Ekacce ca vinipaatikaati ettha vemaanikapetaa datthabbaa." "And some gods here should be noted as sensuous gods… and some vinipaatikaa here should be noted as mansion-owning halfway beings". As an obvious starting example, not all human beings are up to the practice of Jhaana, let alone attaining Jhaana consciousness. From this observation, we can know that white actions they had performed in their previous lives originated from healthy efficacious consciousnesses lower than Jhaana consciousness. These lower consciousnesses are none other than sensuous healthy efficacious consciousnesses (kaamaavacara kusalacittaani). The Buddha also told us that they had also carried out dark actions alongside those sensuous white actions. As they were not reborn in hell as those who carried out dark actions in the context of Paragraph Two, we know for sure that the dark actions referred to in Paragraph Four are not as severe as those in Paragraph Two. At this point, we need to point out that dark actions referred to in Paragraph Four may be originated from all forms of unhealthy efficacious consciousnesses in addition to those with anger. We can know this because the Buddha included mansion-owning halfway beings alongside human beings and sensuous gods. Mansion-owning halfway beings are called "vemaanikapetaa". As we have seen above, the term "vinipaatikaa" found in the Suttam was defined as "vemaanikapetaa" in the Pali commentary on this Suttam. Vemaanika (vimaana + ika) means those who have mansions (vimaana). Petas are those beings who carried out dark actions usually with greed or with anger out of greed in their previous lives. They are sometimes called hungry ghosts. I called petas halfway beings because they partly enjoy the good lives and partly suffer the miserable lives, and because they could transform into happy beings by having received sharing of merit dedicated to them by their living human relatives. How about human beings having greed? We could ask ourselves if we are ever without greed. Most of the problems in our human societies are due to inequalities in possession and sharing of resources. We can safely say that those inequalities are the results of individual greed and collective greed. Therefore, human beings must have carried out dark actions with greed as well. Actions referred to in Paragraph Five are exclusively Buddhist actions. Only when a Buddha appears in mankind, teachings on actions carried out specifically for depletion of actions and their results become available. What did the Buddha mean when he defined the un-dark and un-white actions as activation (cetanaa) to eradicate dark and white action having dark and white result? The Pali commentary on Samkkhitta Suttam in Section 232, on which Vitthaara Suttam is an elaboration, the un-dark and un-white action refers to the four stages of the path wisdom. "Akanham asukkanti kammakkhayakaram catumaggañaanam adhippetam." "Un-dark and un-white action means the four stages of the path wisdom that do depletion of actions." Thus, our examination of Vitthaara Suttam regarding four groups of actions is complete. All we need to do now is to locate them in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. All of them can be found in Dhammasanganii, the very first book of Abhidhamma. The reference for the consciousness responsible for dark action in Paragraph Two is Section 413. The reference for the consciousness responsible for white action in Paragraph Three is Section 163. The references for the consciousnesses responsible for dark and white action in Paragraph Four are Sections 365, 413, 421, 422 for dark actions and Sections 1 or 147 for white actions. Section 365 is only an example. So are Sections 1 or 147 only examples. The references for the consciousnesses responsible for un-dark and un- white action in Paragraph Five are Section 277 for the first path wisdom (pathamo maggo), 361 for the second path wisdom (dutiyo maggo), 362 for the third path wisdom (tatiyo maggo), and 363 for the fourtht path wisdom (catuttho maggo). Suan Lu Zaw ____________________________________________________________ PREVIOUSLY ON THIS LIST Vitthaara Suttam, from which the following translation was made, can be found in Section 233, Kammavaggo, Catukkanipaata, Anguttaranikaayo on Chatthasangayana CD-ROM version 3 produced by Vipassana Research Institute. Those who use Roman edition should see page 230 in Volume 2 of that edition. VITTHAARA SUTTAM ON FOUR GROUPS OF KAMMA Translated By Suan Lu Zaw Monks, four actions have been declared by me by having personally realized them with extraordinary wisdom. What are the four? Monks, there is dark action having dark result. Monks, there is white action having white result. Monks, there is dark and white action having dark and white result. Minks, there is un-dark and un-white action having un-dark and un-white result, which takes place for depletion of actions. Monks, what is dark action having dark result? Here, monks, some carry out physical action with anger, verbal action with anger, and mental action with anger. Having carried out physical action with anger, having carried out verbal action with anger, and having carried out mental action with anger, he is reborn in the harsh world. Being reborn in the harsh world, harsh contacts touch him. Being touched by harsh contacts, he experiences the really miserable harsh feelings like those beings in hell do. Monks, this is called dark action having dark result. Monks, what is white action having white result? Here, monks, some carry out physical action with dis-anger, verbal action with dis- anger, and mental action with dis-anger. Having carried out physical action with dis-anger, having carried out verbal action with dis- anger, and having carried out mental action with dis-anger, he is reborn in the gentle world. Being reborn in the gentle world, gentle contacts touch him. Being touched by gentle contacts, he experiences the really pleasant gentle feelings like Subhakinha Brahma gods do. Monks, this is called white action having white result. Monks, what is dark and white action having dark and white result? Here, monks, some carry out physical action with anger as well as with dis-anger, verbal action with anger as well as with dis-anger, and mental action with anger as well as with dis-anger. Having carried out physical action with anger as well as with dis-anger, having carried out verbal action with anger as well as with dis- anger, and having carried out mental action with anger as well as with dis-anger, he is reborn in the harsh and gentle world. Being reborn in the harsh and gentle world, harsh as well as gentle contacts touch him. Being touched by harsh as well as gentle contacts, he experiences the mixed feelings of pleasure and misery like human beings, some sensuous gods and some mansion-owning halfway beings do. Monks, this is called dark and white action having dark and white result. Monks, what is un-dark and un-white action having un-dark and un- white result, which takes place for depletion of actions? Here, monks, such activation as to eradicate dark action having dark result, such activation as to eradicate white action having white result, and such activation as to eradicate dark and white action having dark and white result, this activation is called un-dark and un-white action having un-dark and un-white result, which takes place for depletion of actions. Monks, these four actions have been declared by me by having personally realized them with extraordinary wisdom. NOTES ON KEY TERMS The phrase "with anger" is a translation of the Pali compound "sabyaapajjam" which was defined as "sadosam" in the Pali commentary. Sadosam = sa + dosam. Doso is defined as anger in Pali Text Society's Pali – English Dictionary, see page 332. The phrase "with dis-anger" is a translation of the Pali word "abyaapajjam". The opposite of the Pali term "doso" is "adoso". Dis-anger is the literal translation of "adoso". Abyaapajjo is described as a synonym of adoso in Section 33, Dhammasanganii. Hence, I translated abyaapajjam as with dis-anger in order to contrast it with anger in Paragraph Two of the Vitthaara Suttam. In Section 397, Siilakkhandha Pali, Diighanikaayo, we find "bhikkhu averam abyaapajjam mettacittam bhaaveti. Without enmity, and with dis- anger, the monk develops the loving mind". Thus, dis-anger is a technical term to convey love or loving kindness as one of its meanings. It does not refer to the mere absence of anger as when our minds are with greed. Un-dark is a translation of the word "akanha, not dark". Here, un- darkness does not refer to other colors such as whiteness. It means counteracting the very color of darkness. Un-dark means anti-dark. Thus, un-dark action would counteract the dark actions and their dark results. Un-white is a translation of the word "asukka, not white". Here, too, un-whiteness does not refer to darkness or other colors. It means counteracting the very color of whiteness. Un-white means anti-white. Thus, un-white action would counteract the white actions and their white results. . To read the original Suttam in Pali, please follow the following link. http://www.tipitaka.org/tipitaka/s0402m3/s0402m3-frm.html And, please also visit the following link to download and install the Pali font on your computer so that the Pali letters appear on your screen correctly. http://www.tipitaka.org/general/pali.html With regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org/ 13547 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon May 27, 2002 11:53pm Subject: RE: [dsg] giving protection, abhaya dana Dear Sarah, > -----Original Message----- > From: Sarah [mailto:Sarah] > I don’t even understand that the people (or > animals) have to be in danger. > When there is just the wishing of non-harm or > wishing for their welfare > (as at the zoo), it can be abhayadana. (Actually, > it seems very close to > metta to me.) I like your last example, but the > very brief discussion was > interrupted before I had a chance to raise this > aspect..... > > Sarah > ====== Thanks for trying to get more details. Very nice food for thoughts. kom 13548 From: <> Date: Tue May 28, 2002 0:14am Subject: translation help Greetings dsg, can someone tell me which sutta is Anguttara iii, 413-414? I believe this would be book of threes, page 413-414 in PTS (pali?) edition. There is an online anguttara but I can't tell which sutta it is. I want to check the context of the following line: "sanna always results in a concept [vohara, expression of worldly usage]: whatever is conceptualized has previously been 'sannanized.' " also you might tell me what you think of this as a translation for: Katamo ca bhikkhave sannanam vipako? Voharavepakkaham bhikkhave sanna vadami; yatha yatha nam sanjanati, tatha tatha voharati 'evam sanni ahosin' ti I'm takng it from "The Five Aggregates" by Mathieu Boisvert thanks very much, Larry 13549 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue May 28, 2002 5:15am Subject: Re: Friends..... Hi Sarah, Lovely to hear the news about Ranil and his bride, and Mike who is greatly missed. May all be safe and protected, May all be healthy and strong, may all be happy of heart and mind, May all live with ease and well-being. metta, Christine --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I have a little news to share: > > 1. Ranil (an occasional poster on DSG) has just got married. We look > forward to meeting him and his new bride when we visit Sri Lanka and wish > them joy and happiness. > > 2. I spoke to Mike Nease by telephone a couple of days ago. He's well, > pretty upbeat and very busy doing several jobs. He's now in his own flat > and sends everyone his regards. > > Sarah > ====== 13550 From: <> Date: Tue May 28, 2002 7:43am Subject: ADL ch. 10 (1) http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 10 (1) THE FIRST CITTA IN LIFE Time and again there are cittas arising which experience different objects through the senses and through the mind-door. There are seeing or hearing, there are cittas with attachment to what is seen or heard. These cittas arise because of different conditions. We may wonder whether they also have different functions. Seeing and the citta with attachment to visible object do not arise at the same time, they are different and they perform different functions. We will understand more about cittas if we know in what order they arise and which function they Perform. A citta cannot arise without performing a function. Each citta has its own function, in Pali : Kicca. There are fourteen functions of cittas in all. The citta arising at the first moment of life must also have a function. What is birth, and what is it actually that is born? We speak about the birth of a child, but in fact, there are only nama and rupa which are born. The word 'birth' is a conventional term. We should consider what birth really is. Nama and rupa arise and fall away at every moment and thus there is birth and death of nama and rupa at every moment. In order to understand what causes birth we should know what conditions the nama and rupa which arise at the first moment of a new lifespan. What arises first at the beginning of our life, nama or rupa? At any moment of our life there have to be both nama and rupa. In the planes of existence where there are five khandhas (four namas and one rupa), nama cannot arise without rupa; citta cannot arise without the body. What is true for any moment of our life, is also true for the first moment of our life. At the first moment of our life nama and rupa have to arise at the same time. The citta which arises at that moment is called the patisandhi-citta or rebirth-consciousness. Since no citta arises without conditions, the patisandhi-citta must also have conditions. The patisandhi-citta is the first citta of a new life and thus its cause can only be in the past. One may have doubts about past lives, but how can people be so different if there were not past lives? We can see that people are born with different accumulations. Can we explain the character of a child by looking at its parents? What we mean by 'character' is actually nama. Could parents transfer to another being nama which falls away as soon as it has arisen? There must be other factors which are the condition for a child's character. Cittas which arise and fall away succeed one another and thus each citta conditions the next one. The last citta of the previous life (dying-consciousness) was succeeded by the first citta of this life. That is why tendencies one had in the past can continue by way of accumulation from one citta to the next one and from past lives to the present life. Since people accumulated different tendencies in past lives they are born with different tendencies and inclinations. We do not only see that people are born with different characters, we also see that they are born in different surroundings; some people are born in pleasant surroundings and some people are born in miserable surroundings. In order to understand this we should not cling to conventional terms such as 'person' or 'surroundings'. If we think in terms of paramattha dhammas we will see that being in pleasant or miserable surroundings is nothing else but the receiving of pleasant or unpleasant objects through eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body-sense. It is kusala vipaka or akusala vipaka. Vipaka (result) does not arise without conditions; it is caused by good or bad deeds, by kamma. Different people perform different kamma and each deed brings its own result. The fact that people are born in different surroundings must have a condition: it is conditioned by kamma performed in a previous life. Kamma causes one to be born. The patisandhi-citta is the result of kamma; it is vipaka. In this world we see different births of people and of animals. When we compare the life of an animal with the life of a human being, we notice that being born an animal is sorrowful; it is akusala vipaka. Being born a human being is kusala vipaka, even if one is born poor or if one has to experience many unpleasant things during one's life. The patisandhi-cittas of different people are of many different degrees of kusala vipaka because the kusala kammas which produced them were of different degrees. 13551 From: <> Date: Tue May 28, 2002 8:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] giving protection, abhaya dana Hi Sarah, thinking of abhayadana in the sense of giving courage (or fearlessness, the mere absense of fear), I am reminded of satipatthana. I think there is abhaya in that when it is difficult. Larry 13552 From: Jim Anderson Date: Tue May 28, 2002 9:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] translation help Hi Larry, > Greetings dsg, can someone tell me which sutta is Anguttara iii, > 413-414? I believe this would be book of threes, page 413-414 in PTS > (pali?) edition. There is an online anguttara but I can't tell which > sutta it is. The 'iii' refers to the volume no. only. I checked the CSCD disk and found that the sutta corresponds to the Nibbedhikasutta in Book VI (chakkanipaato, mahaavaggo). I don't have the PTS edition or translation with me but you might try looking for one under AN VI.63. > I want to check the context of the following line: > "sanna always results in a concept [vohara, expression of worldly > usage]: whatever is conceptualized has previously been 'sannanized.' " > > also you might tell me what you think of this as a translation for: I don't think it's a very good translation. I hope you can find a better one. > Katamo ca bhikkhave sannanam vipako? Voharavepakkaham bhikkhave sanna > vadami; yatha yatha nam sanjanati, tatha tatha voharati 'evam sanni > ahosin' ti > > I'm takng it from "The Five Aggregates" by Mathieu Boisvert > > thanks very much, Larry You're welcome, Jim 13553 From: <> Date: Tue May 28, 2002 10:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] translation help Thanks Jim, I found it here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/angu/an6-63.htm Here's the section on sanna for anyone who might be interested (comments at the end): [3] "'Perception should be known. The cause by which perception comes into play...The diversity in perception...The result of perception...The cessation of perception...The path of practice for the cessation of perception should be known.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said? "There are these six kinds of perception (mental labels): the perception of form, the perception of sound, the perception of aroma, the perception of flavor, the perception of tactile sensation, the perception of ideas. "And what is the cause by which perception comes into play? Contact is the cause by which perception comes into play. "And what is the diversity in perception? Perception with regard to forms is one thing, perception with regard to sounds is another, perception with regard to aromas is another, perception with regard to flavors is another, perception with regard to tactile sensations is another, perception with regard to ideas is another. This is called the diversity in perception. "And what is the result of perception? Perception has expression as its result, I tell you. However a person perceives something, that is how he expresses it: 'I have this sort of perception.' This is called the result of perception. "And what is the cessation of perception? From the cessation of contact is the cessation of perception; and just this noble eightfold path -- right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration -- is the way leading to the cessation of perception. "Now when a noble disciple discerns perception in this way, the cause by which perception comes into play in this way, the diversity of perception in this way, the result of perception in this way, the cessation of perception in this way, & the path of practice leading to the cessation of perception in this way, then he discerns this penetrative holy life as the cessation of perception. "'Perception should be known. The cause by which perception comes into play...The diversity in perception...The result of perception...The cessation of perception...The path of practice for the cessation of perception should be known.' Thus it has been said, and in reference to this was it said. I think Boisvert translated the line, "Perception has expression as its result, I tell you. However a person perceives something, that is how he expresses it" as, "sanna always results in a concept [vohara, expression of worldly usage]: whatever is conceptualized has previously been 'sannanized.' " from: Katamo ca bhikkhave sannanam vipako? Voharavepakkaham bhikkhave sanna vadami; yatha yatha nam sanjanati, tatha tatha voharati 'evam sanni ahosin' ti This at least tells me sanna is productive in some way. I wonder if this 'expression' and 'mental label' is the 'mark' that sanna metaphorically makes for memory. In Visuddhimagga sanna is linked with 'recognition' but not exactly memory which is more the domain of sati. Comments and clarifications anyone? thanks, Larry 13554 From: <> Date: Tue May 28, 2002 10:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] translation help "There are these six kinds of perception (mental labels): the perception of form, the perception of sound, the perception of aroma, the perception of flavor, the perception of tactile sensation, the perception of ideas." Hi all, I notice there seems to be a difference here between 'mental label' and 'idea'. I wonder if that is the difference between the two kinds of pannatti (name and meaning). I also wonder if sanna is the 'noting' in satipatthana. Also where does the 'meaning' aspect of pannatti come from? thanks, Larry 13555 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue May 28, 2002 11:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma In Color: A New Modern Commentary Suan Thanks for this interesting commentary which I look forward to studying in detail. I appreciate the point you bring out well that the fourfold classification of kamma in this sutta is given for the purpose of instruction and explanation, and is not an 'absolute' one in terms of the paramattha dhammas found in the abhidhamma. Jon --- abhidhammika wrote: > > > > Dear Dhamma Friends > > How are you? > > The following modern commentary on Vittaara Suttam on Four Groups of > Actions has been written in response to the requests made by Joyce > Short, Venerable Dhammarati, and Upasaka Howard. > > This English language commentary is not to replace the standard Pali > commentary on that Suttam. In fact, it has been based on the latter > as if it were a modern English language subcommentary on it, which > again is not to replace the standard Pali subcommentary either. > > I hope you also find this new commentary useful. > > With kind regards, > > Suan Lu Zaw > > _________________________________________________________ > > > > A New Commentary On Vitthāra Suttam > > By Suan Lu Zaw > > Our actions do not have colors in the ultimate sense. But, the Buddha > included dark actions and white actions in this Suttam as if actions > had colors. What the Buddha was doing here was using figurative > speech to offer us vivid illustration of actions we are capable of > doing and their outcomes. > > In this new commentary on Vitthaara Suttam, I planned to offer the > representative interpretation in line with the Buddha's use of > selective examples in the original Suttam. In other words, my > interpretation would be a narrowly focussed one with the function of > pinpointing the most obvious phenomena. After all, the Suttanta > approach is always partial and never intended to be comprehensive. > > Vitthaara Suttam contains five paragraphs. > > The Paragraph One is significant because the Buddha, here, confirmed > the phenomenon of our actions having their results in the next life. > This paragraph is the answer to those sceptics who have doubts about > whether the Buddha actually taught Samsaara that is the serial > rebirths. The Buddha unmistakably declared that he had personally > realized them with extraordinary wisdom. > > The Paragraph Two defined the meaning of dark action. Here, the > Buddha limited the range of the meaning of the dark action to those > actions carried out with anger. We need to remember this limitation > placed on the meaning of the adjective "dark (kanha)". In this > paragraph, the adjective "dark" covers only those actions with anger. > > The next important thing to note is the strength of anger. We can > know the strength of anger if we know its results. The Buddha > described miserable hellish world as the destination to which the > actions with this anger would lead. And he also described the > resulting feeling as really miserable harh feeling (ekantadukkham). > This means that, in order to get such hellish existence and feeling, > the violent actions must have been carried out with full-strength > anger. > > This type of anger that leads to dark action referred to in Paragraph > Twb is well documented in Abhidhamma Pitaka. Dhammasanganii, the > First Book of Abhidhamma, describes the arising of the unhealthy > mental event with displeasure and strong anger (akusala cittam > uppannam hoti domanassasahagatam patighasampayuttam). > > The Paragraph Three defined the meaning of white action. Here, the > Buddha described the white action as those actions carried out with > dis-anger. As all healthy minds come with dis-anger according to > Abhidhamma, we can know for sure that white action refers to those > actions originated from healthy efficacious mental events > (kusalacittaani). > > All we need to do here is to determine which healthy efficacious > consciousness the Buddha was referring to in the Paragraph Three. As > the Buddha had chosen the existence and feeling of Subhakinha Brahma > gods as the outcome of the white action carried out with dis-anger, > we know for sure that the healthy efficacious consciousness in the > Paragraph Three is the Jhaana consciousness. > > Now, as the final step, we need to find out which Jhaana > consciousness is responsible for rebirth in the Subhakinha Brahma > world. In this regard, Vibhanga, the second book of Abhidhamma, > becomes handy. In Section 1026, Vibhanga, we found the following > question and answer. > > "Tatiyaam jhaanaam paniitaam bhaavetvaa kattha upapajjanti? > Tatiyaam jhaanaam paniitaam bhaavetvaa subhakinhaanaam devaanaam > sahabyataam upapajjanti." > > "Where are they reborn by having developed the superior Third Jhaana > (tatiyam jhaanam paniitam)? They are reborn in the world of > Subhakinha Brahmas by having developed the superior Third Jhaana." > > Thus, we now know that the white action in the Paragraph Three refers > to the development of the Third Jhaana consciousness at the superior > level. > > Paragraph Four demands our careful reading. Particular attention > should be paid to the dark action and the white action carried out in > the conext of Paragraph Four. Is the dark action here the same as the > dark action in Paragraph Two? And, is the white action in Paragraph > Four similar to the white action in Paragraph Three? > > The answers to those questions are No. How do we know that the > actions are not the same although they have the same > adjectives "dark" and "white"? We know that the actions are not the > same because their results are different. > > Let us take a closer look at the results of the actions in Paragraph > Four. The white actions here lead to rebirths as human beings, as > sensuous gods and as mansion-owning halfway beings. > > The Pali commentary on Vitthaara Suttam defined gods in Paragraph > Four as sensuous gods. > > "Ekacce ca devaati ettha pana kaamaavacaradevaa datthabbaa. … Ekacce > ca vinipaatikaati ettha vemaanikapetaa datthabbaa." > > "And some gods here should be noted as sensuous gods… and some > vinipaatikaa here should be noted as mansion-owning halfway beings". > > As an obvious starting example, not all human beings are up to the > practice of Jhaana, let alone attaining Jhaana consciousness. From > this observation, we can know that white actions they had performed > in their previous lives originated from healthy efficacious > consciousnesses lower than Jhaana consciousness. These lower > consciousnesses are none other than sensuous healthy efficacious > consciousnesses (kaamaavacara kusalacittaani). > > The Buddha also told us that they had also carried out dark actions > alongside those sensuous white actions. As they were not reborn in > hell as those who carried out dark actions in the context of > Paragraph Two, we know for sure that the dark actions referred to in > Paragraph Four are not as severe as those in Paragraph Two. > > At this point, we need to point out that dark actions referred to in > Paragraph Four may be originated from all forms of unhealthy > efficacious consciousnesses in addition to those with anger. We can > know this because the Buddha included mansion-owning halfway beings > alongside human beings and sensuous gods. Mansion-owning halfway > beings are called "vemaanikapetaa". As we have seen above, the > term "vinipaatikaa" found in the Suttam was defined > as "vemaanikapetaa" in the Pali commentary on this Suttam. Vemaanika > (vimaana + ika) means those who have mansions (vimaana). Petas are > those beings who carried out dark actions usually with greed or with > anger out of greed in their previous lives. They are sometimes called > hungry ghosts. > > I called petas halfway beings because they partly enjoy the good > lives and partly suffer the miserable lives, and because they could > transform into happy beings by having received sharing of merit > dedicated to them by their living human relatives. > > How about human beings having greed? We could ask ourselves if we are > ever without greed. Most of the problems in our human societies are > due to inequalities in possession and sharing of resources. We can > safely say that those inequalities are the results of individual > greed and collective greed. Therefore, human beings must have carried > out dark actions with greed as well. > > Actions referred to in Paragraph Five are exclusively Buddhist > actions. Only when a Buddha appears in mankind, teachings on actions > carried out specifically for depletion of actions and their results > become available. > > What did the Buddha mean when he defined the un-dark and un-white > actions as activation (cetanaa) to eradicate dark and white action > having dark and white result? > > The Pali commentary on Samkkhitta Suttam in Section 232, on which > Vitthaara Suttam is an elaboration, the un-dark and un-white action > refers to the four stages of the path wisdom. > > "Akanham asukkanti kammakkhayakaram catumaggañaanam > adhippetam." > > "Un-dark and un-white action means the four stages of the path wisdom > that do depletion of actions." > > Thus, our examination of Vitthaara Suttam regarding four groups of > actions is complete. > > All we need to do now is to locate them in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. All > of them can be found in Dhammasanganii, the very first book of > Abhidhamma. > > The reference for the consciousness responsible for dark action in > Paragraph Two is Section 413. > > The reference for the consciousness responsible for white action in > Paragraph Three is Section 163. > > The references for the consciousnesses responsible for dark and white > action in Paragraph Four are Sections 365, 413, 421, 422 for dark > actions and Sections 1 or 147 for white actions. Section 365 is only > an example. So are Sections 1 or 147 only examples. > > The references for the consciousnesses responsible for un-dark and un- > white action in Paragraph Five are Section 277 for the first path > wisdom (pathamo maggo), 361 for the second path wisdom (dutiyo > maggo), 362 for the third path wisdom (tatiyo maggo), and 363 for the > fourtht path wisdom (catuttho maggo). > > > Suan Lu Zaw > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > PREVIOUSLY ON THIS LIST > > > Vitthaara Suttam, from which the following translation was made, can > be found in Section 233, Kammavaggo, Catukkanipaata, Anguttaranikaayo > on Chatthasangayana CD-ROM version 3 produced by Vipassana Research > Institute. Those who use Roman edition should see page 230 in Volume > 2 of that edition. > > > VITTHAARA SUTTAM ON FOUR GROUPS OF KAMMA > > > Translated By Suan Lu Zaw > > Monks, four actions have been declared by me by having personally > realized them with extraordinary wisdom. What are the four? Monks, > there is dark action having dark result. Monks, there is white action > having white result. Monks, there is dark and white action having > dark and white result. Minks, there is un-dark and un-white action > having un-dark and un-white result, which takes place for depletion > of actions. > > Monks, what is dark action having dark result? Here, monks, some > carry out physical action with anger, verbal action with anger, and > mental action with anger. Having carried out physical action with > anger, having carried out verbal action with anger, and having > carried out mental action with anger, he is reborn in the harsh > world. Being reborn in the harsh world, harsh contacts touch him. > Being touched by harsh contacts, he experiences the really miserable > harsh feelings like those beings in hell do. Monks, this is called > dark action having dark result. > > Monks, what is white action having white result? Here, monks, some > carry out physical action with dis-anger, verbal action with dis- > anger, and mental action with dis-anger. Having carried out physical > action with dis-anger, having carried out verbal action with dis- > anger, and having carried out mental action with dis-anger, he is > reborn in the gentle world. Being reborn in the gentle world, gentle > contacts touch him. Being touched by gentle contacts, he experiences > the really pleasant gentle feelings like Subhakinha Brahma gods do. > Monks, this is called white action having white result. > > Monks, what is dark and white action having dark and white result? > Here, monks, some carry out physical action with anger as well as > with dis-anger, verbal action with anger as well as with dis-anger, > and mental action with anger as well as with dis-anger. Having > carried out physical action with anger as well as with dis-anger, > having carried out verbal action with anger as well as with dis- > anger, and having carried out mental action with anger as well as > with dis-anger, he is reborn in the harsh and gentle world. Being > reborn in the harsh and gentle world, harsh as well as gentle > contacts touch him. Being touched by harsh as well as gentle > contacts, he experiences the mixed feelings of pleasure and misery > like human beings, some sensuous gods and some mansion-owning halfway > beings do. Monks, this is called dark and white action having dark > and white result. > > Monks, what is un-dark and un-white action having un-dark and un- > white result, which takes place for depletion of actions? Here, > monks, such activation as to eradicate dark action having dark > result, such activation as to eradicate white action having white > result, and such activation as to eradicate dark and white action > having dark and white result, this activation is called un-dark and > un-white action having un-dark and un-white result, which takes place > for depletion of actions. Monks, these four actions have been > declared by me by having personally realized them with extraordinary > wisdom. > > > NOTES ON KEY TERMS > > The phrase "with anger" is a translation of the Pali > compound "sabyaapajjam" which was defined as "sadosam" in the Pali > commentary. Sadosam = sa + dosam. > Doso is defined as anger in Pali Text Society's Pali – English > Dictionary, see page 332. > > The phrase "with dis-anger" is a translation of the Pali > word "abyaapajjam". The opposite of the Pali term "doso" is "adoso". > Dis-anger is the literal translation of "adoso". Abyaapajjo is > described as a synonym of adoso in Section 33, Dhammasanganii. Hence, > I translated abyaapajjam as with dis-anger in order to contrast it > with anger in Paragraph Two of the Vitthaara Suttam. > > In Section 397, Siilakkhandha Pali, Diighanikaayo, we find "bhikkhu > averam abyaapajjam mettacittam bhaaveti. Without enmity, and with dis- > anger, the monk develops the loving mind". > > Thus, dis-anger is a technical term to convey love or loving kindness > as one of its meanings. It does not refer to the mere absence of > anger as when our minds are with greed. > > Un-dark is a translation of the word "akanha, not dark". Here, un- > darkness does not refer to other colors such as whiteness. It means > counteracting the very color of darkness. Un-dark means anti-dark. > > Thus, un-dark action would counteract the dark actions and their dark > results. > > Un-white is a translation of the word "asukka, not white". Here, too, > un-whiteness does not refer to darkness or other colors. It means > counteracting the very color of whiteness. Un-white means anti-white. > > Thus, un-white action would counteract the white actions and their > white results. > . > > To read the original Suttam in Pali, please follow the following link. > > http://www.tipitaka.org/tipitaka/s0402m3/s0402m3-frm.html > > And, please also visit the following link to download and install the > Pali font on your computer so that the Pali letters appear on your > screen correctly. > > http://www.tipitaka.org/general/pali.html > > > > With regards, > > Suan Lu Zaw > > http://www.bodhiology.org/ > > > > 13556 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue May 28, 2002 1:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'no control', Reply to Rob E. Thanks, Howard, for your response to my post. I found your points here valuable. The idea of discrete boundaries between experienced moments does create a discontinuity of the flux of impermanence that at least seems to be troubling. I always thought the breakdown of phenomena was that they didn't break down to anything, and the fact that you could not find the final unit of what anything was, was in a sense, the proof of anatta. Take it down to the lowest common denominator, and there's nothing there. Isn't this what appears to be in reality, according to physics? The smallest particles seem to keep opening up into another level of even smaller particles and within that particle there is a universe of event-relations taking place. If there are final 'realities' which are the true 'entities' [to quote Buddhaghosa] of experience, this seems to halt the journey to anatta by landing on something that is substantial and truly defineable. I suspect that this establishes a comfort zone against the onslaught of complete anatta that is the basic nature of reality. Best, Robert Ep. ================== --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert (and Sukin) - > > In a message dated 5/22/02 5:18:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert Ep writes: > > > > there is certainly a great moment-to-moment literature as to the continuous > > arising and changing of consciousness. as to the individual citta theory, > > that is > > a property of abhidhamma and not necessarily of Theravada in general. > > > > If not how can they see rise and fall of > > > individual cittas? It would surprise me greatly if you brought out some > > proof. > > > > to be able to see the specific content of each moment is a property of > > advanced > > meditation as well as Buddhist philosophy. as for 'individual cittas', we > > will > > both have to wait to see if they really arise and fall as single elements > > in a > > string of beads, or whether they break down to non-units in a continuous > > changing > > thread. so far the idea that there are specific bounded cittas that have > > clear > > boundaries seems quite substantialist to me and is controversial within > > Buddhism > > at large. I don't take it as a requirement for being 'Buddhist'. > > > > > ========================== > Rob, there are *so* many points you raise in this long post, in > addition to what I quote above, that I agree with. One major one is an > addressing of an apparent tendency towards randomness, pointing it out and > criticizing it. I concur that the recognition of "no control" due to > "impersonality" can improperly lead to a sense of helplessness and > randomness, and it is important for this pitfall to be pointed out. > Also, I concur with your assessment, as expressed in what I quote > above, of the string-of-beads interpretation of the dhamma theory not being a > requirement for being 'Buddhist'. When it is said that conditioned dhammas > are impermanent, this does not require discreteness and sharp boundaries. > There may be no more to be said than simply statements of the sort "There was > the experience of redness, but now there is not"; that is, impermanence > merely means that conditions don't remain. On the other hand, since the > Abhidhamma doesn't countenance any gaps between mindstates, perhaps the > distinction between continuity and discreteness is a false distinction, with > the reality being a middle-way one between these extremes. But we do have to > be careful in not imposing our commonsense notions of boundaries on the > details of experience. The boundaries between cittas, marked by either a > change in arammana or the removal or addition of cetasikas, would best not be > taken to be "realities", else we run into all the paradoxes of Zeno and > Nagarjuna. At the alleged point at which a cetasika ceases, is it in effect, > or not in effect, or both, or neither?! A whole mess of trouble is created in > reifying boundaries. I think we need to stick with the more empirical view of > "This was, and now it is not". > > With metta, > Howard > > With metta, > Howard 13557 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue May 28, 2002 1:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg]what is real? Dear Nina, Thank you for your message, which was very pertinent to the questions I have been considering. I found your discussions helpful and very clear and sensible. I want you to know I will be re-reading this post for a while and considering it carefully. Thank you for the time and effort, and your kind concern for my understanding! Best, Robert Ep. ================== --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > op 18-05-2002 20:01 schreef Robert Epstein op <>: > Dear Rob Ep, > I am just catching up with my mail, and meanwhile so many good things have > been said by others that I do not know what to add. I try to follow some of > your questions. > > R: my problem with calling the momentary manifestations of > > the > > khandas 'realities' is greater than that, because my question is: Are these > > momentary manifestations actually 'real'? What is their status? Is it > > correct to > > think of them as 'real'? Howard in his signature and others at other times > > have > > quoted Buddha saying that we should regard this life as an illusion, a > > fleeting > > dream, not substantial, but a kind of trick of the mind. Do we call the > > events > > that arise in a dream 'realities'? It seems contradictory to me. > N: The khandhas are momentary, but they are real. Sarah pointed out that > seeing life as foam, etc. should not be misunderstood, otherwise we would > conclude that our whole life is nonsense, that accumulation and development > of understanding and all good qualities were not possible. Seeing is very > real, but it vanishes immediately. But we do not yet realize impermanence, > and we take realities, as I wrote before, into a whole, for self, as a > person. The Buddha said: do not cling to I or mine, what we take for self > are nama and rupa which do not last. If we believe that they last and are > self we live with illusions. > You have doubts about what is reality and what is not. You do not doubt > that there was birth, and to be more precise: the moment of > rebirth-consciousness, and that there will be death, to be more precise: > dying-consciousness. In between is what we call life: seeing, hearing, > attachment, anger. Everybody has anger, you do not doubt that there is > anger, do you? It is one of the five khandhas, the khandha of formations or > activities. You can experience that anger is different from attachment, you > do not doubt about this, do you? Verify this for yourself. You can > experience that seeing is different from hearing, that they have different > objects and arise at different sensebases. You can verify this to yourself. > You also asked about hardness: where and on what basis does hardness occur? > When it impinges on the bodysense which can be all over the body where there > is sensitivity. That is for a short moment the bodybase, but it falls away. > It is real, prove it to yourself. Panna and all good qualities can be > developed and thus accumulated, this is not an illusion. So, we should not > say that our whole life is an illusion. > > R: If the > > purpose > > of the path is to awaken from the dream of samsara, the illusion that we are > > separate individuated beings with internal entities, and that what we perceive > > is > > filtered through the operations of the mind, I would agree that it is a highly > > important thing to be able to distinguish between what we are really > > experiencing > > in the moment, and to be able to tell whether it is a concept or a perceived > > reality. > N: Yes, that is most important. I find what Rob K quoted from Karunadasa > about pannatti being unproduced and not arisen by conditions most helpful. I > also find very helpful what Sukin said about studying with detachment, study > of the present moment, leading to direct experience. And then what Howard > said I like very much, about the clinging to the self: > > khandhas nor outside of them. I also do think that our strong desire that > there BE a self outside the khandhas is a kind of last-ditch grasping at the > anchor of self. That has to be let go of as well - or so it seems to me.> > > N: When one develops understanding of nama and rupa little by little it will > also become clearer what is reality, what is not reality. But not > immediately, can we be patient enough? > > R: But to stop there and to say that the experience of 'hardness', > 'sadness', or > > other momentary experiences are 'real', and that they are the final reality, > > seems > > to me to rob us of the understanding that these too are *unreal*, that they > > are > > momentary manifestations of perception or thought, dependent on human > > consciousness for their appearance. There seems to be an empiricist idea in > > calling dhammas 'realities', that things exist in the world apart from human > > apprehension. The fact that we perceive 'hardness' or 'sadness' does not mean > > that they are real, it only proves that these things occur in the mind, > > without > > which we perceive nothing. > N: Does hardness occur in the mind? A citta experiences hardness just for a > moment (sorry, Dan). It falls away and hardness falls away. Nama and rupa > are entirely different and cannot be mixed. How could there be solidity > arising in the mind? > There was another matter brought up by Howard: is only the colour that is > experienced real? But what about the colour at the back, or the sounds in > the wood not heard by you when you are not there. There are many rupas > arising and falling away, but if there are not the right conditions they are > not experienced. For the experience of visible object there have to be > visible object that impinges on the eyesense so that seeing can arise that > experiences it. > > R: I believe Buddha asked us to suspend any judgment about whether there is > a > > 'real > > world' outside of us or not, > N: the Buddha was the knower of the worlds in many ways: he knew the other > planes of existence, and all world systems. Planes of existence: these are > words that designate the conditions for different kinds of results, pleasant > and unpleasant. These results are realities.The Buddha knew all. They are > real, but we cannot fathom them. See, what is reality is not necessarily > experienced by us. > > R: Are the kandhas actual structures that exist in a real world? I > > think > > that to draw the conclusion that they are is to say that we live in an > > objective > > universe which is actual and substantial. And this would then be a > > substantialist > > view which leads to real object and entity. > > It is hard for me to imagine the sensation of 'hardness' being real, without > > it > > somehow implying a 'real object' that is hard. 'Hardness' cannot float about > > or > > exist by itself, there is no 'hardness' that stands on its own and makes an > > impression on a person. > N: Hardness does not float about by itself, quite right. The four great > Elements of solidity, cohesion, heat and motion always arise together and > support one another. Visible object appears now, it does not float by > itself, it is supported by the four great elements and other rupas, it > arises and falls away in a group, kalapa, of rupas. But when visible object > is experienced, the other elements in that group, like solidity are not > experienced. Prove it. You can prove all this for yourself. When a harsh > sound hurts the ear, it is painful; it is hardness that is experienced at > one moment, and sound at another moment. These objects cannot be experienced > at the same time. > > R: Hardness is a quality of something that is hard. If we say the > 'hardness' is 'real', rather than merely > > an > > experience of the perceiving organ, then we assert by implication that the > > 'wood' > > is also real, and that that which is made of wood is also real, even though we > > admit that we cannot perceive it all at once, but only one rupa at a time. > N: The wood is not real, it is a conglomeration of different realities, and > we think of the idea of wood, because of sanna. We remember what wood is > because of previous experiences. > > R: So that leaves me with the question, are objects real according to > Buddha? Do > > we > > live in an empirically objective universe, apprehended imperfectly by us as > > perceiving subjects? Can we ever assume that there is a world of 'realities' > > either within or beyond our own mental and perceptual functions, which are > > thoroughly caused by the interaction of the kandhas? > > > > The objects and thoughts that we perceive through the cittas are in every case > > productions of mental processes, through mental or sensory doors. To me it is > > very uncertain that anything that we apprehend in these ways can be called > > 'realities'. I would prefer to think of them as 'manfestations', 'arisings', > > or > > 'creations of perceptual/mental processes'. I just don't see how we can > > assume > > anything that is a 'reality' beyond the mind itself, from which all our > > experiences arise. > N: If we see citta as a creator of all we experience there still is a > (hidden) illusion of self, now disguised as a creator of what is > experienced. No owner, no creator is there. > > R: I think it makes a difference which way we look at this, as to what > there is > > to > > awaken from. > > N: You touch on essential points and you really want to know what is real, > what are realities. I was not so happy with the translation of paramattha > dhammas as final entities, by Ven. Bodhi. I have some trouble with > philosophical terms, so I asked my sister about them. Entity: in Greek: > Ousia (pronounce usia). Meaning, to be, being, and also, as I understood, > implying possession, what is mine. But I am not sure now whether I > understood this in the right way. Aritoteles: substance is ousia. Latin: > substantia. We inherited a lot of ideas from Greek philosophy, even without > knowing this. Also the idea of subject and object (for Dan!). I found it > helpful to forget all about what I learnt (phenomenology, existentialism) > and try to find out what can be proven right now. Doubt arises, but also > that is real, is it not? Only the sotapanna has eradicated doubt. Thus, I > would rather use the word element, dhatu, instead of entity that, as you > said, suggests substantiality. Now, dhatu is from the same root as dhamma, > to bear; it bears its own characteristic. But dhamma has many different > meanings. Element indicates impersonality, not a person. However, we can, as > said before, use any translation of paramattha dhamma, so long as we > understand the meaning. > You also said, the mind is constant but the contents are changing. As > regards concepts being the object, I think the opposite is true: several > cittas in a process may think of a concept like wood. Cittas change, but > they have still the object of wood. So, I would rather not say: concepts > fall away together with the citta. In a general sense we can say that when > you stop thinking of a concept it is not there, but that is not the same as > the impermanence of citta that arises from conditions and then falls away. > And again, think of Karunadasa's article. When the object of citta is not a > concept it is a reality. > > Control:in Pali: samvara. It can also be translated as guarding. As Victor > quoted: self control is difficult. O.K. to use this word, so long as we take > it in the right sense: sati is guarding the six doors, and then akusala does > not arise. > > You have many pertinent questions about what is reality, they are very good. > It cannot be clear all at once what is real, only in the course of the > development of insight, direct experience of realities or elements. As Sarah > quoted before from the "Dispeller of Delusion", Ch 2: no-self is unobvious, dark, unclear, difficult to penetrate, difficult to > illustrate, difficult to make known...The characteristic of no-self does not > appear, owing to not keeping in mind, not penetrating the resolution into > the various elements owing to its being concealed by compactness...When > resolving of the compact is effected by resolution into the various > elements, the characteristic of no-self appears in accordance with its true > essential nature...> > It is panna that is already developed which can resolve the whole of a > person into various elements that do not last and are no-self. Do not be > surprised that there is still doubt of what is real. There is a way to learn > the truth, but this is not a fast way. Many conditions have to be fulfilled, > such as study, asking questions, investigation of what appears right now. > The development of all good qualities, the paramis, perfections. > Best wishes for your study, investigation of realities, proving the truth > for yourself, > Nina. > 13558 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 28, 2002 2:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] translation help Dear Larry, Looks like you’re doing some useful research on sanna. We can talk about 6 kinds of sanna (as in the sutta) marking objects through 6 doorways or we can talk about 4 kinds of sanna in the 4 jati (classes) of kusala, akusala, vipaka and kiriya. I’m sure there are other ways too. Thanks for the translation and notes you give. I’m also looking at B.Bodhi’s translation and the PTS one (transl by Hare). The PTS transl gives this one to add to your collection (at end of post*): “And what I perceptions’ fruit? I say, monks, perceptions are the result of habit (vohaara-vepakka). As one comes to know a thing, so one expresses oneslef: “Thus I perceived.” This monks, is called perceptions’ fruit.” BB’s: “And what, monks, is the outcome of perceptions? perceptions, I say, have communication by speech as their outcome. As one perceives a thing, so one expresses it, saying: ‘So I have perceived it.’” ***** A few comments to your comments below (but not on the translations): 1. Without sanna, there would be no conceptualising or expressions of common usage. 2. Sanna ‘marks’ at every moment. Like all other mental factors, it accumulates. Thus each kind of marking accumulates.This is the way it is productive or ‘habit-forming’. 3. What we think of as memory consists of a series of markings with many other ingredients and factors combined to condition the moments of thinking. 4. What we refer to as ‘memory’ is a concept and the thinking and sanna involved may be kusala or akusala. It is quite different from sati (awareness) which only arises with kusala cittas and is aware of whatever reality appears, even at times of conventional poor memory. 5. You mention in your second post** ‘a difference between ‘mental label’ and ‘idea’. Mental labels (used in brackets in yr translation after perception) are referring, maybe misleadingly, to the 6 kinds of sanna. They don’t refer to any kind of pannatti (and the other translations just refer to perception). On the other hand, ‘ideas’ refer to pannatti (all kinds) I’m sure. Through the mind door, sanna accompanies the mind door cittas to mark pannatti. 6. I believe that when ‘noting’ is used in some translations of the Satipatthana Sutta, for example, it is translated from ‘sampajaano’. I believe it is more accurate to translate sampaja~n~na as clearly comprehending or understanding. In other words, it refers to right understanding. so sati-sampajanna refers to the development of awareness and rt understanding. Just a few ideas. Num or others may add more. Sarah ===== * --- <> wrote: > > I think Boisvert translated the line, > > "Perception has expression as its result, I tell you. However a person > perceives something, that is how he expresses it" > > as, "sanna always results in a concept [vohara, expression of worldly > usage]: whatever is conceptualized has previously been 'sannanized.' " > > from: Katamo ca bhikkhave sannanam vipako? Voharavepakkaham bhikkhave > sanna vadami; yatha yatha nam sanjanati, tatha tatha voharati 'evam > sanni ahosin' ti > > This at least tells me sanna is productive in some way. I wonder if this > 'expression' and 'mental label' is the 'mark' that sanna metaphorically > makes for memory. In Visuddhimagga sanna is linked with 'recognition' > but not exactly memory which is more the domain of sati. > > Comments and clarifications anyone? **> --- <> wrote: > "There are these six kinds of perception (mental labels): the perception > of form, the perception of sound, the perception of aroma, the > perception of flavor, the perception of tactile sensation, the > perception of ideas." > > Hi all, I notice there seems to be a difference here between 'mental > label' and 'idea'. I wonder if that is the difference between the two > kinds of pannatti (name and meaning). I also wonder if sanna is the > 'noting' in satipatthana. Also where does the 'meaning' aspect of > pannatti come from? ==================================================== 13559 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 28, 2002 3:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi Larry again (also Suan, Rob K, Nina, Howard & All), --- <> wrote: > Greetings dsg, here is some info about mind-door process from "A > Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" > > ch. IV, guide to #12 I found the notes you quoted and particularly the comments by Ledi Sayadaw very interesting indeed. Thank you. I looked in the chapter and there is no mention of texts that Ledi Sayadaw bases his explanations on. I wonder if Suan, Nina, Rob K or anyone more familiar with the abhidhamma texts and commentaries than myself has come across all the details described -- as opposed to just the outlines of the processes as explained in the CMA itself-- and if so if you could give me any references. ..... > > Ledi Sayadaw explains that it is in these consequent processes that > distinct recognition of the object occurs; such recognition does not > occur in a bare five-door process itself. An eye-door process, for > example, is followed first by a conformational mind-door process > (tadanuvattika manodvaravithi), which reproduces in the mind door the > object just perceived in the sense-door process. Then comes a process > grasping the object as whole (samudayagahika); then a process > recognizing the colour (vannasallakkhana); then a process grasping the > entity (vatthugahika); then a process recognizing the entity > (vatthusallakkhana); then a process grasping the name (namagahika); then > a process recognizing the name (namasallakkhana). ***** Howard, you asked before about how or why one of the bhavanga citta acts as mind-door and perhaps this quote from the same passage of Larry’s explains a little more: ..... > Even though the bhavanga > citta has its own object, Ledi Sayadaw explains, it occurs in the mode > of inclining towards some other object. As a result of this perpetual > 'buzz" of activity in the bhavanga, when an object acquires sufficient > prominence through other operative conditions, it draws the continuum of > consciousness out of the bhavanga, and then that object comes into the > range of cognition at the mind door. ***** On another point, Howard, you’ve questioned once or twice I think, to how a dhamma can exist even momentarily when the conditions that ‘produced’ it have fallen away. (sorry, I haven’t got your posts handy). I think it’s important to understand that there are not only the conditions that lead to a subsequent dhamma appearing such as kamma, prenascence, repetition and so on, but there are many conditions (most conditions in fact) which are conditioning and having effect at the ‘existing’ time of the dhamma, such as root (hetus as discussed in ADL corner), object, conascence (effect of cetasikas for example), dependence and many other paccaya (conditions). I think Rob K also made this point, so I may just be repeating it. We can also say that the arising of a state conditions the ‘middle’ and then the falling away of that state (i.e the 3 stages). Maybe after ADL, Larry should consider leading us through Nina’s intro to Conditions. It might be helpful for many of us. (Although we also have PSM and possibly CMA itself .....Hmm) Sarah ===== 13560 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed May 29, 2002 1:01am Subject: vitthaara sutta, to Suan Dear Suan, thank you very much for your clear and most helpful commentary to the vitthaara sutta. Without this explanation I would not have understood this sutta. I am glad Joice and Howard asked for your commentary, and I hope you will write more of those also when unasked! Kind regards from Nina. 13561 From: Num Date: Wed May 29, 2002 1:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] giving protection, abhaya dana Dear Kom, Nina, Sarah and all; 3 kinds of dana: amissadana, abhyadana, and dhammadana. I'd like to make some comment on abhyadana and I'd also like to get some comment rgd the jataka. Yes, It can mean giving protection. In Tipitaka, Veluvanna always referred to as a sanctuary for squirrels (keta-abhya-dana). I think King Asoka also donated part of his garden to become a wildlife sanctuary (from Asoka inscription, I remember reading this from a plaque in San Diego Zoo eight years ago. It's said that is the first record of Nature Reserve area in the history). I like Kom's idea about abhyadana, <> In Thailand, there were couple places post that this area in keta-abhya-dana: a fish sanctuary at a temple near the floating market in Samutsakorn, a bird sanctuary posted in some areas I went bird watching, and a wildlife sanctuary posted in some private farmlands or woods. I looked up the atthakatha of cariya-pitaka real quick. Something bothered a bit for example giving out a slave, as a gift to other was included in amissadana!! This also reminded me of Jataka-Vessantara. Prince Vessantara gave all of his precious belongings e.g. jewelry and white elephant. After he has to leave the city b/c his people think he made a bad decision to give out an invaluable treasure of the empire (the white elephant) to the Brahmin. While he was on the way out from the city with his wife and 2 children, a group of Brahmins asked him for his horses and chariot. He gave them out as well. Later on, another greedy Brahmin came to him and asked for his son and daughter (Charlee and Kanha) to be his young wife's slaves. He gave them out too. The detail in the tipitaka and atthakatha is kind of heartbreaking. The Brahmin physically abused the kids pretty badly. The kids tried to hide in a lotus pond; he asked them to come out. The kids ran back to their dad twice to ask for help but he let the Brahmin took them anyway. No need to mention about their mother's (Princess Madhri) reaction after she found out that her husband gave their kids away to be enslaved. The bhottisattava finally gave his wife to another Brahmin, which actually is an Indriya in disguised to help his wife being given to a bad man. I asked myself, does the prince have a right to do this, to give away his son, his daughter, and his wife. It mentioned he was in great pain in doing this. Is that a really great dana? His son, his daughter and his wife were all in great pain from his giving. Couple people told me it's a great dana to give the thing you love the most. It said that the bhottisattava did that because he aimed for the greatest thing, sappan-yutta-nnana, to become a samma-sambudha and to help all beings who are swimming in the stream of endless samsara. I admired his deed (his kids and his wife always anumodana him in his donation even when they are in pain and were donated themselves). I still have a hard time taking that it's a great dana. Anyway, it's a happy ending story. The family was back together. He resumed his princehood and became a king. After that life, the bhottisattava was reborn in Dusita plane and finally reborn as prince Sitdhattha in his last life. Another quote from the zoo, "A tree is giving a shade even to an axman who is cutting its trunk". (Lord Buddha) Best wishes, Num 13562 From: <> Date: Wed May 29, 2002 6:10am Subject: ADL ch. 10 (2) http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 10 (2) At the first moment of our life kamma produces the patisandhi-citta and then rupa has to arise at the same time. One may wonder what the cause is of the rupa arising at the first moment of life. We see that people are born with different bodily features: some are strong, some are weak, some are handicapped from birth. This must have a cause. It is kamma which causes both nama and rupa to be born. Could the rupa which we call 'dead matter' and the rupa we call 'plant' be produced by kamma? A plant is not 'born' because a plant cannot perform good and bad deeds; it has no kamma that could cause its birth. Temperature is the condition for the life of a plant. As regards human beings, kamma produces rupa at the moment the patisandhi-citta arises. There couldn't be life if kamma did not produce nama and rupa from the first moment of life. Temperature too produces rupa; if there were not the right temperature the new life could not develop. As soon as the patisandhi-citta has fallen away, at the moment the next citta is arising, citta too starts to produce rupa. Furthermore, nutrition produces rupa so that the body can grow. Thus we see that there are other factors besides kamma which are condition for rupa, namely: citta, temperature and nutrition. Kamma produces rupa not only at the first moment of life but throughout our lives. Kamma does not only produce the vipaka-cittas which experience pleasant and unpleasant objects through the sense-doors; it also produces throughout our lives the rupas which can function as the sense-door through which these objects are received. Could someone for instance create his own eye-sense? It could not be created by temperature, only by kamma. Transplantation of the eye cannot be successful unless kamma produces eye-sense in the body of the receiver. The mother's womb is not the only way of birth. We learn from the teachings that there can be birth in four different ways: by way of the womb, by way of eggs, by way of moisture and by way of spontaneous birth. People would like to know when life starts in the mother's womb. Life starts at the moment the patisandhi-citta arises together with the rupa which is produced by kamma at the same time. A life-span ends when the last citta, the dying-consciousness (cuti-citta), falls away. As long as the cuti-citta has not fallen away there is still life. One cannot know the moment the cuti-citta of someone else arises and falls away unless one has cultivated the knowledge of the cittas of other people. A Buddha or someone else who has cultivated this kind of knowledge could know the exact moment of someone's death. We may wonder which kamma in our life will produce the patisandhi-citta of the next life. Some people believe that by doing many good deeds in this life they can be assured of a happy rebirth. But the kamma which produces rebirth will not necessarily be from this life. We have in past lives as well as in this life performed both akusala kamma and kusala kamma and these kammas are of different degrees. Some kammas produce results in the same life they have been performed, some produce a result in the form of the rebirth-consciousness of a future life, or in the course of a future life. We have performed deeds in past lives which could produce rebirth but which have not yet come to fruition. We cannot know which kamma will produce our next rebirth. If akusala kamma produces the rebirth of the next life there will be an unhappy rebirth. In that case the cittas which will arise shortly before the dying-consciousness (cuti-citta) will be akusala cittas and they will experience an unpleasant object which is conditioned by kamma. The patisandhi-citta of the next life which succeeds the cuti-citta experiences that same unpleasant object. If kusala kamma produces the rebirth there will be a happy rebirth. In that case kusala cittas will arise shortly before the cuti-citta and they will experience a pleasant object which is conditioned by kamma. The patisandhi-citta of the next life experiences that same pleasant object. 13563 From: Lucy Date: Wed May 29, 2002 7:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello again & something for Snake Corner Hello Sarah et al. Yup, one week away was planned, the following 2 weeks away were to remind me about this thing of "no control" : ) Anyway, I'm back and having to catch up with all the things I should have been doing 2 weeks ago. Work and leisure both seriously behind schedule. Including about 80 pages of translation from French that was due this Friday. Fortunately, no longer needed by Friday - panic over until the new deadline approaches : ) --- and that was only the "leisure" activity ! About those gorgeous, soft, cool critters, snakes, I'm sure your students would have loved a live one much more than a dead one. Find a live one for them, Sarah, they'll be grateful to you the rest of their lives. Anyone in fear of snakes should make a point of touching one - they feel ever so soft, and so cuddly when they wrap around your neck attracted by the heat - makes one love them forever. (actually, the same goes for spiders, especially the nice big hairy ones. Silk pales in comparison with the silkiness of a hairy spider) Below is something the Buddha said about snakes - he loved them too !!! And I just drool over the closing verses .... Lucy ********************************************************* From "Buddhism in Translations" Henry Clarke Warren Harvard University Press {1896} http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bit-1.htm http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits064.htm § 64. LOVE FOR ANIMALS. [SUBLIME STATE OF FRIENDLINESS.] Translated from the Culla-Vagga (v.6.). Now at that time a certain priest had been killed by the bite of a snake, and when they announced the matter to The Blessed One, he said: "Surely now, O priests, that priest never suffused the four royal families of the snakes with his friendliness. For if, O priests, that priest had suffused the four royal families of the snakes with his friendliness, that priest, O priests, would not have been killed by the bite of a snake. And what are the four royal families of the snakes? The Virûpakkhas are a royal family of snakes; the Erâpathas are a royal family of snakes; the Chabyâputtas are a royal family of snakes; the Kanhâgotamakas are a royal family of snakes. Surely, now, O priests, that priest did not suffuse the four royal families of the snakes with his friendliness. For surely, O priests, if that priest had suffused the four royal families of the snakes with his friendliness, that priest, O priests, would not have been killed by the bite of a snake. I enjoin, O priests, that ye suffuse these four royal families of the snakes with your friendliness; and that ye sing a song of defence for your protection and safeguard. After this manner, O priests, shall ye sing: "Virûpakkhas, I love them all, The Erâpathas, too, I love, Chabyâputtas, I love them, too, And all Kanhâgotamakas. {p. 303} [CV.v.6 "'Creatures without feet have my love, And likewise those that have two feet, And those that have four feet I love, And those, too, that have many feet. "'May those without feet harm me not, And those with two feet cause no hurt; May those with four feet harm me not, Nor those who many feet possess. "'Let creatures all, all things that live, All beings of whatever kind, See nothing that will bode them ill! May naught of evil come to them! ********************************************************* ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sarah" Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 3:10 PM Subject: [dsg] Zany Snake Corner > Dear Christine (& Lucy), > > It may seem that we women make up at least 77.27% of the zany DSG members, > but hopefully that's another illusion;-) > ..... > --- christine_forsyth wrote: > > > Hard to live in the present moment when there are only 16 days > > before leaving Brisbane and hoping to end up in Bangkok, before > > joining everyone else going to Sri Lanka. But who can tell ... > > life is an unpredictable adventure....and, just in case the snakes > > had slipped from our minds.... > > "According to Sri Lanka National Museum's Manuscript Series (Vol. > > ..... > I'm quite sure that out of the 160+members of the group going to Sri Lanka > (5 coaches and long lobby waits....hmmm), you'll be the only one to have > researched the museum by internet in advance, Chris. At least we all know > where the snake bite treatments are kept now, anyway;-) > > Let me assure you, however that my students have insisted that snakes > haven't slipped from my mind ever since I presented my offering which, > Lucy (hope you're back by now - surely a week's up?-), I'm glad to say was > much appreciated despite a loss of some colour and some disappointment > that it had been frozen and de-frosted (rather than professionally > preserved). It has led to plenty of discussions, essays and snake projects > and only one call from a parent wondering if it could be true that there > was a REAL snake in class. > > I also caught the second half of a fascinating TV program about the 10 > most dangerous snakes in the world and how to grasp them correctly. I was > half-listening, half-writing a post and half doing a few other things, but > it certainly sounded as though approx. 99.9% of these snakes were not in > Sri Lanka but in Australia, and in particular in.... Queensland! (I'm also > almost as sure that there was a reference to a snake "gulping" its dinner > of a rat down......) > > So what have I learnt? I've learnt to read the "Snake Simile" with greater > respect than ever. What is the purpose of studying the Teachings? We > discussed the monks in the Mulapariyaya sutta who were puffed up with > conceit from all they had studied. In the Snake Simile, how easily the > Teachings can be wrongly grasped and how they can lead to more mana > (conceit) and other harm if they are not studied with the right purpose: > ***** > (From Snake Simile, transl by Nyanaponika, wheel 48/9): > > "Suppose, monks, a man wants a snake, looks for a snake, goes in search of > a snake. he then sees a large snake, and when he is grasping its body or > its tail, the snake turns back on him and bites his hand or arm or some > other limb of his. And because of that he suffers death or deadly pain. > And why? Because of his wrong grasp of the snake. > > Similarly, O monks, there are some foolish men who study the Teaching; > having studied it, they do not wisely examine the purpose of those > teachings. To those who do not wisely examine the purpose, these > teachings will not yield insight. They study the Teaching only to use it > for criticizing or for refuting others in disputation. they do not > experience the (true) purpose for which they (ought to ) study the > Teaching. To them these teachings wrongly grasped, will bring harm and > suffering for a long time. And why? Because of their wrong grasp of the > teachings." > ***** > The man who grasps it correctly (on the TV and in the sutta), "holds it > down firmly" with a "forked stick" and then "catches it firmly by the > neck". Similarly, those who rightly grasp the Teachings "study the > Teaching; and having learned it, they examine wisely the purpose of those > teachings. To those who wisely examine the purpose, these teachings will > yield insight." We are also reminded that if we do not know the purpose of > what is said, we should question it, "or else (ask) those monks who are > wise". > ..... > > Do we understand the 'purpose' of our studies or practice at this moment? > Are we learning to grasp the snake correctly or just learning to "refute > others in disputation"? I really appreciate the reminders about the > purpose and like Num's super post about stories and kilesa leading to wise > reflection of the Phena Sutta, so some of our zany snake discussions have > led me to consider the Snake Sutta again and more about the true purpose > of study. > > Sarah > > p.s There's bound to be thinking about the future and making plans as we > are now.....if there is awareness of thinking or any other reality at > these times, this shows an appreciation of the right purpose of our > studies as I understand. > =================== > > > > 13564 From: <> Date: Wed May 29, 2002 7:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] translation help Hi Sarah, appreciate your comments. On further reflection I'm inclined to think sanna is recognition but on a subtle and pervasive level, not as distinct, perhaps, as the citta process of recognition Ledi Sayadaw outlined. This brings to mind the question of how citta process and cetasika functionality work together. Also I'm thinking perhaps the 'ideas' that sanna 'mentally labels' are mind objects rather than concepts only. I still don't have a satisfactory understanding of mind objects. When rupa is a mind object, for example, the actual mind object is a vibration (of bhavanga or sense door???) that is left in the wake of the dissolved (?) rupa. As for sati, re-reading the description (below) I don't think sati really is memory as a discrete function. In satipatthana, for me, I remember to be present and/or remember the object if I am using one. What I would like is to experience sanna and I think, perhaps, in satipatthana sanna could be experienced as simple recognition. I'm still a little puzzled about the nature of presence, its vividness, and why this isn't experienced in akusala cittas which arise in the present. (maybe this is 'strong perception'?) Lots of food for thought. Lucky for us it's all empty or we would get fat. Larry -------------- from Visuddhimagga: ch. 14, par. 130 [referring to sanna] Its function is to make a sign as a condition for perceiving again that 'this is the same', as carpenters, etc., do in the case of timber, and so on. It is manifested as the action of interpreting by means of the sign as apprehended, like the blind who 'see' an elephant (Ud.68-9). Its proximate cause is an objective field in whatever way that appears, like the perception that arises in fawns that see scarecrows as men. ch. 14, par. 141 [referring to sati] By its means they remember (saranti), or it itself remembers, or it is just mere remembering (sarana) thus it is mindfulness (sati). It has the characteristic of not wobbling. Its function is not to forget. It is manifested as guarding, or it is manifested as the state of confronting an objective field. Its proximate cause is strong perception, or its proximate cause is the Foundations of Mindfulness concerned with the body, and so on. It should be regarded ,however, as like a pillar because it is firmly founded, or as like a doorkeeper because it guards the eye-door, and so on. 13565 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 29, 2002 3:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] translation help Hi Larry, I like the way you study, consider carefully, look at other texts, question and so on..... You’re quite right about the 6th kind of sanna marking all dhammarammana (mind objects) and not just concepts. These can be paramattha dhammas or pannatti. Let me correct my point from yesterday: 5. You mention in your second post ‘a difference between ‘mental label’ and ‘idea’. Mental labels (used in brackets in yr translation after perception) are referring, maybe misleadingly, to the 6 kinds of sanna. They don’t refer to any kind of pannatti (and the other translations just refer to perception). On the other hand, ‘ideas’ refer to dhammarammana* (mind objects) including pannatti (all kinds). Through the mind door, sanna accompanies the mind door cittas to mark pannatti as well as paramattha dhammas. ...... *dhammaaramma.na can be divided into: a)pasada-rupas (sense-organs), b)sukhuma rupas (subtle rupas), c) citta, d)cetasikas, e)nibbana, f)pannatti. ***** I think the discussions on this sutta -- and the one Suan just wrote his translation of the commentary and his own sub-commentary for -- give a good indication of the value of studying the Abhidhamma when reading suttas (especially translations). Without the little study we have done, it would be very easy to misunderstand the references to labels and ideas and to have not realize any realities are involved perhaps. You ask about when rupa is a mind object whether it is a “vibration (of bhavanga or sense door???) that is left in the wake of the dissolved (?) rupa.” If we’re talking about the rupas experienced hrough the sense doorways, then yes, when they are experienced by the mind door process immediately following the sense door process, they have just fallen away. Like an echo or clear reflection, the *reality* is experienced. In later mind door processes, these experiences condition the thinking of concepts. (I’m sure this will be coming up soon in the ADL corner). The rupa (or echo of the rupa) is not an echo (or vibration) of “bhavanga or sense door”. You raised some other important points about sati and sanna and I appreciated your quotes from Vism. I’ll leave these for another post. Others may have helpful comments. Sarah ===== 13566 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 29, 2002 4:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] giving protection, abhaya dana Hi Num, I always enjoy your combination of helpful detail and daily life musings very much. --- Num wrote: > Dear Kom, Nina, Sarah and all; > > 3 kinds of dana: amissadana, abhyadana, and dhammadana. I'd like to make > some > comment on abhyadana and I'd also like to get some comment rgd the > jataka. ..... At the back of his translation of the The Brahmajala Sutta and Its Commentaries, there is a ‘Treatise on the Paramis’, I believe translated from the Cariyapitaka Atthakatha, which you referred to. We read: “The perfection of giving is to be practiced by benefiting beings in many ways -- by relinquishing one's happiness, belongings, body and life to others, by dispelling their fear, and by instructing them in the Dhamma. Herein, giving is threefold by way of the object to be given: the giving of material things (amisadana), the giving of fearlessness (abhayadana), and the giving of the Dhamma (dhammadana).” There is a lot of detail. Under the section of external objects, we read : “Asked for his own children, wife, slaves, workers, and servants, the Great man does not give them while they are as yet unwilling to go, afflicted with grief. but when they are willing and joyful, then he gives them. But if he knows that those who ask for them are demonic beings - ogres, demons, or goblins - or men of cruel disposition, then he does not give them away. So too, he will not give his kingdom to those intent on the harm, suffering and affliction of the world, but he would give it away to righteous men who protect the world with Dhamma.” ***** Hmm..I’ll re-read the Jataka again later. I think it’s hard for us to even conceptualise the extraordinary wholesome states accompanying the perfection of the paramis. We’re so used to thinking in terms of the ‘stories’ and the social rights and wrongs rather than in terms of the purity of the mental states. ..... Thank you for your examples of abhaya dana from King Asoka and San Diego Zoo! (Funny, just after I mentioned visiting a zoo - K.Sujin’s example and of course we have your photo at the zoo to remind us too;-)). I also have a quote on the same theme which neatly (I think) ties in with the Sri Lanka corner and Mahavamsa studies, giving us something else to look out for in Anuradhapura: ***** http://www.lacnet.org/suntimes/961006/let2.html "Ordering by the beat of the drum that no animals should be killed within a radius of seven gau from the city, he gave security to animals. He also gave security to the fish in the twelve great tanks, and bestowing on (the region's people) gold and cloth and whatever other kind of wealth they wished, he commanded them not to catch birds and so gave security to birds...." This inscription, which is engraved in an upright stone slab at Ruwanweliseya, Anuradhapura, is a transcript of a decree issued in the late12th Century by King Kirthi Nissanka Malla of Polonnaruwa. It is reflective of the high moral concern that the rulers and people of Sri Lanka showed towards animal life in ancient times. Likewise scattered through the pages of the Mahavamsa, are other records of royal protection granted for the preservation and well being of all forms of animals. It can well be said that the policy of compassion and tolerance initiated by Emperor Asoka in India in 270 BC in the form of state protection to animals, was followed in earnest by a long line of Sri Lankan Kings. Buddhism played a major role in influencing the development of this benevolent public attitude towards animals.” ***** At the end of the section on the parami of dana in the ‘Treatise on the Paramis’, we read: “In practising the perfection of giving the Great Being should apply the perception of impermanence to life and possessions. He should consider them as shared in common with many, and should constantly and continuously arouse great compassion towards beings. Just as, when a house is blazing, the owner removes all his property of essential value and himself as well without leaving anything important behind, so does the Great man invariably give, without discrimination and without concern.” ***** Sarah ===== 13567 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 29, 2002 4:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello again & something for Snake Corner Dear Lucy (& Christine), --- Lucy wrote: > Hello Sarah et al. > > Yup, one week away was planned, the following 2 weeks away were to > remind > me about this thing of "no control" : ) ..... Welcome back.....at least I know now why it seemed a long week;-) Thank you for finding time for us and the snake corner in your ‘catch-up’. ..... > About those gorgeous, soft, cool critters, snakes, I'm sure your > students > would have loved a live one much more than a dead one. Find a live one > for > them, Sarah, they'll be grateful to you the rest of their lives. ..... Well, Lucy, remember these are city students who have mostly never seen a lamb and who can (the younger ones anyway) be quickly silenced into submission by a thumb-nail sized plastic spider. Just a few of them were brave enough to touch the small, dead snake for an instant. If I produced a live one, I seriously doubt I’d have any students left:-) ..... >Anyone > in > fear of snakes should make a point of touching one - they feel ever so > soft, and so cuddly when they wrap around your neck attracted by the > heat - > makes one love them forever. ..... Perhaps, we’ll all take your word for it at this point..... ..... Meanwhile, I greatly appreciated your snake sutta offering and the reminder of the power of metta. Hey, Chris, maybe we could sing along on the bus in Sri Lanka (a little easier than having to look for that palm leaf with the bite remedy in the museum after all). I look forward to any more snake sutta offerings from anyone. Sarah ====== P.S. Chris, have you identified these snakes yet with the museum or other web links in Sri Lanka? ............................................................................................................. > I enjoin, O priests, > that ye suffuse these four royal families of the snakes with your > friendliness; and that ye sing a song of defence for your protection and > safeguard. After this manner, O priests, shall ye sing: > > "Virûpakkhas, I love them all, > The Erâpathas, too, I love, > Chabyâputtas, I love them, too, > And all Kanhâgotamakas. > > {p. 303} [CV.v.6 > "'Creatures without feet have my love, > And likewise those that have two feet, > And those that have four feet I love, > And those, too, that have many feet. > > "'May those without feet harm me not, > And those with two feet cause no hurt; > May those with four feet harm me not, > Nor those who many feet possess. > > "'Let creatures all, all things that live, > All beings of whatever kind, > See nothing that will bode them ill! > May naught of evil come to them! > > ********************************************************* 13568 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed May 29, 2002 6:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello again & something for Snake Corner Dear Sarah, Lucy and all, This is absolutely the last word on snakes from me. :) Lucy, Britain only has 1 poisonous native snake....an adder. http://www.geocities.com/braguk/Photos/coiledadder.jpg But it has many legally and illegally imported pet snakes who could be poisonous. So please don't hug one unless you know it really well. :) Sri Lanka has 7 (was 5) poisonous native snakes. http://www.sundaytimes.lk/020421/plus/2.html In 2000, there were 48,000 reported snake bites and 194 known deaths. (Sarah, should we start singing NOW?) Australia has less than 15 poisonous snakes capable of biting and seriously harming a person (out of about 140 species). But because every hospital has antivenom, Australia only has two or three deaths a year, from fewer than 3,000 bites (larger area, less population density.) Four or five poisonous types have been seen on my place over the years, but rarely now. (the rough scaled snake, the red bellied black snake, the tiger snake, the death adder, the common brown snake, and a disputed sighting of an aggressive taipan - I sighted it and ran, everyone else disputed it and scoffed!) http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/anaes/snakebite.html O.K. Sarah, I am prepared to admit that snakes do gulp their food.... but very, very slowly. For all you *never* wanted to know about the eating habit of snakes, with photos, try http://www.szgdocent.org/cc/c-eat2.htm I vaguely remember that the original disagreement was over whether you 'heard' a gulping *sound* while meditating in Sri Lanka......but, once again, to keep the peace on the bus (five or six days is a long time if companions are 'at daggers drawn' :)), I won't question the statement....just a slightly raised eyebrow, a quizical look, and a quiet 'Is that so?' .... metta, Christine --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Lucy (& Christine), > > --- Lucy wrote: > Hello Sarah et al. > > > > Yup, one week away was planned, the following 2 weeks away were to > > remind > > me about this thing of "no control" : ) > ..... > Welcome back.....at least I know now why it seemed a long week;-) Thank > you for finding time for us and the snake corner in your `catch-up'. > ..... > > About those gorgeous, soft, cool critters, snakes, I'm sure your > > students > > would have loved a live one much more than a dead one. Find a live one > > for > > them, Sarah, they'll be grateful to you the rest of their lives. > ..... > > Well, Lucy, remember these are city students who have mostly never seen a > lamb and who can (the younger ones anyway) be quickly silenced into > submission by a thumb-nail sized plastic spider. Just a few of them were > brave enough to touch the small, dead snake for an instant. If I produced > a live one, I seriously doubt I'd have any students left:-) > ..... > >Anyone > > in > > fear of snakes should make a point of touching one - they feel ever so > > soft, and so cuddly when they wrap around your neck attracted by the > > heat - > > makes one love them forever. > ..... > Perhaps, we'll all take your word for it at this point..... > ..... > > Meanwhile, I greatly appreciated your snake sutta offering and the > reminder of the power of metta. Hey, Chris, maybe we could sing along on > the bus in Sri Lanka (a little easier than having to look for that palm > leaf with the bite remedy in the museum after all). > > I look forward to any more snake sutta offerings from anyone. > > Sarah > ====== > P.S. Chris, have you identified these snakes yet with the museum or other > web links in Sri Lanka? > .................................................................... ......................................... > > > I enjoin, O priests, > > that ye suffuse these four royal families of the snakes with your > > friendliness; and that ye sing a song of defence for your protection and > > safeguard. After this manner, O priests, shall ye sing: > > > > "Virûpakkhas, I love them all, > > The Erâpathas, too, I love, > > Chabyâputtas, I love them, too, > > And all Kanhâgotamakas. > > > > {p. 303} [CV.v.6 > > "'Creatures without feet have my love, > > And likewise those that have two feet, > > And those that have four feet I love, > > And those, too, that have many feet. > > > > "'May those without feet harm me not, > > And those with two feet cause no hurt; > > May those with four feet harm me not, > > Nor those who many feet possess. > > > > "'Let creatures all, all things that live, > > All beings of whatever kind, > > See nothing that will bode them ill! > > May naught of evil come to them! > > 13569 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 29, 2002 6:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. Howard > Jon > I see a difference between the 2 assertions in your preceding statement, > namely that-- > (a) There is no hardness other than the hardness being experienced. > (b) There is no hardness that can be actually known other than the > hardness being experienced … > The statement at (a) needs to be qualified, I think. Hardness like any > other reality arises because of conditions. In the case of the hardness > that we take as being part of an inanimate object (like a table, tree or > building), those conditions do not include the fact of their being the > object of someone's citta. In other words, the hardness does not arise > dependent on there being someone there to experience it. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh, but "the hardness that we take as being part of an inanimate object (like a table, tree or building)" is concept-only. There being no tables, trees, and buildings, there is no hardness possessed by them. It's actually the other way around: The occurrences of hardness directly experienced in mindstreams are compounded, along with other conditions, into concepts and percepts of such "things" as tables, trees, and buildings. -------------------------------------------------------- Jon: Let me re-phrase my comment slightly. I meant, the hardness that is experienced at one moment and, before we know it, is taken as being part of an inanimate object (like table, tree or building) is still the dhamma of hardness at that initial moment of experience. At such moments, there are 2 distinct and separate sets of conditions at play. There are both the factors that condition the arising of that hardness in this world, and the factors that condition the experience of that hardness by the citta of the individual. The latter set of factors could not pertain without the former, but the opposite in not the case. The former set of conditioning factors have nothing to do with kamma or indeed citta in any shape or form, and are not what is being described by the paticcasamuppada; only the latter are. However, they are to be found in the abhidhamma texts such as the Patthana. I don’t know if this makes clearer what I am trying to say. Jon 13570 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 29, 2002 6:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. Howard > > I see a difference between the 2 assertions in your preceding statement, > namely that-- > (a) There is no hardness other than the hardness being experienced. > (b) There is no hardness that can be actually known other than the > hardness being experienced > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: There *is* a difference. Position (b) is the general phenomenalist one. Position (a) is the radical phenomenalist one which represents an admixture of phenomenalism with pragmatism - what is in principle unknowable is "as good as" nonexistent. ---------------------------------------------------- Jon: The problem I have here, Howard, is that I'm not sure if you're wanting to discuss the abhidhammic position or the phenomenalist position!! By way of illustrating what I mean, I'd like to give another 2 propositions to compare, again taken or adapted from an earlier post-- (a) The Buddhist perspective, and most explicitly so in Abhidhamma, doesn't countenance objects existing independently of experience. (b) The Buddhist perspective, and most explicitly so in Abhidhamma, is a phenomenalist one which doesn't countenance objects existing independently of experience. I think you can appreciate the difference in the thrust of these 2 positions. For a start, the answer to (b) is going to depend on a agreed definition for, and similar depth of understanding of, the concept of phenomenalism. And then, when you've figured it out as best you can, has one really advanced one's understanding of the abhidhammic perspective? Not that I would wish to discourage comparative discussion, but simply to point out its limitations. I thought there might be a point here worth bringing up for discussion. Jon 13571 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 29, 2002 6:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Concentration - Rob Ep (II) Rob Ep Hi, it's me again. Thanks for the many replies sent over the past week or 2 to my earlier posts. I am slightly overwhelmed by the sheer number and size of them, ;-)), coming as they did all at once (there must have been 1 or 2 all-night sessions at around that time) but I can assure you I'll be getting round to replying, and soon I hope. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Hi Jon. > Well, I never saw this post and I really enjoyed it. Thanks for your > kind > explanation of the emphases in Abhidhamma. As I have been giving the Abhidhamma a > rather hard time on paramatha dhammas lately, and probably causing some akusala > reactions to arise towards myself, I would like to say that I think your > explanation for the emphasis on dry insight makes a lot of sense. The belief that > there will be subsequent lifetimes when the dhamma will not be available > also helps to explain the current emphasis on dhamma study. I'm glad you found something in the post that helps put the abhidhamma in a better perspective. I'm not sure whether your remark about 'emphasis on dry insight' refers to me or to the abhidhamma, but I wouldn't necessarily agree in either context. To my mind the Abhidhamma simply explains what is and what can possibly be, and in what combinations, rather than indicating what should be. It explains that samatha and insight are distinct forms of kusala each having its own cause and means of development, and leading to different goals. Samatha properly developed leads to jhana, and insight properly developed leads to enlightenment. For one who attains enlightenment having first attained jhana, the enlightenment *may* (but not *will necessarily*) be based on the jhana, but even so the enlightenment is the culmination of the development of insight and not of the samatha. I do not read the texts as suggesting that a person who attains enlightenment having first attained samatha does so because of any conscious decision on the matter, any more than a person chooses to be born as a member of one sex or the other, yet you could say that in either case that outcome nevertheless depends wholly and solely on choices made by the person in his or her previous lives. Likewise in my own studies, I see no 'emphasis on dry insight', but simply an attempt to understand what is the essence of insight, as distinct from samatha. I believe that whatever one's inclinations to samatha, this knowledge is indispensible and is available to us only during the dispensation of a Buddha. Jon 13572 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 29, 2002 6:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Concentration - Rob Ep (II) Rob Ep --- Robert Epstein wrote: > I would also like to look into the Visudhimagga and see what is said > about the jhanas. > > Hmmn....that means homework...... OK, it's a topic that interests me, too, so here's a suggestion. If you indicate what aspects of the jhanas you're interested in looking into, I'll try to find some relevant passages in the Vism and post them to the list. No hurry, though. Just when you're ready. ;-)) Jon 13573 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 29, 2002 6:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca Howard --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 5/22/02 8:17:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Jon writes: > > > > > > Howard > > > > Again, I find myself in agreement with you here, on the substance of > your > > post … > > I also agree with you that pannatti does not denote 'an alleged > > concept-reference' (as you put it). > > > > Jon > > > > That makes it twice in one day ;-)). > > > > > ========================= > Yes, indeed it does! And it "makes my day"! :-) > > With metta, > Howard Same goes for me, Howard! (Let's make the most of it while it lasts. As the subject header says ... ) Jon 13574 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 29, 2002 7:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello again & something for Snake Corner OK Chris, You're the snake expert. Lucy and I can’t hope to match this serious research. I was probably peeping in between concentrating on my breath..so no need for the ‘slightly raised eyebrow’ even...... Right, I’ll start practising in the bath: > "Virûpakkhas, I love them all, > The Erâpathas, too, I love, > Chabyâputtas, I love them, too, > And all Kanhâgotamakas. Sarah p.s. did your research tell you if these were included in the Sri Lankan 5 or 7 poisonous snakes? (You can tell me on the bus if you don’t want to break your ‘last word’ on snakes.) ====================================================== 13575 From: Joyce Short Date: Wed May 29, 2002 8:58pm Subject: Fields of Perception/Concentration from the Insight Perspective "Concentration (samadhi) practice can induce trance by focusing attention on a SINGLE object, such as the breath, sound or form objects. Gradually the senses withdraw from internal and external distractions as consciousness ascends to blissfull realms of form and formless states. The rare meditator may even realize the "Sphere of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception" where only the most subtle trace of consciousness may be detected. At this plateau, "emptiness" or "voidness" is realized as concentration gradually recedes until "emptiness" (of the object) alone survives in awareness, just as a moving object placed on the foreground gradually withdraws into the back ground and disappears from sight. From the persective of Vipassana meditation, the mind's non-static nature does not permit focusing on a single object without fluctuation. Consciousness rises-and-falls even in samadhi states. Its appearance of continuity is due to the flux of one mind-moment of concentration immediately being replaced by another, in continuous succession. Ultimately, there are no pure, static states of samadhi. Concentration temporarily subdues and suppresses sensuality, ill will, worry, apathy, and sceptical doubt. Within its own sphere, many purposes are served by its development. The meditator trainee, with the help of concentration, can cultivate strong mental powers to effectively aid others. There are dangers, however, in developing concentration to a high level unless the meditator follows good training techniques under the guidance of a qualified teacher. Unless practice is vigorously and regularily maintained, mental taints, when forceably suppressed, will often surge with increased intensity. It may occassionally occur that the Truth of Dissatisfaction is made clear to a samadhi meditator if wisdom can reflect upon the impermanent and non self nature of absorption states. Usually, mental impurities tend to remain quiescent in the minds of many samadhi meditators. Yogic knowledge produces Purification of Thought, but is somewhat different from the Purification of Views (or Understanding) which is necessary for full completion of the Insight Path leading to Wisdom of "things as they really are." From: Insight Meditation Practical Steps To Ultimate Truth Achan Sobin S.Namto edited by Rev.Martha Dharmapali 13576 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 29, 2002 9:08pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Deciding how best to act --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: ... > There are also many akusala that cross-dress as kusala. 'Cross-dress'. I like it! A neat alternative description for Gayan's vangchaka dhammas also? > I wouldn't label Christine as not-so-good friend, despite > how entertaining she is ;-). Being attached to her because > how entertaining she is, now that has many faults... Agreed. Jon 13577 From: kelvin liew peng chuan Date: Wed May 29, 2002 9:24pm Subject: suttas only? Dear friends in Dhamma, may all of you be well, happy & peaceful (n happy belated Wesak!) i learnt a lot from the various issues in here. a few days ago, i ahd a chance to have a conversation with a monk & according to him, all Buddhist should only rely on the Suttas & Vinaya. According to him, Abhidhamma as well as Visudhimagga were later works and there were many things not in accordance to the Suttas in both of these later works. is it true? 13578 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Wed May 29, 2002 10:39pm Subject: Re: suttas only? --- Dear Kelvin, Nice to see you again. I think this is something we hear fairly regularly in Dhamma circles these days. In the end I think people have no choice but to follow what their accumulations dictate; because of these many of us here have an interest in Abhidhamma and find the Visuddhimagga useful, whereas others find them unpalateable. It is OK, very natural that different people should have different tastes. Can we prove the Abhidhamma is the word of the Buddha? I think not, and nor can your monk friend prove that the suttas are Buddhavacca. However, it is worthwhile to investigate and so did you ask the monk what sections of the Abhidhamma and Visuddhimagga he believes are not in accordance with the suttas? I haven't found that to be the case myself. kind regards robert "kelvin liew peng chuan" wrote: > > Dear friends in Dhamma, > > may all of you be well, happy & peaceful (n happy belated Wesak!) i learnt a > lot from the various issues in here. > > a few days ago, i ahd a chance to have a conversation with a monk & > according to him, all Buddhist should only rely on the Suttas & Vinaya. > > According to him, Abhidhamma as well as Visudhimagga were later works and > there were many things not in accordance to the Suttas in both of these > later works. > > is it true? > 13579 From: Howard Date: Wed May 29, 2002 7:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/29/02 6:28:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jon writes: > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Ahh, but "the hardness that we take as being part of an inanimate > object (like a table, tree or building)" is concept-only. There being no > tables, trees, and buildings, there is no hardness possessed by them. It's > actually the other way around: The occurrences of hardness directly > experienced in mindstreams are compounded, along with other conditions, > into concepts and percepts of such "things" as tables, trees, and > buildings. > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Jon: > Let me re-phrase my comment slightly. I meant, the hardness that is > experienced at one moment and, before we know it, is taken as being part > of an inanimate object (like table, tree or building) is still the dhamma > of hardness at that initial moment of experience. > > At such moments, there are 2 distinct and separate sets of conditions at > play. There are both the factors that condition the arising of that > hardness in this world, and the factors that condition the experience of > that hardness by the citta of the individual. The latter set of factors > could not pertain without the former, but the opposite in not the case. > > The former set of conditioning factors have nothing to do with kamma or > indeed citta in any shape or form, and are not what is being described by > the paticcasamuppada; only the latter are. However, they are to be found > in the abhidhamma texts such as the Patthana. > > I don’t know if this makes clearer what I am trying to say. > > Jon > =========================== Mmm, I'm not sure. It seems to me that you are hypothesizing a "hardness in this world" that is one thing, existing in some way on its own, something more Platonic and fantastic than something as "innocent" as such pa~n~nattis as trees and tables. I do not believe in such a "disembodied" hardness. The "world" is actually nothing but this body-mind, this stream of psychophysical experiences. In this respect, one can consider the following: ********************************************************** Samyutta Nikaya XII.44 Loka Sutta The World Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. For free distribution only. Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: "I will teach you the origination of the world & the ending of the world. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is 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. This is the origination of the world. "Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is 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. This is the origination of the world. "And what is the ending of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very 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 stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world. "Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very 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 stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world." Revised: Mon 10 September 2001 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-044.html *********************************************** There are better examples than this that I'm having difficulty finding -examples of suttas which identify "the world" with namarupa, with mentality-materiality. One of these involves someone asking the Buddha about whether the world is finite, whether it comes to an end. The Buddha replied to the effect that nibbana is the end of the world. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13580 From: Howard Date: Wed May 29, 2002 7:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/29/02 6:30:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jon writes: > > Jon: > The problem I have here, Howard, is that I'm not sure if you're wanting to > discuss the abhidhammic position or the phenomenalist position!! > > By way of illustrating what I mean, I'd like to give another 2 > propositions to compare, again taken or adapted from an earlier post-- > > (a) The Buddhist perspective, and most explicitly so in Abhidhamma, > doesn't countenance objects existing independently of experience. > (b) The Buddhist perspective, and most explicitly so in Abhidhamma, is a > phenomenalist one which doesn't countenance objects existing independently > of experience. > > I think you can appreciate the difference in the thrust of these 2 > positions. For a start, the answer to (b) is going to depend on a agreed > definition for, and similar depth of understanding of, the concept of > phenomenalism. And then, when you've figured it out as best you can, has > one really advanced one's understanding of the abhidhammic perspective? > > Not that I would wish to discourage comparative discussion, but simply to > point out its limitations. I thought there might be a point here worth > bringing up for discussion. > > Jon > ============================== I'm perfectly happy with (a), Jon. The fact that I see the position in (a) as a phenomnalist one is unimportant. It is what it is, an I am very happy with 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) 13581 From: abhidhammika Date: Thu May 30, 2002 0:00am Subject: Re: vitthaara sutta: To Jonothan Abbott And Nina van Gorkom Dear Nina, And Jonothan How are you? Thank you for your kind comments on Kamma In Color the English language Commentary on Vittaara Suttam. As you might have been already aware of, there are people who misunderstand Abhidhamma Pitaka. They think Abhidhamma Pitaka is an unnecessary body of teachings lacking in important teachings found in Suttam Pitaka. For example, Venerable Dhamarati thought that Four Groups of Kamma found in Vitthaara Suttam could not be found in Abhidhamma, and accordingly, threw a challenge at me and Robert by asking to locate them in Abhidhamma Pitaka and show referrences. My commentary has been written to remove such misunderstanding rampant among some Buddhist thinkers. Nina also wrote: "I hope you will write more of those also when unasked!" Thank you, Nina, for this request. I will try my best to write more English language commentaries on Pali Suttas even though unasked. Take care! Suan --- Jonothan Abbott ---wrote: Suan Thanks for this interesting commentary which I look forward to studying in detail. I appreciate the point you bring out well that the fourfold classification of kamma in this sutta is given for the purpose of instruction and explanation, and is not an 'absolute' one in terms of the paramattha dhammas found in the abhidhamma. Jon --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: Dear Suan, thank you very much for your clear and most helpful commentary to the vitthaara sutta. Without this explanation I would not have understood this sutta. I am glad Joice and Howard asked for your commentary, and I hope you will write more of those also when unasked! Kind regards from Nina. 13582 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu May 30, 2002 1:00am Subject: Re: [dsg]realities, actualities. op 26-05-2002 17:56 schreef Howard op Howard: Dear Howard, thank you for your carefully thought out and well formulated post. I could add a few points to your remarks. H: "The sounds in the wood not heard by you when you are not there" are > only presumed, as is true for whatever is "currently transpiring" on the far > side of the moon. But such a presumption, read in a certain way, is not > without basis, for there is a lawfulness to events. A (subjunctive) > conditionality along the lines of "Should such & such a sequence of > conditions be observed, then certain other condtions would be observed", > along with the recognition of multiple streams of experience interacting to > form an "intersubjective reality", can serve as an alternative to the view of > a self-existing "external reality". N: The example of sounds in the wood may not be so convincing. What about this: the khandhas of people are realities arising and falling away, no matter they are experienced or not. You mention conditionality: when there are conditions for the arising of phenomena they do arise, no matter they are experienced or not. The four great elements are conditions for other rupas arising together with them in a group; they arise and fall away, no matter they are experienced or not. The Buddha taught so many phenomena which are real but which we cannot experience now. But as I understand, this is not a point for you. But you have hesitancy about the term reality: H: But leaving the question of robustness to the radical phenomenalist > view asid for a while, I would like to address the use of the term 'reality' > for paramattha dhammas. My only hesitancy in the use of the term is that it > carries a connotation of substantial and independent existence. But there is, > from my perspective, a sense in which paramattha dhammas have a reality that > is lacking in concepts. That sense is that concepts "project outwards" to > alleged "things" in an external world, whereas paramattha dhammas do not. > When hardness is discerned, there is just the direct experience of hardness, > something immediately (without mediation) and internally apprehensible, and > it is not until the percept of, for example, a table arises that we seem to > experience that hardness as a characteristic of an "external thing". In that > sense, I actually *like* the term 'reality', though I would prefer, say, > 'actuality', which seems to me to less "loaded". N: I said to Rob Ep: prove it, verify it for yourself, but I should also remind my self of this. In this connection I found a most interesting definition of reality: The Kathavatthu deals in the first chapter, no. 1, with the question ²Is the person known in the sense of a real and ultimate object?² The Sakavadin (Theravada) and the Paravadin (those of other beliefs) debate about this. The commentary gives a definition of ³In the sense of a real and ultimate object²: I find this last part: very clear and an excellent reminder to verify whatever appears. Like pain: can we verify it, is it real, not imagination? It is there just for a moment, but very real. We do not doubt about it. Here I was thinking about Rob Ep who finds it difficult to know what is real. But it is difficult for all of us. Also here we have the term actual that you prefer, actuality. One more thing: when there is the direct experience of hardness we do not think of a table at all. Maybe we touch a table and at that moment the characteristic of hardness can be experienced, and when we know there is a table the hardness is not experienced at the same time, there is thinking of the concept table. But maybe you mean to say the same when you speak about the direct experience of hardness, as different from thinking of an external thing, the table. To come back to "not from hearsay", when direct understanding of nama and rupa is developed there is no need to think of ultimate realities, actualities or any term. We do not mind what term is used. By the way, you said that you were going to write an article about the Abhidhamma. This would also be interesting for dsg. Best wishes from Nina. 13583 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu May 30, 2002 1:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, to Sarah, and offerings, to Lucy op 28-05-2002 09:57 schreef Sarah op Sarah: > I looked in the chapter and there is no mention of texts that Ledi Sayadaw > bases his explanations on. > ..... >> >> Ledi Sayadaw explains that it is in these consequent processes that >> distinct recognition of the object occurs; such recognition does not >> occur in a bare five-door process itself. An eye-door process, for >> example, is followed first by a conformational mind-door process >> (tadanuvattika manodvaravithi), which reproduces in the mind door the >> object just perceived in the sense-door process. Then comes a process >> grasping the object as whole (samudayagahika); then a process >> recognizing the colour (vannasallakkhana); then a process grasping the >> entity (vatthugahika); then a process recognizing the entity >> (vatthusallakkhana); then a process grasping the name (namagahika); then >> a process recognizing the name (namasallakkhana). Dear Sarah, this is in the commentary to the Abhidhammata Sangaha, edited as "Compendium of Philosophy" by PTS, p. 33. Also Num quoted this text before. Here it is slightly different from Ledi Sayadaw, about the perception of a rose. After anubandavaramatta, it has grasping the past, atitaggahana. Then grasping as a whole, grasping the meaning, grasping the name. The only thing is, we should not think that immediately in the next process comes grasping the object as a whole and the next one recognizing the colour, etc. We cannot count the different processes, too fast. This commentary speaks about processes alternating several hundred thousand times before the synthetic process takes place. > ***** Another matter: the giving of fearlessness and forgiving, Lodewijk found this difficult while checking my translation of Ch 2. I mentioned the sutta on maha-dana, abstaining from ill deeds as a kind of giving as you know. I shall insert this sutta with an explanation (mentioning this in a footnote) so as to make clear that dana includes many things, even abstaining from vengefulness, being unforgiving. I find translating very difficult, since I do not like to change too much when I translate. Some editing we find unavoidable though. On dana: in Sri Lanka you will do a lot of chanting (wonderful how people know the Pali, did'nt we enjoy that) and this is also dana: the offering of sound, as Kh Sujin explained. It depends on conditions whether we remember this. Another point:when playing music (good for me and also for my musical friend Herman), we can offer the sound to the Triple Gem, this was also mentioned by Kh Sujin. Here I have some doubts, since I am immediately attached. Again, it depends on conditions whether kusala citta arises. Maybe, if there is an opportunity, Kh. Sujin can say something more. But, there may not be time. Actually, I was thinking of Lucy (is she out in the woods, offering things?), who mentioned offerings. Best regards, Nina. 13584 From: Howard Date: Wed May 29, 2002 10:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg]realities, actualities. Hi, Nina - > > op 26-05-2002 17:56 schreef Howard op Howard: > > Dear Howard, thank you for your carefully thought out and well formulated > post. I could add a few points to your remarks. > > H: "The sounds in the wood not heard by you when you are not there" are > > only presumed, as is true for whatever is "currently transpiring" on the > far > > side of the moon. But such a presumption, read in a certain way, is not > > without basis, for there is a lawfulness to events. A (subjunctive) > > conditionality along the lines of "Should such & such a sequence of > > conditions be observed, then certain other condtions would be observed", > > along with the recognition of multiple streams of experience interacting > to > > form an "intersubjective reality", can serve as an alternative to the > view of > > a self-existing "external reality". > > N: The example of sounds in the wood may not be so convincing. What about > this: the khandhas of people are realities arising and falling away, no > matter they are experienced or not. You mention conditionality: when there > are conditions for the arising of phenomena they do arise, no matter they > are experienced or not. The four great elements are conditions for other > rupas arising together with them in a group; they arise and fall away, no > matter they are experienced or not. The Buddha taught so many phenomena > which are real but which we cannot experience now. But as I understand, > this > is not a point for you. But you have hesitancy about the term reality: > > H: But leaving the question of robustness to the radical phenomenalist > > view asid for a while, I would like to address the use of the term > 'reality' > > for paramattha dhammas. My only hesitancy in the use of the term is that > it > > carries a connotation of substantial and independent existence. But there > is, > > from my perspective, a sense in which paramattha dhammas have a reality > that > > is lacking in concepts. That sense is that concepts "project outwards" to > > alleged "things" in an external world, whereas paramattha dhammas do not. > > When hardness is discerned, there is just the direct experience of > hardness, > > something immediately (without mediation) and internally apprehensible, > and > > it is not until the percept of, for example, a table arises that we seem > to > > experience that hardness as a characteristic of an "external thing". In > that > > sense, I actually *like* the term 'reality', though I would prefer, say, > > 'actuality', which seems to me to less "loaded". > > N: I said to Rob Ep: prove it, verify it for yourself, but I should also > remind my self of this. In this connection I found a most interesting > definition of reality: > > The Kathavatthu deals in the first chapter, no. 1, with the question ²Is > the person known in the sense of a real and ultimate object?² The Sakavadin > (Theravada) and the Paravadin (those of other beliefs) debate about this. > The commentary gives a definition of ³In the sense of a real and ultimate > object²: > magic, a mirage and the like; actual. ³Ultimate² means that which is not to > be accepted as hearsay; highest sense...> > > I find this last part: very clear and an > excellent reminder to verify whatever appears. Like pain: can we verify it, > is it real, not imagination? It is there just for a moment, but very real. > We do not doubt about it. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I share your liking of this last part. It gives a good sense for 'real'. The first part, however, is not to my liking. For example, see the mirage-like terminology used in the Sutta Nipata (in the Uragga Sutta?), and, elsewwher, especially see the Phena Sutta. All conditioned dhammas are like foam, mirages, dreams - are hollow, fleeting phantoms. ------------------------------------------------ Here I was thinking about Rob Ep who finds it> > > difficult to know what is real. But it is difficult for all of us. > Also here we have the term actual that you prefer, actuality. > > One more thing: when there is the direct experience of hardness we do not > think of a table at all. Maybe we touch a table and at that moment the > characteristic of hardness can be experienced, and when we know there is a > table the hardness is not experienced at the same time, there is thinking > of > the concept table. But maybe you mean to say the same when you speak about > the direct experience of hardness, as different from thinking of an > external > thing, the table. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, indeed. I mean exactly the same. --------------------------------------------------- > To come back to "not from hearsay", when direct understanding of nama and > rupa is developed there is no need to think of ultimate realities, > actualities or any term. We do not mind what term is used. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, I like that Sarah. When things are seen as they actually are, words are unnecessary. ------------------------------------------------ > By the way, you said that you were going to write an article about the > Abhidhamma. This would also be interesting for dsg. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, that must have been someone else. I have no credentials whatever for writing such an article. -------------------------------------------------- > Best wishes from Nina. > > ========================= Thank you for writing to me, 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) 13585 From: Howard Date: Wed May 29, 2002 10:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg]realities, actualities. Hi, again, Nina - In a message dated 5/29/02 2:20:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Howard writes: > Howard: > Yes, I like that Sarah. When things are seen as they actually are, > words are unnecessary. > ========================== Whoops! It would be good were I to maintain sufficient mindfulness to remember who I am conversing with! ;-)) Sorry, 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) 13586 From: <> Date: Thu May 30, 2002 7:17am Subject: ADL ch. 10 (3) http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 10 (3) People want to know whether they can ensure a happy rebirth for themselves by controlling the last cittas before the dying-consciousness, by willing them to be kusala. Some people invite monks to chant in order to help a dying person to have kusala cittas. However, nobody can be sure that his rebirth will be a happy one, unless he has attained one of the stages of enlightenment. One cannot have power over one's cittas. Can we control our thoughts now, at this moment? Since we cannot do this, how could we control our thoughts at the time shortly before dying? There is no self which can decide about one's rebirth in the next life. Even if one has done many good deeds, there may be akusala kamma of a previous life which can produce an unhappy rebirth in the next life. After the last akusala cittas or kusala cittas in life have fallen away, the cuti-citta arises. The cuti-citta is succeeded by the patisandhi-citta of the next life. When the patisandhi-citta arises the new lifespan starts. As long as kamma there will be future lives. Since the first citta of a lifespan performs the function of rebirth there is only one patisandhi-citta in a life. There is no self which transmigrates from one life to the next life; there are only nama and rupa arising and falling away. The present life is different from the past life but there is continuity in so far as the present life is conditioned by the past. Since the patisandhi-citta succeeds the cuti-citta of the previous life the accumulated tendencies of past lives go on to the patisandhi-citta. Thus, inclinations one has in the present life are conditioned by the past. One is glad to be born if one does not realize that birth is the result of kamma and that one will go forth in the cycle of birth and death as long as there is kamma. Not seeing the dangers of birth is ignorance. At this moment we are in the human plane of existence but as long as we have not attained any stage of enlightenment we cannot be sure that there will not be rebirth in one of the woeful planes. We all have performed both akusala kamma and kusala kamma in different lives. Who knows which of those deeds will produce the patisandhi-citta of the next life, even if we continue doing good deeds? Some people think that birth in a heavenly plane is desirable, but they do not realize that life in a heavenly plane does not last and after a lifespan in heaven is over an ill deed previously performed could produce a patisandhi-citta in a woeful plane. We read in the 'Discourse on Fools and the Wise' (Middle Length Sayings Ill, 129) that the Buddha, when he was staying in the Jeta Grove, in Anathapindika's monastery, spoke to the monks about the sufferings in hell and about the anguishes of animal birth. The Buddha said: 'In many a disquisition could I, monks, talk a talk about animal birth, but it is not easy to describe in full, monks, so many are the anguishes of animal birth. Monks, it is like a man who might throw a yoke with one hole into the sea. An easterly wind might take it westwards, a westerly wind might take it eastwards, a northerly wind might take it southwards, a southerly wind might take it northwards. There might be a blind turtle there who came to the surface once in a hundred years. What do you think about this, monks? Could that blind turtle push his neck through that one hole in the yoke?' 'lf at all, revered sir, then only once in a very long while.' 'Sooner or later, monks, could the blind turtle push his neck through the one hole in the yoke; more difficult than that, do I say, monks, is human status once again for the fool who has gone to the Downfall. What is the cause of that? Monks, there is no dhamma-faring there, no even-faring, no doing of what is skilled, no doing of what is good. Monks, there is devouring of one another there and feeding on the weak. Monks, if some time or other once in a very long while that fool came to human status (again), he would be born into those families that are low: a family of low caste or a family of hunters or a family of bamboo-plaiters or a family of cartwrights or a family of refuse-scavengers, in such a family as is needy, without enough to drink or to eat, where a covering for the back is with difficulty obtained. Moreover, he would be illfavoured, ugly, dwarfish, sickly, blind or deformed or lame or paralysed; he would be unable to get food, drink, clothes, vehicles, garlands, scents and perfumes, bed, dwelling and lights; he would fare wrongly in body, wrongly in speech, wrongly in thought. Because he had fared wrongly in body, speech and thought, at the breaking up of the body after dying he would arise in the sorrowful ways, a bad bourn, the Downfall, Niraya Hell.... ... This, monks, is the fool's condition, completed in its entirety...'; 13587 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu May 30, 2002 11:02am Subject: Blue Mountains Insight Meditation Centre Dear All, Australian and Asia-Pacific list members may find the following link of interest. http://www.meditation.asn.au/ The website of the Blue Mountains Insight Meditation Centre. Their aim is to provide facilities for the teaching and practice of satipatthana vipassana or insight meditation in the tradition of the late venerable Mahasi Sayadaw of Burma. The Centre seeks its inspiration in the Buddhist Theravadan tradition and aims to develop an Australian style of Buddhism, with the hope that the centre will develop as a place of meditation, study and community.The Centre is in the small town of Medlow Bath in the Blue Mountains World Heritage National Park, two hours from Sydney by train or ninety minutes by car. The Centre provides a peaceful setting in which to learn the art of meditation. Courses are taught by the resident teacher, Patrick Kearney, and by visiting monks, nuns or lay teachers from Burma and other countries. Details of the current retreats and activities can be found on this site, together with downloads of talks and information about the life of the Centre and its community. metta, Christine 13588 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 30, 2002 2:39pm Subject: Sri Lanka - B.Bodhi Dear Betty, Christine, Nina & All, I had written to B.Bodhi some weeks ago about our plans in Sri Lanka, but he only saw my letter yesterday and I’d like to share a few details which I don’t believe are confidential. In brief, he has been out of Sri Lanka for nearly a year and spent 9mths in Singapore trying various treatments (unsuccessfully) for his headache condition. Last week he went to New York for further consultations in a neurology department of a hospital there. There don’t seem to be any fixed plans for return at this stage and he certainly won’t be in SL when we visit. Sarah ====== 13589 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 30, 2002 7:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, to Sarah, and offerings, to Lucy Dear Nina, --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah, this is in the commentary to the Abhidhammata Sangaha, > edited as > "Compendium of Philosophy" by PTS, p. 33. Also Num quoted this text > before. > Here it is slightly different from Ledi Sayadaw, about the perception of > a > rose. After anubandavaramatta, it has grasping the past, atitaggahana. > Then > grasping as a whole, grasping the meaning, grasping the name. The only > thing > is, we should not think that immediately in the next process comes > grasping > the object as a whole and the next one recognizing the colour, etc. We > cannot count the different processes, too fast. This commentary speaks > about > processes alternating several hundred thousand times before the > synthetic > process takes place. > > ***** Thank you for these comments which are helpful, especially the last sentence! I'm also curious about which part of the Abhid itself, L.Sayadaw drew these details from, but it isn’t important at all. ..... > Another matter: the giving of fearlessness and forgiving, Lodewijk found > this difficult while checking my translation of Ch 2. I mentioned the > sutta > on maha-dana, abstaining from ill deeds as a kind of giving as you know. > I > shall insert this sutta with an explanation (mentioning this in a > footnote) > so as to make clear that dana includes many things, even abstaining from > vengefulness, being unforgiving. I find translating very difficult, > since I > do not like to change too much when I translate. Some editing we find > unavoidable though. ..... May I take this opportunity to say that I think your translations read very well and the extra footnotes are helpful to avoid confusions. ..... > On dana: in Sri Lanka you will do a lot of chanting (wonderful how > people > know the Pali, did'nt we enjoy that) and this is also dana: the offering > of > sound, as Kh Sujin explained. It depends on conditions whether we > remember > this. Another point:when playing music (good for me and also for my > musical > friend Herman), we can offer the sound to the Triple Gem, this was also > mentioned by Kh Sujin. Here I have some doubts, since I am immediately > attached. Again, it depends on conditions whether kusala citta arises. ..... Let me add another couple of short quotes from the ‘Treatise on the Paramis’ from the Cariyapitaka Atthakatha, transl by B.Bodhi: “..He does not give a gift with harsh words or a frown, but with words of endearment, congenial speech, and a smile on his face.” On the gift of sounds (saddadaana): “The gift of sounds should be understood by way of the sounds of drums, etc. It is certainly not possible to give a sound as one gives a cluster of lotuses, tearing it out by its bulb and roots and placing it in the hands. But one gives a gift of sound by giving its base. Thus he makes a gift of sound by presenting a musical instrument, such as drums or tom toms, to the Triple Gem; or by giving medicine for the voice, such as oil and molasses, to preachers of the Dhamma; or by announcing a lecture on the Dhamma, chanting the scriptures, giving a discourse on the dhamma, holding a discussion, or expressing appreciation for the good deeds of others.” ***** I think as you mentioned before with the example of playing music for your father and his dog, it can be with kindness and consideration and of course there can be awareness at any time. Like you say, there is bound to be attachment most the time however, just as in any activity....still, good to begin to know it! Like we read in this quote, there are so many different ways that dana can be offered, even just under the ‘gift of sounds’. As we are not offering sounds in these discussions, perhaps we can consider them as the gift of visible forms (ruupadaana). ..... > Maybe, if there is an opportunity, Kh. Sujin can say something more. > But, > there may not be time. ..... I’ll try to raise it. I’m not sure what is meant by ‘giving its base’ at this quick glance. I also find the expression ‘he makes a gift.....to the Triple Gem’ to be somewhat strange. I’ll be glad to hear anything more myself. I’ve just been teaching for a couple of hours and using my voice quite a lot. It’s a good opportunity for saddadana too and I like the reminder about 'congenial speech' and a smile too. ..... >Actually, I was thinking of Lucy (is she out in > the > woods, offering things?), who mentioned offerings. ..... The various classifications of dana are quite interesting: besides the 3fold classification mentioned of amisadana (giving of material things), abhayadana and dhammadana, there is also the 2fold classification of internal and external. the external gifts can be further classified as tenfold or sixfold when analysed by way of sense object (aaramman.nato) which are visible forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles and non-sensory objects. This Treatise on the Paramis that I’m dipping into, starts on p.243 of BB’s translation of the Brahmajala Sutta and commentaries, for those who have it. Sarah ===== 13590 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 31, 2002 6:33am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana-vibhanga Sutta Kom --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Jon, > > More opinion, obviously... ;-) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jonothan Abbott [mailto:Jon] > > > > I agree with the connection you make between > > satipatthana and magga. As I > > understand it, the commentaries explain that a > > moment of satipatthana is a > > moment of mundane path-consciousness. > > This may be unrelated. I was discussing with Num today > about this particular point. One thing we agreed with each > other is that Satipatthana is counted as 4 of the 37 > Bodhi-pacaya-dhamma (???). Satipatthana 4 must first be > developed before all the sammpayutta-dhamma can be called > Sammapathan 4, Iddhibat 4, ..., Magga 8. At the point of > magga, all 37 factors become perfected (at the appropriate > level). By this definition, I understand Satipatthana to be > part of magga. (This too may be unrelated.) At the moment of magga citta, all 37 factors are 'having effect', although in terms of paramattha dhammas they are only 14 in total. I believe it says in the Vism that at moment of magga citta, the sati is regarded as an instance of all 4 foundations/establishment, whereas at other (mundane path) moments the sati is of only of one foundation or another. Likewise with the 4 padhanas (perseverences, efforts), it says that at moment of magga citta the viriya cetasika performs the 4-fold function of the 4 padhanas, whereas at mundane path moments only 1 of the 4 functions is performed, depending on the circumstances. But I've also heard differently, that at mundane path moment the 4 padhana functions are all being performed. BTW, counting as 37 factors, I believe sati counts for 8 (not 4), since it comes within some of the other 6 sets of factors also. > > Nevertheless, I tend to think that when the > > Buddha used the term 'Noble > > Eightfold Path' in addressing listeners who were > > ripe for enlightenment he > > was referring exclusively to supramundane consciousness. > > > > I don't have such confidence yet. Somehow when the word > magga is used, sometimes (I think) it is interpreted in the > commentaries as being both mundane and supra-mundane. And I > also understand that we all have to start somewhere besides > at the perfection, and even then it is still called the > path, just a very dangerous (for falling wayside, being > fooled by akusala and micha-dithi) one... In the CMA (Abhidhammattha Sangaha), in one of the notes is mentions that the Noble Eightfold Path in the context of the Four Noble Truths is exclusively supramundane. This implies that in other contexts it is not necessarily so, and 1 example of this would be as one of the 7 sets comprising the bodhi-pakkhiya dhamma. These are factors that are developed in developing the path towards enlightenment, and so must be mundane factors or at least have a mundane aspect. Jon 13591 From: <> Date: Fri May 31, 2002 7:42am Subject: ADL ch. 10 (4) Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 10 (4) The Buddha spoke about the dangers of birth in many different ways. He said that birth is dukkha (sorrow) ; it is followed by old age, sickness and death. He pointed out the foulness of the body and reminded people that also at this very moment the body is dukkha, impermanent and not-self. If we continue taking mind and body for self there will be no end to the cycle of birth and death. We read in the 'Kindred Sayings' (II, Nidana-vagga, Ch. XV, par. 10, A person) that the Buddha, when he was in Rajagaha on Vulture's Peak, said to the monks: Incalculable is the beginning, monks, of this faring on. The earliest point is not revealed of the running on, faring on of beings, cloaked in ignorance, tied by craving... The bones of one single person, monks, running on, faring on for an aeon would be a cairn, a pile, a heap as great as Mount Vepulla, were there a collector of those bones and the collection were not destroyed. How is this? Incalculable is the beginning, monks, of this faring on. The earliest point is not revealed of the running on, faring on of beings, cloaked in ignorance, tied by craving... Thus spoke the Exalted One. After the Wellfarer had said this, he spoke further: The pile of bones of (all the bodies of) one man Who has alone one aeon lived, Were heaped a mountain high - - so said the mighty seer - - Yes, reckoned high as Vipula To north of Vulture's Peak, crag-fort of Magadha. When he with perfect insight sees The Ariyan Truths: - - what dukkha is and how it comes. And how it may be overpassed, The Ariyan Eightfold Path, the way all ill to abate - - Seven times at most reborn, a man Yet running on, through breaking every fetter down, Endmaker does become of dukkha. It is fortunate to be born in the human plane where one can cultivate insight. When one has attained the first stage of enlightenment (the stage of the sotapanna), one has realized the Four Noble Truths. Then one will not be reborn more than seven times and one can be sure that there will eventually be an end to rebirth. Questions 1. How many functions of citta are there in all? . 2. The four jatis of citta are: akusala, kusaIa, vipaka and kiriya. Which jati is the patisandhi-citta? 3. Is birth as a human being always the result of kusaIa kamma? 4. When does human life start? 5. Why is birth sorrow (dukkha)? 13592 From: Sarah Date: Fri May 31, 2002 2:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 10 (3) Dear ADL corner, When I read the following quote from Discourse on Fools and the Wise' (Middle Length Sayings Ill, 129) in ADL 10(3) this morning, it reminded me of a brief discussion we had in Bangkok: ..... We read in the 'Discourse on Fools and the Wise' (Middle Length Sayings Ill, 129) Monks, if some time or other once in a very long while that fool came to human status (again), he would be born into those families that are low: a family of low caste or a family of hunters or a family of bamboo-plaiters or a family of cartwrights or a family of refuse-scavengers, in such a family as is needy, without enough to drink or to eat, where a covering for the back is with difficulty obtained. Moreover, he would be illfavoured, ugly, dwarfish, sickly, blind or deformed or lame or paralysed; he would be unable to get food, drink, clothes, vehicles, garlands, scents and perfumes, bed, dwelling and lights; he would fare wrongly in body, wrongly in speech, wrongly in thought. Because he had fared wrongly in body, speech and thought, at the breaking up of the body after dying he would arise in the sorrowful ways, a bad bourn, the Downfall, Niraya Hell.... ... This, monks, is the fool's condition, completed in its entirety...'; ***** Some of us were discussing the difficult living conditions in countries like India. The dirt and poverty can seem overwhelming and how there can easily be dosa (aversion) and mana (conceit) as well as occasionally more noble virtues when we see or think about these states. K.Sujin reminded us (as we read in this sutta) that we’ve all spent many, many lifetimes living in dirt and poverty. We’ve all been living in ‘low caste’ families, in need, and ugly or deformed and so on over and over and over again. I find these reflections are a condition for a little more patience, tolerance and compassion. Let it also be a reminder of the value in faring rightly ‘in body, speech and thought...’ Sarah ===== --- <> wrote: > http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-00.htm > > Abhidhamma In Daily Life > Chapter 10 (3) 13593 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri May 31, 2002 4:49pm Subject: Merit Making Dear All, Often one hears negative remarks about those who do good deeds believing these will have some positive effect on what rebirth they obtain. Some refer to this as superstition, or as the laziness of those who don't want to put a strong effort into leaving samsara forever, and are content with aiming for a life in a better place or form. Doing good for others when the main idea is to benefit oneself does seem a little hypocritical - would this be regarded as a 'good' intention? I am not familiar with merit making and would like to hear more about it, as well as knowing if there are any simple, straightforward articles or suttas on merit? metta, Christine 13594 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 31, 2002 7:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. Howard No argument from me about your reading of the Loka Sutta, or its importance. However, on my reading of the teachings both the following are to be understood from the texts: (a) Only the dhamma that is being presently experienced can be known (b) Dhammas exist independently of experience You are I think correct to say that someone who asserts the latter is hypothesizing, since it is implicit in (a) that we cannot prove (b). But equally, to assert the opposite would also be to hypothesize, I suppose. Jon ============================ Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/29/02 6:28:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jon writes: … > Jon: > Let me re-phrase my comment slightly. I meant, the hardness that is > experienced at one moment and, before we know it, is taken as being part > of an inanimate object (like table, tree or building) is still the dhamma > of hardness at that initial moment of experience. > > At such moments, there are 2 distinct and separate sets of conditions at > play. There are both the factors that condition the arising of that > hardness in this world, and the factors that condition the experience of > that hardness by the citta of the individual. The latter set of factors > could not pertain without the former, but the opposite in not the case. > > The former set of conditioning factors have nothing to do with kamma or > indeed citta in any shape or form, and are not what is being described by > the paticcasamuppada; only the latter are. However, they are to be found > in the abhidhamma texts such as the Patthana. > > I don’t know if this makes clearer what I am trying to say. > > Jon > =========================== Mmm, I'm not sure. It seems to me that you are hypothesizing a"hardness in this world" that is one thing, existing in some way on its own, something more Platonic and fantastic than something as "innocent" as such pa~n~nattis as trees and tables. I do not believe in such a "disembodied" hardness. The "world" is actually nothing but this body-mind, this stream of psychophysical experiences. In this respect, one can consider the following: ********************************************************** Samyutta Nikaya XII.44 Loka Sutta The World Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. For free distribution only. Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: "I will teach you the origination of the world & the ending of the world. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is 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. This is the origination of the world. " … *********************************************** There are better examples than this that I'm having difficulty finding -examples of suttas which identify "the world" with namarupa, with mentality-materiality. One of these involves someone asking the Buddha about whether the world is finite, whether it comes to an end. The Buddha replied to the effect that nibbana is the end of the world. With metta, Howard 13595 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 31, 2002 9:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Supportive spiritual practices Rob Ep --- Robert Epstein wrote: > … > > I'm sure I've asked this before, but I don't recall having had a > response. When > > you > > say you judge practices by their effects, does that mean effects in > terms of the > > dhamma and, if so, what effects found in the teachings would you be > referring > > to? > > Well, the preliminary problem in answering that is that 'in terms of the > dhamma' > is subject to the individual's evaluation. You can say that anything > that creates > kusala effects is in line with the dhamma, or you can say that only > those things > which are explicitly mentioned in the suttas are in line with the > dhamma, or you > could say that those things which lead us to the dhamma by hook or by > crook are in > line with the dhamma, because we all come to the dhamma by various > combinations of > conditions and actions. To my way of thinking, a 'practice' should be judged by whether leads to detachment, understanding and, ultimately, enlightenment. Any practice that may bring other shorter-term gains but does not lead to escape is in fact going to prologue our time in samsara. Of course, developing various kinds of kusala at any opportunity is not a form of 'practice' and is always to be encouraged. Jon 13596 From: Howard Date: Fri May 31, 2002 6:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/31/02 7:36:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jon writes: > > Howard > > No argument from me about your reading of the Loka Sutta, or its > importance. > > However, on my reading of the teachings both the following are to be > understood from the texts: > (a) Only the dhamma that is being presently experienced can be known > (b) Dhammas exist independently of experience > > You are I think correct to say that someone who asserts the latter is > hypothesizing, since it is implicit in (a) that we cannot prove (b). But > equally, to assert the opposite would also be to hypothesize, I suppose. > > Jon ================================== Yes. Strictly speaking you are correct. The thing is, when pragmatism is joined to phenomenalism, as it often is, what is not only not known but is in principle unknowable is treated as (tantamount to) nonexistent. It is both pragmatically and noetically nonexistent. Often, the Buddha, instead of speaking in objective terms, saying that some alleged domething-or-other didn't exist, he would say things along the lines of "It isn't found", "There is no known beginning", "It isn't evident/seen" etc. His speaking was largely in an experiential and pragmatic vein. ============================= I'd like to add a brief addendum, Jon. You raised the point before, and I see it as valid, that attempting to characterize the Buddha's teaching as phenomenalist and pragmatic does not add anything to that teaching. I *do* see the Dhamma (as a philosophical view) as included in this genus of phenomenalism/pragmatism, and my seeing it that way clarifies matters for me. However, were I to be shown that this is not so, then it would be phenomenalism/pragmatism that I would give up (in a second) rather than the Dhamma. The Dhamma has played a role in my life that has been, for lack of a better, less Christian sounding, term, salvational. I have complete confidence in the Dhamma, the Buddha, and the Ariyasangha. I have no doubt that the Buddha truly taught the way to freedom and the end of suffering, and that his teaching of no-self-to-be-found-anywhere is an entirely *true* teaching. ============================= With metta, Howard > > > > > ============================ > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 5/29/02 6:28:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Jon writes: > … > > Jon: > > Let me re-phrase my comment slightly. I meant, the hardness that is > > experienced at one moment and, before we know it, is taken as being part > > of an inanimate object (like table, tree or building) is still the > dhamma > > of hardness at that initial moment of experience. > > > > At such moments, there are 2 distinct and separate sets of conditions at > > play. There are both the factors that condition the arising of that > > hardness in this world, and the factors that condition the experience of > > that hardness by the citta of the individual. The latter set of factors > > could not pertain without the former, but the opposite in not the case. > > > > The former set of conditioning factors have nothing to do with kamma or > > indeed citta in any shape or form, and are not what is being described > by > > the paticcasamuppada; only the latter are. However, they are to be > found > > in the abhidhamma texts such as the Patthana. > > > > I don’t know if this makes clearer what I am trying to say. > > > > Jon > > > =========================== > Mmm, I'm not sure. It seems to me that you are hypothesizing > a"hardness in this world" that is one thing, existing in some way on its > own, something more Platonic and fantastic than something as "innocent" as > such pa~n~nattis as trees and tables. I do not believe in such a > "disembodied" hardness. The "world" is actually nothing but this > body-mind, this stream of psychophysical experiences. > > > In this respect, one can consider the following: > ********************************************************** > > Samyutta Nikaya XII.44 > > Loka Sutta > > The World > > Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. > For free distribution only. Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One > addressed the monks: "I will teach you the origination of the world & the > ending of the world. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you > say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said: > "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms > there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is 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. This is the > origination of the world. " > … > *********************************************** > There are better examples than this that I'm having difficulty > finding -examples of suttas which identify "the world" with namarupa, with > mentality-materiality. One of these involves someone asking the Buddha > about whether the world is finite, whether it comes to an end. The Buddha > replied to the effect that nibbana is the end of the world. > > With metta, > Howard > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13597 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 1, 2002 1:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] offerings op 30-05-2002 13:02 schreef Sarah op Sarah: >> On dana: in Sri Lanka you will do a lot of chanting (wonderful how >> people >> know the Pali, did'nt we enjoy that) and this is also dana: the offering >> of >> sound, as Kh Sujin explained. It depends on conditions whether we >> remember >> this. Another point:when playing music (good for me and also for my >> musical >> friend Herman), we can offer the sound to the Triple Gem, this was also >> mentioned by Kh Sujin. Here I have some doubts, since I am immediately >> attached. Again, it depends on conditions whether kusala citta arises. > ..... > On the gift of sounds (saddadaana): > > “The gift of sounds should be understood by way of the sounds of drums, > etc. or by announcing a lecture on > the Dhamma, chanting the scriptures, giving a discourse on the dhamma, > holding a discussion, or expressing appreciation for the good deeds of > others. > ***** S: I think as you mentioned before with the example of playing music for your > father and his dog, it can be with kindness and consideration and of > course there can be awareness at any time. Like you say, there is bound > to be attachment most the time however, just as in any activity....still, > good to begin to know it! N: The dog, a husky, thanks the artists after we have finished, going to me and Lodewijk. S: Like we read in this quote, there are so many > different ways that dana can be offered, even just under the ‘gift of > sounds’. As we are not offering sounds in these discussions, perhaps we > can consider them as the gift of visible forms (ruupadaana). N: Thank you for this reminder, wonderful. >> Maybe, if there is an opportunity, Kh. Sujin can say something more. >> But, >> there may not be time. > ..... S: I’ll try to raise it. I’m not sure what is meant by ‘giving its base’ at > this quick glance. N: the base, vatthu, would be the instrument, such as a drum given to a temple. S:I also find the expression ‘he makes a gift.....to the > Triple Gem’ to be somewhat strange. I’ll be glad to hear anything more > myself. I’ve just been teaching for a couple of hours and using my voice > quite a lot. It’s a good opportunity for saddadana too and I like the > reminder about 'congenial speech' and a smile too. N: To the Triple Gem, yes, with respect to the Triple Gem and gratefulness, because without the Triple Gem we would not be able to study Dhamma here and discuss it on this forum. The best gift is mindfulness and the development of right understanding now. This can accompany a gift of music, as you said. Now your other letter: op 30-05-2002 08:39 schreef Sarah op Sarah: > Ven Guttasila has been staying at the Forest Hermitage during his ‘long > absence’. As he says, Ven Guttasila is ‘an exemplary monk’, whom Jonothan > knew well (and supported) for many years in Thailand. Nina, you’ll > remember he accompanied us (along w/Phra Dhammadharo) on our trip to India > in 1980. Actually, we had some contact with him a couple of years ago when > he visited Hong Kong and hope to see him if he’s still in Kandy.> Dear Sarah, I remember Ven Guttasila very well, and also our conversations in the bus with him on samatha and vipassana. Great if you meet him and have more discussions. I wrote to Ven. Bodhi an ordinary letter, to Kandy. Best wishes from Nina. 13598 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 1, 2002 1:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] to Howard op 29-05-2002 20:24 schreef Howard op Howard: > Hi, again, Nina - > > In a message dated 5/29/02 2:20:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Howard > writes: > >> Yes, I like that Sarah. When things are seen as they actually are, >> words are unnecessary. >> > ========================== > Whoops! It would be good were I to maintain sufficient mindfulness to > remember who I am conversing with! ;-)) Sorry, Nina. > Nina: :-) :-) But Sarah could have said it. I like the loka sutta you quoted to Jon and I shall write more about it later, I looked up the commentary to this sutta. I am also thinking about the Katavatthu text, this is for later. Best wishes from Nina. 13599 From: yuzhonghao Date: Sat Jun 1, 2002 4:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. I have no doubt > that the Buddha truly taught the way to freedom and the end of suffering, and > that his teaching of no-self-to-be-found-anywhere is an entirely *true* > teaching. > ============================= > With metta, > Howard Howard, Where are you, Howard? Can you find yourself? Regards, Victor 13600 From: Howard Date: Sat Jun 1, 2002 1:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] to Howard Hi, Nina - > > Whoops! It would be good were I to maintain sufficient mindfulness to > > remember who I am conversing with! ;-)) Sorry, Nina. > > > Nina: :-) :-) > But Sarah could have said it. > I like the loka sutta you quoted to Jon and I shall write more about it > later, I looked up the commentary to this sutta. I am also thinking about > the Katavatthu text, this is for later. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I *eagerly* await that! ----------------------------------------------- > Best wishes from 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) 13601 From: Howard Date: Sat Jun 1, 2002 2:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. Hi, Victor - In a message dated 5/31/02 4:06:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Victor writes: > > I have no doubt > > that the Buddha truly taught the way to freedom and the end of > suffering, and > > that his teaching of no-self-to-be-found-anywhere is an entirely > *true* > > teaching. > > ============================= > > With metta, > > Howard > > > Howard, > > Where are you, Howard? Can you find yourself? > > Regards, > Victor > > ============================ It seems to me that either you cannot or will not distinguish between conventional speech and precise speech. But I do make that distinction. So we are talking at cross purposes and not communicating. 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) 13602 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Jun 1, 2002 8:22am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: 'no control', Reply to Rob E.(Booklet) --- Sukinder wrote: > > Sukin: > > Silabbataparamasa is "wrong practise", meaning anything we do with the > view > > that doing such things will lead to understanding. > > R: > Sutta study for instance? Or is this exempt from being 'wrong practice'? > > S: > the tipitaka is full of descriptions about all the different realities, the > right path > and the wrong path. Don't you think it advisable to read about all these > realities > which inevitably arises through the course of our lives and find out what > will lead to > what, before deciding that a particular activity is condusive to > understanding? yes, but my point is that we do so with the hope that we will gain greater understanding, so we are certainly reading with intention to learn. you say that to do any activity thinking it will improve our understanding is wrong. I am it is not wrong, and that of course we have no choice but to do those activities which we think will improve our understanding, whether it be 'sutta study' or 'meditation'. You assume that sutta study is good, so you don't see the hope that this will improve understanding as being wrong, but it is no different than purposely meditating with the hope of increasing vipassana, etc. > R: > control and intention are not the same thing. intentions create results, > whether > immediately or later, if they are actual intentions. since every cause has > an > effect, this shuld be true, shoudn't it? one confuses 'control' with > 'results'. > certainly intentions and practices yield *results* that are in keeping with > those > intentions or practices. this is in keeping with the law of cause and > effect, the > law of kamma. > > S: > So if our intentions our not pure, the result will not be so. > And where best to know what our real inclinations are toward than in normal > every day circumstance? that may be true. I certainly like the idea of testing one's understanding against everyday life circumstances. but that doesn't mean meditation is neither useful nor necessary as well. For eg., a person can be driven to tears hearing > some > dhamma, at that moment he may wish to become a monk, would it be advisable > for him to do so? maybe so. it depends. Avija in > fact > is what gets us 'blown by the wind of circumstance', panna 'rides with the > wind' > of reality and goes against the tide of convention. > Understanding any situation is the goal. In the conventional world, we do > and > are bound by duty to do things with expectation of results, but what the > outcome > will be there is no being confused or surprised or carried away if there is > understanding that it was not "us" who brought about that result, just a > complex set of conditions. well, for understanding I think there is value in seeing that there is no 'us' making things happen, but I think it is possible to wrongly draw the conclusion then that we shouldn't attempt to do anything. there is a difference between understanding anatta and giving up responsibility. > R: > This means the opposite of what you have said here: the cittas do not > merely > arise and fall, they develop factors and accumulate them, and pass them > down. > So you *can*develop and build intentions......... > > S: > The law of cause and effect is precise but there being different intensities > and > innumerable causes it is impossible to isolate one condition and base the > result on that. well, what I see happening in life is that people take certain directions and they certainly wind up in a situation related to the circumstances they set up for themselves. It's not toally predictable, but if you are sailing and aiming for shore, you will have to tack against the wind and go various ways, but if you are skillful you wind up on the shore where you aimed. There is not 'control' but there is a gradual relationship between intention and result. There is an old Chinese saying, as I understand: "If you don't change your direction, you will probably wind up where you were headed." > R: > Well we can certainly learn and develop the right attitude towards > discernment and > learn to recognize those attitudes and approaches that are defeating of our > purpose. This is a matter of intelligence, practice and assessment, not > coincidence. > > S: > Agreed that this does happen, but can we be sure that it will? why do we need certainty, if we are generally heading in the right direction? We do know on > the > other hand, that kusala or akusala conditions more of the same in terms of > accumulated tendencies, why not then we assess, based on the teachings to > see > what is right and what is not from the very beginning, which is now? > The avija associated with the activity (a concept) ie., sitting cross > legged, closing > one's eyes etc., will condition more of the same on and on. Yes the act of > studying > sutta, whether sitting or standing or walking or lying down can also be > accumulated > the same way, therefore it is very important to have an excellent teacher > like > K. Sujin and a group like DSG :-) to remind us about detachment and to show > the > significance of going beyond mere theory to actual application in daily > life. well, I think an excellent meditation teacher can do the same thing. I still think you are prejudiced against meditation without a really good reason. I understand the point that it is a planned activity to get a certain result, but good meditation is not controlled to force a result. It is an activity of inquiry into the arising of consciousness and the working of mind. There is a > path and > there is a goal, but that goal is the understanding of the present moment. > Perhaps > with greater and greater precision, but is there any need to worry whether > the > precision is increasing or not? We still have to come back to the moment > don't we? yes, but hopefully with greater skill and discernment. It isn't good enough just to be mindful, but to have insight and develop wisdom. > On the other hand, if one measures ones progress in terms of tendency for > kusala, > I feel that even if we are studying dhamma, if the aim is development of > panna, it is > possible that strong akusala arises from time to time which may have not > been so > before we studied dhamma. But this should not be evidence that there is no > progress. > The aim is panna and so instead of trying to control our behavior as before, > there > may be conditions for the otherwises hidden kilesas, manifest themselves in > terms > of akusala actions. > But I do agree that in the long run it must be less, otherwise we are doing > something > wrong. Well, that's kind of my point of view, which is to employ some common sense, even though the common sense view of whether we are developing kusala or akusala may be wrong in a given moment, or even in a given period of time. Maybe negative kamma is coming out and it's a really horrific experience and so we think 'oh my God I am developing so much akusala I must be on the wrong track' when in reality something has opened up and akusala is getting worked out and kicked out of the system. Sometimes we experience things when they are 'on the way out', rather than 'on the way in'. But over time, the general feeling of whether things are more akusala, or more kusala, whether we are getting 'better' or 'worse', whether life seems 'lighter' or more 'burdened', I think gives a pretty accurate idea of whether we're on the right track or not. There are exceptions. I do think it is possible to do something like yoga with devotion, and yoga will just naturally make you feel physically better over time. This can mask what is really going on in a sense. A yogi can develop pride in the body, pride at his physical prowess, and grow attached to the physical well-being that comes from being flexible and strong. This doesn't mean someone shouldn't do yoga, but it does mean that some pleasant feelings and accomplishments can also create hindrances to non-attachment and realization of anatta and anicca. But one has to be conscious of all of these things, and not just make snap judgments about practices automatically being akusala either. > > Sukin: > > Good, but is it worth clinging to?:-) > > R: > You added that. > > S: > Sorry! > > R: > Anyone, from scientist to artist, would check > their results. you assume there is clinging there. > > S: > Yes, I think so, maybe subtle but surely there must be. I still don't see why there has to be any more attachment with a meditation or yoga practice than there is with a sutta or discernment practice. They all have intention, so one has to do them for their purpose and keep an eye on the attachment, pride, expectation, etc., that will be sure to be there. If one discerns these things as they arise, then they will be seen to be just as empty in the moment as any other object of discernment. > > can we really know for sure that what the Buddha taught is all true and > > only then will we really be independent and no more need outside > confirmation. > > R: > but we have to develop that capacity and we have to work in a way that will > get us > there. it won't happen by accident. > > S: > Again, nothing is accidental, attempting to keep track or not will not > change what > the result will be from studying and applying the teachings. It may tell us whether we are on the right track or not. Isn't that part of discernment? How can we be blissfully ignorant and hope that this will somehow aid our practice? Measuring > progress > will condition an attempt to do something in relation to the result. *What > will > be that something to do?!* I don't have the feeling about *doing* things that you do. I think it's okay to have the intention to do something and get a certain result. I still think that making believe one doesn't have an intention has more danger that accepting the intention that is there and working with it to release expectation and sincerely go after the result proscribed by Buddha. We all want to develop kusala, panna, vipassana, and reach Nibbana. The question is how do we follow this path, and what do we do with these intentions. They're not going to go away. > > Sukin: > > Intention is in every citta, it arises and falls with it and it takes on > the > > quality of the citta, being with or without sati and panna. > > R: > yes, but it also accumulates and is passed on. > > S: > If it is akusala, then akusala accumulates. Besides lobha can come in > anytime, even after kusala moment. Yes, but those things that are most promoted and repeated will accumulate more. If one is discerning realities all the time, there will be more discernment accumulating and passed down. The cittas arising will be more discerning ones and there will be more discerning cittas arising. If I am wrong about this, someone with more experience can correct me. > R: > I think it's a mistake to draw assumptions in that way. Nisargardatta saw > the > emptiness of all phenomena and saw no reason to change his behavior. He > just kept > doing what he had always done. i have heard many arguments saying that one > should > not worry about 'fixing' this reality, but instead discern its true nature, > and > that is what he emphasized. > > S: > I made the comment with some reluctance, he is in any case a much superior > person to myself. But smoking cannot be any thing but a manifestation of > kilesa. > You are supposed to keep the five precepts perfectly once you become a > sotapanna. Well, I understand your sense of that. I am not as versed in the characteristics of the sotapanna, and I tend not to judge people's attainment on all of the little things they do. I'd like to meet a sotapanna and observe their behavior! > S: > If the teachings were something 'thought out', then I agree that you can > review and > improve on it. But the wisdom of the Buddha was not a result of "thinking > about" > reality. The insight he gained had no relation to the culture and history of > his time. > All the Buddhas past and future will necessarily have the same > understanding. > Anyone else is just a factor in the opposite direction, ie., polluting the > original > insight. Well, if that were absolutely true, there would be no need for the spiritual friend to explain the dhamma, because this would be watering down the suttas, and it would furthermore be polluting them. But the commentaries are there none the less, and valued by practitioners. And the modern commentaries explain the earlier commentaries, because despite the wisdom of the Buddha, without the commentaries and sub-commentaries we can neither understand nor agree on the meaning of the Buddha's words. So I would say that each generation reinterprets the teachings for their generation, whether anyone likes this or doesn't like it. Nina's books makes sense of Abhidhamma for this world, this time and place. I'm sure in another age, she would have written another way. We need the people who are here now, not just the Buddha, as perfect as his understanding was. > S: > Allow me to say something here. We have accumulated avijja of realities > through > all doorways. In order to understand seeing consciousness, it must arise > first. > If we don't know realities through all doorways we will continue to have > doubts > about it. It is not a matter of closing eyes and noting 'thinking', > 'hearing' and > expect one day to develop understanding of eye-consciousness and visible > objects. There must be no picking and choosing. This is why understanding > must be natural, in daily life. If avijja arises much in relation to seeing > for > instance, then ignoring it would make it harder to understand. > The idea of meditation itself is a problem for me, if someone suggest what > is called "post meditation" ie., the idea of carrying mindfulness over to > daily > activities. This seems absurd to me. Well, you don't see mindfulness as a cumulative acquirement that is carried over from practice to living. Yet, the citta theory acknowledges that cittas carry the accumulations from previous cittas and there is a developmental movement in the flow of cittas, based on what they experience and pick up. These things are not completely lost in the moment, even though the citta falls away and another rises. In practical experience we do experience that we accumulate tendencies and understandings and become more skillful. If we didn't accumulate something, then we would never learn to walk. Each step would be starting from scratch with no prior learning from the step before, which is of course absurd. We do learn, and we can learn mindfulness and become more mindful of arising realities through practice just as we learn to walk through practice. You can say that the best walking comes from natural walking, not from purposely practicing. The child tries to get something and in the effort has to walk. But children also have natural 'practice periods' where they purposely try to walk over and over again, because they are tired of not being able to walk. They want to learn. Why not with mindfulness as well? It doesn't seem absurd to me at all to do this and to carry it over. > S: > Study and know that it is only theory. > Study more theory and know that it is different from direct experience. > When there is direct experience, know what is direct experience, the > theory will have less appeal. But direct experience will happen only > when the conditions are right. > So you study more to understand 'Theoretically'. It is not to study theory > in order to have direct experience, it is just to understand theory and > that it is not the experience itself. And when you meditate, it is not to confuse this with being enlightened, or confuse this with everyday living, it is to meditate so you can develop your understanding of the moments when you are meditating, and then that carries over in a certain way. If you weren't interested in the 'theory' carrying over in some way, you wouldn't do it. It is only because the theory has indirect bearing on accumulation of insight and understanding of realities that one does it at all. So i don't think it's completely honest to say that it is 'for theoretical understanding only'. > Whew! Never worked so hard all my life. Hope I have at least accumulated > some parami or the other ;-). Heh heh, it's quite an exercise, I agree! And we did the whole thing in the hope of getting something out of it! Oh well!! I tried to cut out some of the former conversation as much as possible. Hope this is a little shorter!!! Pleasure to talk to you. Best, Robert Ep. 13603 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jun 1, 2002 10:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Merit Making Christine --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear All, > > Often one hears negative remarks about those who do good deeds > believing these will have some positive effect on what rebirth they > obtain. Some refer to this as superstition, or as the laziness of > those who don't want to put a strong effort into leaving samsara > forever, and are content with aiming for a life in a better place or > form. Doing good for others when the main idea is to benefit oneself > does seem a little hypocritical - would this be regarded as a 'good' > intention? I am not familiar with merit making and would like to > hear more about it, as well as knowing if there are any simple, > straightforward articles or suttas on merit? > > metta, > Christine I think you will find 'merit' but not 'merit making' in the texts. As you suggest, that expression is almost a contradiction in terms. However, we should not be too cynical about the use of this term. As a cultural expression, it can be spoken with varying degrees of intention or understanding. We know from our own experinece that any wholesomeness performed is sure to be bound up with unwholesomeness of different kinds (conceit among them). To my way of thinking, it is more important to have a better understanding of one's own citta than to concern ourselves with the quality of others' kusala. My 2 cents worth! Jon 13604 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Jun 1, 2002 10:56am Subject: RE: [dsg] Merit Making Dear Christine, Check this out on K. Amara's site: http://www.dhammastudy.com/merits.html > -----Original Message----- > From: christine_forsyth > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 1:49 AM > Subject: [dsg] Merit Making > > > Dear All, > > Often one hears negative remarks about those who do good deeds > believing these will have some positive effect on what rebirth they > obtain. I assume that you are mentioning the case where when somebody does something good, they make a wish for the result of that deed. There are two possible issues that I see (and I think you are asking) here: 1) Whether or not this is a good deed? 2) Can the wish come true? I think the answer to 1) is that there are both kusala and akusala in this process (like usual!). When one lets go of the thing that one gives, that moment is certainly kusala, since detachment to the object must be present in order for one to let go of that object. However, when one makes the wish for the result (relating to the 5 khandhas), that moment is necessarily akusala, as one is attached to the result at the moment. If one doesn't make a wish, but gives purely for the benefit of others, then this motivation gives more opportunity for kusala to arise prior to giving, during giving, after giving, where as in the former case, perhaps only during giving that the states are kusala. The answer in 2 is uncertain at best (perhaps because this can be known only to a samma-sambuddha). However, there are stories in the tipitaka about people who make wishes, or who are inclined toward certain results for their ksuala, that they get the wishes. However, the result must be appropropriate for the cause. It is impossible to have small kusala, make big wishes, and get big results. The stories that I remember are two: 1) The king Pimpisara (the king of magadha, a Sotapanna, whose son Ajatasatu killed him) was reborn in the lowest heavenly plane. The question is posed in the commentaries why the rebirth is so small (lower plane of existence, instead of higher heavenly planes) despite his being a generous supporter of the Buddha, the dhamma, and the sangha. The answer given was that because the king was a deva in the plane of existence in so many lives, that he is inclined to being reborn into that plane of existence. In this case, he was reborn (as wished) as a deva who is very privileged in that plane of existence. 2) There was a story about a female deva, who died from the plane of heaven because she forgot to eat. Upon rebirth as a human, she remembered her previous life, and made a strong resolution to rejoin her husband in the heavenly plane (who has 500 wives!!!). In that life, she always gives to the Sangha. As a result of the deeds (for about 80-100 years) and the wishes, she rejoined her husband upon death. The husband hardly missed her since only about 1 afternoon has passed in that plane of existence when she went amiss. > Some refer to this as superstition, or as the laziness of > those who don't want to put a strong effort into leaving samsara > forever, and are content with aiming for a life in a better place or > form. We have to remember that attachments towards the 5 sensualities are extremely hard to be permanently eradicated. Only an anagami (and arahat) has eliminated the enjoyment to the 5 sensualities. The buddha mentioned many Ariyan disciples (sotapanna) who would certainly go through 7 more lives because of their attachments towards the 5 sensualities. This includes Visakha-vigara-mother, maha-upasika who, along with Anathapintaka, is foremost among the lay disciples of the buddhas who support the Buddha and the Sangha throughout their lives. kom 13605 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jun 1, 2002 11:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/31/02 7:36:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jon writes: > No argument from me about your reading of the Loka Sutta, or its > importance. > > However, on my reading of the teachings both the following are to be > understood from the texts: > (a) Only the dhamma that is being presently experienced can be known > (b) Dhammas exist independently of experience > > You are I think correct to say that someone who asserts the latter is > hypothesizing, since it is implicit in (a) that we cannot prove (b). But > equally, to assert the opposite would also be to hypothesize, I suppose. > > Jon ================================== Howard: Yes. Strictly speaking you are correct. The thing is, when pragmatism is joined to phenomenalism, as it often is, what is not only not known but is in principle unknowable is treated as (tantamount to) nonexistent. It is both pragmatically and noetically nonexistent. Jon: You say below that you find such categorisation helpful, but it does seem to rather cloud the issue, to my simple-minded way of thinking! BTW, is ‘treated as non-existent’ the same as ‘non-existent’ for the purpose of proposition (b) above? Howard: Often, the Buddha, instead of speaking in objective terms, saying that some alleged something-or-other didn't exist, he would say things along the lines of "It isn't found", "There is no known beginning", "It isn't evident/seen" etc. His speaking was largely in an experiential and pragmatic vein. Jon: Again, I agree with your analysis of the approach taken in many of the suttas. But I understood your original question to be whether the teachings and particularly the Abhidhamma posit or assert the existence of dhammas independent of experience. I am just saying that I think it clearly does. The answer to your question is not to be found in the sutta passages you are referring to, I believe, which should be read in their context. ============================= Howard: I'd like to add a brief addendum, Jon. You raised the point before, and I see it as valid, that attempting to characterize the Buddha's teaching as phenomenalist and pragmatic does not add anything to that teaching. I *do* see the Dhamma (as a philosophical view) as included in this genus of phenomenalism/pragmatism, and my seeing it that way clarifies matters for me. However, were I to be shown that this is not so, then it would be phenomenalism/pragmatism that I would give up (in a second) rather than the Dhamma. The Dhamma has played a role in my life that has been, for lack of a better, less Christian sounding, term, salvational. I have complete confidence in the Dhamma, the Buddha, and the Ariyasangha. I have no doubt that the Buddha truly taught the way to freedom and the end of suffering, and that his teaching of no-self-to-be-found-anywhere is an entirely *true* teaching. ============================= Jon: Let me assure you, Howard, that I have absolutely no doubt about the significance of the dhamma in your life. I am just wondering how you find it helpful to relate the teachings to some other scheme of categorisation, since I would see that to be a positive distraction to arriving at a better understanding of the teachings. But I say this only by way of explaining why I always try to steer the discussion away from such areas (in case you hadn't noticed!) ;-)) Jon 13606 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jun 1, 2002 11:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] suttas only? Kelvin --- kelvin liew peng chuan wrote: > > Dear friends in Dhamma, > > may all of you be well, happy & peaceful (n happy belated Wesak!) i > learnt a > lot from the various issues in here. > > a few days ago, i ahd a chance to have a conversation with a monk & > according to him, all Buddhist should only rely on the Suttas & Vinaya. > > According to him, Abhidhamma as well as Visudhimagga were later works > and > there were many things not in accordance to the Suttas in both of these > later works. > > is it true? There's only one way to find out, and that's to study both carefully and discuss areas of uncertaintly. I don't think it's safe to rely on anyone else's ideas either way (i.e. true or untrue). No easy answers, I'm afraid! Jon 13607 From: Howard Date: Sat Jun 1, 2002 8:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/31/02 11:31:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Jon writes: > Jon: > Let me assure you, Howard, that I have absolutely no doubt about the > significance of the dhamma in your life. I am just wondering how you find > it helpful to relate the teachings to some other scheme of categorisation, > since I would see that to be a positive distraction to arriving at a > better understanding of the teachings. But I say this only by way of > explaining why I always try to steer the discussion away from such areas > (in case you hadn't noticed!) ;-)) > > ========================== Well, it's hard for me to say exactly how I find the pragmatist - phenomenalist view helpful in understanding the Dhamma, but I will try. It provides me with a conceptual perspective for seeing the Dhamma in an integrated fashion, and it makes sense out of various parts of the teaching that I would find more difficult to grasp without it. It seems to fit well, and to make clear much that would not be clear to me. As an example, rebirth becomes change in realm of experience, rather like "changing channels", as opposed to somehow moving to a different externally existing physical place or realm. There is no problem of explaining how, without a transmigrating "soul", rebirth occurs - there is no need to come up with some external physical mechanism for one's kamma to induce a physical rebirth, because the physical is just a mode of experience, and rebirth is just a switching to a new channel of experience, the switch occurring, of course, only when the conditions for it are in place. Mentality and materiality hang together, being merely differing modes of experience. A constant stream of citta-cetasika-arramana events, the flow of experience: that is the world. That is "The All". Actually, the idea of the Buddha's teachings being pragmatist - phenomenalist is not peculiar to me. It is a commonly expressed notion. (See David Kalupahana, for example.) Theravadin Abhidhamma seems to have a very strong phenomenalist perspective, and the perspective of the yogacara school of mahayana as originated by Vasubandhu (rather than the Lankavatara Sutra type of substantialist idealism) is quite explicitly phenomenalist. But, of course, to say that the Buddha's teaching is pragmatist - phenomenalist, whether true or not, falls ridiculously short of *characterizing* the Dhamma. If validly applicable to the Dhamma, it is still just a tiny drop in the bucket of what can be validly said about the Buddhadhamma. Many philosophies fall into the general pragmatist - phenomenalist category. But there is only one Buddhadhamma, unique in all the world, encompassing all that is, and providing, as I see it, the ONLY way to freedom from illusion and suffering. 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) 13608 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jun 1, 2002 2:16pm Subject: Pointing us to treasure Dear All, Recently in a discussion with a dhamma friend, something was mentioned that seemed a little different to how I'd previously regarded relations with others, and which I'm still thinking over. The friend said that if another person points out our (true) faults, "regardless of this other person's intentions", we should see it as someone pointing us to treasure. As well, the friend quoted a passage from Majjhima Nikaya 140, Dhatu- vibhabga Sutta, "An Analysis of the Properties" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn140.html "Yes, monk, a transgression overcame you in that you were so foolish, so muddle-headed, and so unskilled as to assume that it was proper to address me as 'friend.' But because you see your transgression as such and make amends in accordance with the Dhamma, we accept your confession. For it is a cause of growth in the Dhamma & discipline of the noble ones when, seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends in accordance with the Dhamma and exercises restraint in the future." Mostly, in ordinary everyday life, criticising others or being criticised is seen as impolite. So, I guess this is a hard thing for me - seeing criticism as something not just to consider, but as something to be glad of, as if I had been told the whereabouts of treasure. The 'normal' reaction I usually have, and which I see in many others, is to become defensive, experience unwholesome emotions, and, perhaps, suspect the motives of the other. Usually, I initially see most criticism as incorrect ('who me? Couldn't be!') before after some time passes, being able to assess it fairly. Given this propensity, to see oneself as right and good, how do we know our 'true' faults? The phrase "regardless of this other person's intentions" is difficult. The other person could really be making untrue statements out of misunderstanding or maliciousness...hard to control an emotional reaction if it is believed the other knows the statements are untrue. I know this could be viewed as a trivial thing, and yet, for some of us, emotions are the strings that make the puppet dance....... metta, Christine 13609 From: wangchuk37 Date: Sat Jun 1, 2002 3:08pm Subject: Buddhist bibliography June update the June update to the Buddhist bibliography is now online at : http://www.cyberdistributeur.com/buddbib.html enjoy your reading ! 13610 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jun 1, 2002 3:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. HOward --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 5/29/02 6:30:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Jon writes: > > > > > > Jon: > > The problem I have here, Howard, is that I'm not sure if you're > wanting to > > discuss the abhidhammic position or the phenomenalist position!! > > > > By way of illustrating what I mean, I'd like to give another 2 > > propositions to compare, again taken or adapted from an earlier post-- > > > > (a) The Buddhist perspective, and most explicitly so in Abhidhamma, > > doesn't countenance objects existing independently of experience. > > (b) The Buddhist perspective, and most explicitly so in Abhidhamma, > is a > > phenomenalist one which doesn't countenance objects existing > independently > > of experience. > > > > I think you can appreciate the difference in the thrust of these 2 > > positions. For a start, the answer to (b) is going to depend on a > agreed > > definition for, and similar depth of understanding of, the concept of > > phenomenalism. And then, when you've figured it out as best you can, > has > > one really advanced one's understanding of the abhidhammic > perspective? > > > > Not that I would wish to discourage comparative discussion, but simply > to > > point out its limitations. I thought there might be a point here > worth > > bringing up for discussion. > > > > Jon > > > ============================== > I'm perfectly happy with (a), Jon. The fact that I see the > position in > (a) as a phenomnalist one is unimportant. It is what it is, an I am very > > happy with it! :-) > > With metta, > Howard Talking about (a) then, I see that as not being a correct statement (as I think I've indicated in another post or posts). I'd be interested to know what part of the Abhidhamma you have in mind here. Thanks. Jon 13611 From: Howard Date: Sat Jun 1, 2002 3:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. Hi, Jon - In a message dated 6/1/02 3:33:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jon writes: > Talking about (a) then, I see that as not being a correct statement (as I > think I've indicated in another post or posts). I'd be interested to know > what part of the Abhidhamma you have in mind here. Thanks. > ================================= Statement (a) is: The Buddhist perspective, and most explicitly so in Abhidhamma, doesn't countenance objects existing independently of experience. As you know, my ignorance of Abhidhamma runs deep ;-)), and, thus, I'm not in any position to give useful detail. The answer is merely that the overwhelming thrust of Abhidhamma as I have so far encountered it is that of a detailed description of *experience*. It appears to be more of a phenomenology than an ontology. Nyanaponika Thera, for example, in his ABHIDHAMMA STUDIES, wrote: "The Abhidhamma system, however, is not concerned with an artificial abstract world of 'objects in themselves'. In so far as it deals with external facts at all, the respective concepts refer to the relation of those 'external facts' to the bondage or liberation of the human mind; or they are terms auxiliary to the tasks of the understanding and mental training connected with the work of liberation." That certainly seems to express a phenomenological and pragmatist/utilitarian perspective. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13612 From: Howard Date: Sat Jun 1, 2002 5:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. Hi again, Jon - Here is another example of seeing Abhidhamma as a phenomenological enterprise. The following is from the introduction (by U Rewata Dhamma and Bhikkhu Bodhi) to a Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma: *************** The Abhidhamma's attempt to comprehend the nature of reality, contrary to that of classical science in the West, does not proceed from the standpoint of a neutral observer looking outwards towards the external world. The primary concern of the Abhidhamma is to understand the nature of experience, and thus the reality on which it focuses is conscious reality, the world as given in experience, comprising both knowledge and the known in the widest sense. For this reason the philosophical enterprise of the Abhidhamma shades off into a phenomenological psychology. ************************* /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 13613 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 1, 2002 10:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Merit Making op 31-05-2002 10:49 schreef christine_forsyth op : Dear Christine, merit making: pu~n~na is the Pali for merit, it actually means good, meritorious kamma. There are ten meritorious deeds, and these can be classified as threefold: as dana, sila and bhavana mental development. The kusala citta which motivates good deeds can be accompanied by pa~n~naa or unaccompanied by it. Now your questions: > >Ch: Often one hears negative remarks about those who do good deeds > believing these will have some positive effect on what rebirth they > obtain. Some refer to this as superstition, or as the laziness of > those who don't want to put a strong effort into leaving samsara > forever, and are content with aiming for a life in a better place or > form. Doing good for others when the main idea is to benefit oneself > does seem a little hypocritical - would this be regarded as a 'good' > intention? N: The Buddha explained that a good deed brings a desirable result, in the form of a happy rebirth or the experience of pleasant sense objects in the course of life. When you for instance give a gift, you may do this with right understanding of cause and effect, but there may also be moments of lobha, of attachment to a happy rebirth. Cittas arise and pass away so fast, and shortly after kusala cittas there may be akusala cittas. They have conditions, we have not eradicated akusala. One of the conditions, natural strong dependence condition (pakatupanissaya paccaya), teaches that akusala citta can condition kusala citta: you are attached to a happy rebirth or afraid of an unhappy rebirth and thus you perform kusala. Generosity can also be a perfection, a supporting condition which together with the other perfections eventually will lead to enlightenment. In that case the aim is the eradication of selfishness, clinging to self and the other defilements. You do not have to think: now my aim is to eradicate defilements. But when you see the value of satipatthana, the development of right understanding of nama and rupa in order to eradicate the clinging to self, there are conditions for the perfections to develop. As Kh Sujin often stresses in her book about the perfections: you do not expect any result for yourself. When you cling to a result, you may do deeds of generosity, but this is not a perfection. I shall now quote from her book: Therefore, it is necessary to give away things for the benefit and happiness of others as much as one is able to, in order to eliminate defilements, including attachment to possessions as well as clinging to nåma dhammas and rúpa dhammas one takes for beings, people and self. Thus, in our daily life we should not neglect the development of the perfection of generosity. We should know whether our generosity is a perfection or not. No matter how much we give away, generosity is not a perfection if we do not see the need to eradicate defilements. People who have understanding of the Dhamma and practise generosity should consider whether their generosity is a perfection. If someone gives away things without expecting a reward, not even rebirth in a heavenly plane, then his generosity can be a perfection. However, if someone wants to receive a reward, when he wishes for rebirth as a millionaire, or for rebirth in different degrees of heavenly planes, or if he wants to receive gain, honour and praise, then his life is still bound up with all kinds of expectations, and his goal is not the eradication of defilements. If we reflect about this we can know whether our giving at a specific moment is a perfection or not. The perfection of generosity is a condition to cross over to the other shore, namely, the eradication of defilements, different from the world of defilements. It is an extremely long way to reach the other shore, the eradication of defilements; it is not easy to reach it. We should really understand what the eradication of defilements means. Therefore, we should know whether at the moment of giving we are hoping for a reward or not. Giving that eliminates lobha, attachment, is giving with the aim to eradicate defilements, and that means that we should not expect any kind of reward. Ch:I am not familiar with merit making and would like to > hear more about it, as well as knowing if there are any simple, > straightforward articles or suttas on merit? N: Kh Sujin's book on meritorious deeds is on line, on different websites. 13614 From: manji Date: Sun Jun 2, 2002 0:44am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: 'no control', Reply to Rob E.(Booklet) With a quote from Lonaphala Sutta: "Monks, for anyone who says, 'In whatever way a person makes kamma, that is how it is experienced,' there is no living of the holy life, there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress. But for anyone who says, 'When a person makes kamma to be felt in such & such a way, that is how its result is experienced,' there is the living of the holy life, there is the opportunity for the right ending of stress." Marking conditions clearer recollection, as the function of sanna is concerned. Chanda is differentiated from lobha. I believe that there is chanda with the recollection of liberation as object instead of lobha with the recollection of liberation as object. The "holy life" is mere recollection, this "I" is mere recollection... merely recollections, mental fabrications, bubbles on the stream. There is kamma, there is dukkha, there is holy life, there is right ending of stress, and there is the "upadanakkhanda". With wisdom, this upadanakkhanda is not recollected as "I", thus it is not identified with. The trouble it seems are those many moments in which for example, let's say that there is a recollection "I am this". This mere recollection is not self, this "I am this" is sanna, just as "I am not this" is sanna. Thus there is living the holy life... renunciation again... sati :) Saying that there is no control, I think can be misleading, because there _is_ kamma and vipaka. It isn't that there is no control, it is just simply that all the dhammas all the kamma, it is not self. It is to be "seen", "perceived", and recollected as not-self. Seeing sanna as not self is a most potent antidote to taking concepts as "reality". Renunciation again :) With regard to who is renouncing? Sanna will answer the question regardless of the answer, thus there is renunciation, thus there is living the holy life. :) This argument on control, seeing things for what they are and study had been summed up rather well in a Ch'an/Zen Koan: ==================== Joshu asked Nansen: `What is the path?' Nansen said: `Everyday life is the path.' Joshu asked: `Can it be studied?' Nansen said: `If you try to study, you will be far away from it.' Joshu asked: `If I do not study, how can I know it is the path?' Nansen said: `The path does not belong to the perception world, neither does it belong to the nonperception world. Cognition is a delusion and noncognition is senseless. If you want to reach the true path beyond doubt, place yourself in the same freedom as sky. You name it neither good nor not-good.' At these words Joshu was enlightened. ==================== that's a fine not studying. ;) but this koan goes much deeper, nansen knows sanna as not self. nansen knows the difference between concepts and reality. mumon himself would ask, "do you know nansen's zen?" see ya, manji ==================== From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Jun 1, 2002 12:22 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: 'no control', Reply to Rob E.(Booklet) --- Sukinder wrote: > > > Sukin: > > > Silabbataparamasa is "wrong practise", meaning anything we do with the > > > view that doing such things will lead to understanding. > > R: > > Sutta study for instance? Or is this exempt from being 'wrong practice'? > > > > S: > > the tipitaka is full of descriptions about all the different realities, the > > right path and the wrong path. Don't you think it advisable to read about all these > > realities which inevitably arises through the course of our lives and find out what > > will lead to what, before deciding that a particular activity is condusive to > > understanding? > > yes, but my point is that we do so with the hope that we will gain greater > understanding, so we are certainly reading with intention to learn. you say > that > to do any activity thinking it will improve our understanding is wrong. I am it > is not wrong, and that of course we have no choice but to do those activities > which we think will improve our understanding, whether it be 'sutta study' or > 'meditation'. You assume that sutta study is good, so you don't see the hope > that this will improve understanding as being wrong, but it is no different than > purposely meditating with the hope of increasing vipassana, etc. 13615 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jun 2, 2002 0:55am Subject: RE: [dsg] satipatthana Rob Ep Believe it or not we have 1 or 2 points of agreement in this post, Rob. ;-)) > Jon: > Some people really doubt whether there can be awareness of presently arising > ('existing') akusala states. Here it clearly assumes there can be, and explains > that the akusala state and the moment of wisely seeing it are in reality 2 > separate mind moments. Rob Ep: Well I think that's great. It seems that a kusala discernment trumps an akusala state and disappears it? So much for the search for good Dharma medicine for the ills of ordinary life. A moment of discernment replaces akusala with kusala, which makes sense. In that way, discernment and all the qualities which lead to it: samatha + vipassana, sati and panna, defeat the akusala qualities and dissolve them in the moments in which they exist. Which explains why when one reaches arahantship, akusala has been completely rooted out of the system. Rather than trying to identify and eradicate akusala states, one need only focus on the path, and the more one discerns, the more free one is from these states. Jon: The conclusion you draw at the end here is I think correct, Rob, but the process by which the akusala are rooted out is perhaps a little more gradual and subtle than you describe, at least to my understanding of the texts. When there is awareness (at the level of satipatthana) of an akusala mental state, nothing is being 'trumped' in the sense of being zapped or even displaced. This can perhaps best be understood by considering that the basic process must be the same whether the dhamma that is the object of awareness is a kusala dhamma, an akusala one, a vipaka citta or a rupa. So the mental state or rupa in question continues to arise for successive moments according to its appropriate conditions, and cittas with awareness continue to arise taking that same object for as long as there are the conditions for the awareness to persist. What is distinctive about the moment of awareness in terms of effect on one's accumulations of kusala and akusala is the special function performed by the mental factors that accompany moments of satipatthana. Satipatthana being a (mundane) path moment, the accompanying mental factors perform their (mundane) path functions. For example, the mental factor that is energy performs the function of the 4 sammapaddhanas, so if the object of the awareness is an akusala mental state, the co-arising effort will perform the function of striving for the ceasing of that mental state, and if the object of the awareness is a kusala mental state, the co-arising effort will perform the function of striving for the continuation of that mental state, and so on. In this manner there is some gradual attenuation of the kilesas and some accumulation of the enlightenment factors at each moment of satipatthana. Jon 13616 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Jun 2, 2002 8:51am Subject: RE: [dsg] suttas only? Dear Kelvin, > -----Original Message----- > From: kelvin liew peng chuan > > a few days ago, i ahd a chance to have a > conversation with a monk & > according to him, all Buddhist should only rely > on the Suttas & Vinaya. > > According to him, Abhidhamma as well as > Visudhimagga were later works and > there were many things not in accordance to the > Suttas in both of these > later works. > I think the issue of Abihdhamma authenticity has been discussed in this group many times. For those who are inclined toward disbeliving the abhidhamma, they say there are many discrepencies in the abhiddhama when comparing to the sutta and vinuya. For those who are inclined toward believing the abhidhamma, they say the 3 tipitakas (and most of the commentaries, if not all) are in entirely consistent. Now, who would you choose the believe? There are obviously experts on both sides. The faults of understanding incorrectly are immense. I think you can make your own informed judgement by carefully studying the three tipitakas and the commentaries and see them for yourself whether or not they are consistent, and if they are in accordance with the truth (sacca dhamma). For me, when I read the details in the abhiddhamma, I am joyful of the obvious Buddha's wisdom thoroughly penetrating the true characteristics of all (real) phenomena, and the utmost compassion in explicating such subtle dhammas so thoroughly so that all beings, with little wisdom and thick dust in their eyes, can too understand these noble truths. Without the guides of the abhiddhamma (and good dhamma friends), I would have been (even more) misled into the thickets of self and miccha-dithi. kom 13617 From: sukinderpal Date: Sun Jun 2, 2002 2:15pm Subject: [dsg] Re: 'no control', Reply to Rob E.(Booklet) Hi Rob, First of all let me express my thanks for taking part in this discussion with me. I find that left to myself the kilesas causes a movement toward proliferation and/or rest in comfort the idea that there is good understanding of the Buddha's teachings and hence a tendency to be self-satisfied. Knowing that there are a lot of accumulated kilesas is not so much a result of recognizing them when they manifest through body, speech or mind, but mostly is a another form of self deception in which saying that I have them allows for some more moments of being lax. But this is my accumulations and there is no doubt that it is good to be reminded about it, discussion is one way in which this can happen. Regarding the correct interpretation of the Buddha's teachings, I hope both of us come to the correct understanding soon, life is too short and precious to be taking the wrong turn. Right or wrong let me now express my understandings a bit more. Sorry if I misunderstand your points, it is possible that I do not know the intended meaning, but you can correct me. > yes, but my point is that we do so with the hope that we will gain greater > understanding, so we are certainly reading with intention to learn. you say that > to do any activity thinking it will improve our understanding is wrong. I am it > is not wrong, and that of course we have no choice but to do those activities > which we think will improve our understanding, whether it be 'sutta study' or > 'meditation'. You assume that sutta study is good, so you don't see the hope that > this will improve understanding as being wrong, but it is no different than > purposely meditating with the hope of increasing vipassana, etc. But intellectual understanding is just intellectual understanding. It is not a practice aimed at direct understanding of realities. Direct understanding may happen or it may not, but there is no misunderstanding that intellectual knowledge is NOT the direct knowledge. In fact direct knowledge is a quantum leap away from the mere intellectual understanding. > well, for understanding I think there is value in seeing that there is no 'us' > making things happen, but I think it is possible to wrongly draw the conclusion > then that we shouldn't attempt to do anything. there is a difference between > understanding anatta and giving up responsibility. Responsibility is I think very relative and exists mostly as an idea in the conventional world. There is no responsibility even to "know oneself". Impersonal phenomenon have no idea of a thing to do or not to do, they just perform their functions. This does not mean that nothing is to be done, cittas and cetasikas do their jobs anyway. When I for example, listen to K. Sujin or read posts on dsg, I do not consider it a responsibility of any kind, yet what I do (conventionally speaking)give results either positive or negative depending on whether what I do is done with some degree of wisdom or not. Would an idea of responsibility have any bearing on the arising of sati and panna? I think not. In the conventional world I think about responsibility toward my family, but that is just an idea which gives me direction. Because there is no sati and panna which undersatnd the reality of the moment and because there are no conditions for metta and karuna to arise, there is a dependence on an idea. > well, what I see happening in life is that people take certain directions and they > certainly wind up in a situation related to the circumstances they set up for > themselves. It's not toally predictable, but if you are sailing and aiming for > shore, you will have to tack against the wind and go various ways, but if you are > skillful you wind up on the shore where you aimed. There is not 'control' but > there is a gradual relationship between intention and result. There is an old > Chinese saying, as I understand: "If you don't change your direction, you will > probably wind up where you were headed." Its not like we decide to sail west from the coast of Spain, and because we are consistant and determined in our quest we finally make it around the globe. Mara is always ahead of us, there are innumerable ways in which we can be deceived, remember the cheating dhammas and the near and far enemies? Having good friend to point out or simply reflect the various ways in which we are deceived is I think the only way. > well, I think an excellent meditation teacher can do the same thing. I still > think you are prejudiced against meditation without a really good reason. I > understand the point that it is a planned activity to get a certain result, but > good meditation is not controlled to force a result. It is an activity of inquiry > into the arising of consciousness and the working of mind. Rising of consciousness, or the concept of the arising of the concept of consciousness? Or is there an understanding that one starts with what one is capable of understanding (ie. that it is all concept), and expect that one day somehow one will gradually wake up to the direct apprehension of realities? I doubt first of all, that most meditators realize that they are essentially experiencing only concepts. Otherwise they wouldn't be so happy so fast, thinking that they have made some progress. I think for many the attraction would be less if they realize that they were dealing with the "concept" of breath and that the idea of practice itself is a "story" they have been following. > yes, but hopefully with greater skill and discernment. It isn't good enough just > to be mindful, but to have insight and develop wisdom. Mindfulness, Sati of realities occur accompanied by panna and not without. So being mindful is to have wisdom accompanying. > Well, that's kind of my point of view, which is to employ some common sense, even > though the common sense view of whether we are developing kusala or akusala may be > wrong in a given moment, or even in a given period of time. Maybe negative kamma > is coming out and it's a really horrific experience and so we think 'oh my God I > am developing so much akusala I must be on the wrong track' when in reality > something has opened up and akusala is getting worked out and kicked out of the > system. Sometimes we experience things when they are 'on the way out', rather > than 'on the way in'. But over time, the general feeling of whether things are > more akusala, or more kusala, whether we are getting 'better' or 'worse', whether > life seems 'lighter' or more 'burdened', I think gives a pretty accurate idea of > whether we're on the right track or not. A few days ago, a thought came up that scared me somewhat. One tendency of mine I recognized when I first joined dsg and heard about satipatthana, is that I like to explain my understandings to myself and philosophize about this and that. I behaved as if that was the way of understanding. That day I thought about the different "gurus" and spiritual teachers all over who manage to convince large crowds of people with beautiful explanations and I thought about how I do the same to myself. " Am I fooling myself, thinking I am doing just what needed to be done but could I instead be off track?". "How would I know if what I am doing is right?". I could say, " go study some more and find out what is the right path and what is not". But this would be 'hoping and wishing' no? And this I would qualify for "wrong practice". Doubts can arise, its just a dhamma. But trying to control dhamma, ie.,a reaction to akusala arisen and fallen away would be I think, be falling into the trap of silabattaparamasa. Panna can recognize the wrong path and only panna can lead us to the right one, but self 'reacts'. (It is my guess that the reactive self originates from the same source as the one which created the idea of progress in the first place.) > There are exceptions. I do think it is possible to do something like yoga with > devotion, and yoga will just naturally make you feel physically better over time. > This can mask what is really going on in a sense. A yogi can develop pride in the > body, pride at his physical prowess, and grow attached to the physical well-being > that comes from being flexible and strong. This doesn't mean someone shouldn't do > yoga, but it does mean that some pleasant feelings and accomplishments can also > create hindrances to non-attachment and realization of anatta and anicca. But one > has to be conscious of all of these things, and not just make snap judgments about > practices automatically being akusala either. First of all I think yoga is good for physical health, I wish I could do it myself. But let me talk about scientists a little. I think a good scientist can be very non-attached and objective in his field of practice, even more so than a yoga teacher. Because science is based on reason and disinterested observation of 'scientific' reality. But any system, if it is not with theoretical "right understanding" of realities, ie., kamma / vippaka, anatta, anicca etc., will only lead to a reinforcement of 'self' and an idea of control. > I still don't see why there has to be any more attachment with a meditation or > yoga practice than there is with a sutta or discernment practice. They all have > intention, so one has to do them for their purpose and keep an eye on the > attachment, pride, expectation, etc., that will be sure to be there. If one > discerns these things as they arise, then they will be seen to be just as empty in > the moment as any other object of discernment. When I sit down to read or listen there can be attachment or not, but I know that it is only intellectual, different from direct understanding. If there is doubt whether I have understood correctly or not and I get all stressed up trying to grasp the meaning, it will still not be considered `wrong practice' since it is aimed only at intellectual understanding. But what is going on when I sit down to meditate, I have a preconceived idea that I know what to look for. This means comparing what I've learnt theoretically with what I am experiencing and hoping that one day I will experience just what the texts talk about, in the mean time precision will increase. But I do not think it works this way, we do not know how much avija is being accumulated realted to an activity we `intentionaly' do. Sati cannot arise to a person (concept), sitting down to meditate(concept) and watching the breath(concept). In a day there is so much unintentional boosting of `atta sanna' when we identify with me, I, myself, mine or simply think about body parts or objects here and there. How much more so would that happen with a planned activity concerning `my' body and mind projected onto the future? > It may tell us whether we are on the right track or not. Isn't that part of > discernment? How can we be blissfully ignorant and hope that this will somehow > aid our practice? I may be blissfully unaware now as I write, but what happens when I'm reminded about mindfulness. If the conditions are right, there can be a moment of sati, otherwise I will remain unmindful. But what if I `try' to be mindful, can sati arise at will? If I don't have the intellectual knowledge about sati and concept, wouldn't "I" try to be mindful and then mistake what is not sati to be sati? > Measuring > > progress > > will condition an attempt to do something in relation to the result. *What > > will > > be that something to do?!* > > I don't have the feeling about *doing* things that you do. I think it's okay to > have the intention to do something and get a certain result. I still think that > making believe one doesn't have an intention has more danger that accepting the > intention that is there and working with it to release expectation and sincerely > go after the result proscribed by Buddha. We all want to develop kusala, panna, > vipassana, and reach Nibbana. The question is how do we follow this path, and > what do we do with these intentions. They're not going to go away. Understood. So what you are saying is that practice doesn't necessary mean a reactive response. It may originate from a clear purpose in life and understanding what the Buddha really taught. So we come back to whether the Buddha did teach meditation or not. Since we can't come to a conclusion at this stage, let us examine the matter a bit. I believe that jhana can be formally practiced if the accumulations and external conditions are right. Why, because jhana requires concentration on a conceptual object. But what does it mean to "practice satipatthana"? We hope that by observing breath, thoughts, feelings, sensations etc.,one day sati will be mindful of dhammas as they actually are (ie. when they arise). It is my understanding, that most meditators observe what they believe to be `rise and fall' of breath, feelings, thoughts etc. But we know from study, that rise and fall can be observed only after the objects to which rise and fall is refered has been known, ie. a nama or a rupa. Before that we must have had many many previous experiences of satipatthana, which is the visesa lakhana (individual characteristic) of dhammas. So aren't we having a contrary understanding to the way things really are? I think the practice is self defeating. > Yes, but those things that are most promoted and repeated will accumulate more. > If one is discerning realities all the time, there will be more discernment > accumulating and passed down. The cittas arising will be more discerning ones and > there will be more discerning cittas arising. If I am wrong about this, someone > with more experience can correct me. You are correct, but there is no `sef' who can direct this. > Well, I understand your sense of that. I am not as versed in the characteristics > of the sotapanna, and I tend not to judge people's attainment on all of the little > things they do. I'd like to meet a sotapanna and observe their behavior! But the result of the observation will only reflect the understanding of the observer no?;-) In Buddhism, a sotapanna is one who has eradicated the kilesas which would otherwise condition the breaking of the precepts. > Well, if that were absolutely true, there would be no need for the spiritual > friend to explain the dhamma, because this would be watering down the suttas, and > it would furthermore be polluting them. But the commentaries are there none the > less, and valued by practitioners. And the modern commentaries explain the > earlier commentaries, because despite the wisdom of the Buddha, without the > commentaries and sub-commentaries we can neither understand nor agree on the > meaning of the Buddha's words. So I would say that each generation reinterprets > the teachings for their generation, whether anyone likes this or doesn't like it. > Nina's books makes sense of Abhidhamma for this world, this time and place. I'm > sure in another age, she would have written another way. We need the people who > are here now, not just the Buddha, as perfect as his understanding was. The commentaries are good, Nina's writings are good and I often prefer them to reading the original words, because they explain something I would never otherwise understand had I only read the original teachings. I believe that Nina has done a great favour for us all in explaining otherwise difficult to understand texts. But is this an improvement? It only reflects an adjustment to time and place, but the adaptation and `all explanations' cannot retain the depth and scope of the original. A person with high level of accumulated wisdom would in my understanding, appreciate the direct word of the Buddha more than the commentaries. He would probably find the elaborate explanations unnecessary. Words can help but they can also misdirect. But this is just speculation on my part. > Well, you don't see mindfulness as a cumulative acquirement that is carried over > from practice to living. Yet, the citta theory acknowledges that cittas carry > the accumulations from previous cittas and there is a developmental movement in > the flow of cittas, based on what they experience and pick up. These things are > not completely lost in the moment, even though the citta falls away and another > rises. In practical experience we do experience that we accumulate tendencies and > understandings and become more skillful. If we didn't accumulate something, then > we would never learn to walk. Each step would be starting from scratch with no > prior learning from the step before, which is of course absurd. We do learn, and > we can learn mindfulness and become more mindful of arising realities through > practice just as we learn to walk through practice. You can say that the best > walking comes from natural walking, not from purposely practicing. The child > tries to get something and in the effort has to walk. But children also have > natural 'practice periods' where they purposely try to walk over and over again, > because they are tired of not being able to walk. They want to learn. Why not > with mindfulness as well? It doesn't seem absurd to me at all to do this and to > carry it over. Yes, but sati arises and falls, even a Buddha cannot have sati all the time. To think otherwise is to be taking what is not sati to be sati. Walking can be conditioned by kusala, akusala or kiriya cittas. I don't think you can compare this with a particular cetasika, namely sati. Sati arises with only beautiful cetasikas and it is much, much harder for the beautiful cetasikas to come together, than akusala ones. Surely it is not there when "someone" has it. > And when you meditate, it is not to confuse this with being enlightened, or > confuse this with everyday living, it is to meditate so you can develop your > understanding of the moments when you are meditating, and then that carries over > in a certain way. If you weren't interested in the 'theory' carrying over in some > way, you wouldn't do it. It is only because the theory has indirect bearing on > accumulation of insight and understanding of realities that one does it at all. > So i don't think it's completely honest to say that it is 'for theoretical > understanding only'. I admit that I am not completely honest with myself, there must be some degree of self deception. But whether this moment I study with detachment or I have the ulterior intention to have direct experience, will have an effect on how I read, write or listen in the future. Yet when I see theory as just theory, and my study is not taken as anything more( which can happen when I'm honest with myself), then I think this is different from meditating with an aim to understand what is going on, more so meditating with the aim of ultimately realizing nibbana. In the former there is acceptance of just knowing theory, words, concept; and understanding that all dhammas are anatta therefore cannot be directed and controled. In the latter there is a presupposition that `some dhamma' can direct the flow of other dhammas to the attainment of yet other dhammas. > Heh heh, it's quite an exercise, I agree! And we did the whole thing in the hope > of getting something out of it! Oh well!! Soon, soon I hope. Best wishes, Sukin. 13618 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jun 2, 2002 2:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities Howard --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... [Howard:] Well, it's hard for me to say exactly how I find the pragmatist - phenomenalist view helpful in understanding the Dhamma, but I will try. It provides me with a conceptual perspective for seeing the Dhamma in an integrated fashion, and it makes sense out of various parts of the teaching that I would find more difficult to grasp without it. It seems to fit well, and to make clear much that would not be clear to me. As an example, rebirth becomes change in realm of experience, rather like "changing channels", as opposed to somehow moving to a different externally existing physical place or realm. There is no problem of explaining how, without a transmigrating "soul", rebirth occurs - there is no need to come up with some external physical mechanism for one's kamma to induce a physical rebirth, because the physical is just a mode of experience, and rebirth is just a switching to a new channel of experience, the switch occurring, of course, only when the conditions for it are in place. Mentality and materiality hang together, being merely differing modes of experience. A constant stream of citta-cetasika-arramana events, the flow of experience: that is the world. That is "The All". Jon: Thanks for explaining this, Howard. I do appreciate that you feel your understanding of certain aspects of the dhamma has been helped by your interest in phenomenalism. Of course, it's not phenomenalism as such that helps make sense of the dhamma for you, but your predisposition towards the views and concepts that underlie the dhamma (and phenomenalism). I suppose I would just like to sound a note of caution, that when it comes to other aspects of the teachings, having this particular perspective may predispose you towards a view that is not in fact in accord with the teachings, and then it wouldn't be such a help. But I'm sure you're already alert to this possibility. Jon 13619 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jun 2, 2002 2:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: vitthaara sutta: To Jonothan Abbott And Nina van Gorkom Suan --- abhidhammika wrote: > > > Dear Nina, And Jonothan > > How are you? > > Thank you for your kind comments on Kamma In Color the English > language Commentary on Vittaara Suttam. > > As you might have been already aware of, there are people who > misunderstand Abhidhamma Pitaka. They think Abhidhamma Pitaka is an > unnecessary body of teachings lacking in important teachings found in > Suttam Pitaka. For example, Venerable Dhamarati thought that Four > Groups of Kamma found in Vitthaara Suttam could not be found in > Abhidhamma, and accordingly, threw a challenge at me and Robert by > asking to locate them in Abhidhamma Pitaka and show referrences. > > My commentary has been written to remove such misunderstanding > rampant among some Buddhist thinkers. I am to a certain extent sympathetic to anyone who sees the Abhidhamma as teaching something different from the suttanta, since it took me a very long while myself to appreciate how both bodies of teaching are carrying the same message. I think your commentary is a good example of how it needs a detailed knowledge of both in order to be able to relate one to the other. I've no doubt it will inspire others to study and inquire further. Jon 13620 From: Lucy Date: Mon Jun 10, 2002 5:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, to Sarah, and offerings, to Lucy Dear Nina Thank you for bringing up the offering of sounds. This is one of my favs - although, as you say, it is sometimes difficult to remember straight away because music has a way of captivating and engulfing the mind and it's not easy to remain mindful. But the offering of a beautiful sound to the Three Gems increases the joy of listening and this is an incentive to always offer. I notice that even if I've forgotten to offer, the thought of offering arises spontaneously soon as the music or sound (birds and gurgling water included) reaches a peak of exquisiteness. I think the same goes for the scent of flowers or anything else that is beautiful. Offering makes things even more beautiful... but then there is often a lingering thought about the experienced beauty being actually merit that is being spent...does Khun Sujin say anything about this? At one time I used to be nearly paranoid about even opening a water tap thinking that this was wasting kusala that was needed for enlightenment. In my line of "deviation" this includes all beings - so one is even more guilty about letting all other beings down by enjoying something on one's own. Offering whatever it is makes one feel less guilty and less paranoid. Now, if I remember (sigh!), I also offer running water, driving cars on nice smooth roads and switching lights on. Best wishes Lucy 13621 From: Lucy Date: Mon Jun 10, 2002 5:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 10 (1) and so-on Dear Larry I feel rather guilty at letting you on your on with this . Thing is, I am hopelessly behind. I took the text with me but it all remained in the aspiration state. But this is a chapter that really interested me. Though I guess most of those questions have to wait until enlightenment to be answered. Only one for now: just HOW is the body / rupa appropriated ??? This isn't at all clear to me, is there a heap of rupa out there (where???) waiting to be taken by a nama (re-becoming) ? Doesn't this contradict what the Visdm. say about there not being a store of skandha out there waiting to be appropriated? I can understand one citta being the cause for the next one to arise, and a succession of these going on endlessly since beginningless time ... but what about "matter"??? Is it out there following its own course? Why? How? What happens before a Big Bang when all matter may be condensed into a super-duper-atom about to become a Universe? And why does Dependent Origination say that "name-and-form" arises in dependence upon "consciousness"??? It doesn't say that rupa is harvested by citta from among a selection of rupa following its own course somewhere else - or does it? And how come that the birth citta manages to find itself a chunk of rupa (genes, parents, environment, etc.) that is exactly suitable to its ripening karma and to the death citta ... Has anyone worked out the mathematical / probability implications of this? Lucy 13622 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Sun Jun 2, 2002 6:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 10 (1) and so-on -- Dear Lucy, The texts say that at the first moment of a new life the rebirth- consciousness (patisandhi-citta) which arises is produced by kamma that was perfomed at some prior time. This citta can arise in planes where there are both nama and rupa (mentality and materiality) such as the human or animal realm or, so the texts say, in planes where there is no matter (the arupa brahma realms). If it is in a human or animal world (for example) then it arises at the heart base which is also produced by kamma. But the other rupas that support the heart base are produced not by kamma but by other factors such as temperature. Very quickly this tiny mass of matter and mentality grows: the matter is conditioned by various factors - nutrition, citta, kamma and temperature and in a few short weeks what was barely visible is a sizeable object. Your comment "And how come that the birth citta manages to find itself a chunk > of rupa (genes, parents, environment, etc.) that is exactly suitable to its > ripening karma and to the death citta ... Has anyone worked out the mathematical / > probability implications of this?"" The mass of rupas that comprise the egg and sperm before the patisandhicitta arises is only matter produced by temperature. If we think that it has to be exact and that it is all determined by genes' from the parent we won't understand the complexity of kamma and other conditions. Take identical twins: they can never be exactly the same even though genetically they are identical, in some ways their behaviour is a little different. Or recently a cat was cloned (an exact genetic duplicate of the mother) the report noted: ""Genetic tests confirm that the kitten, now two months old, is indeed a genetic copy of the original calico cell donor. Interestingly, the kitten does not have the same coloring as the genetic parent, a fact the researchers attribute to the play of dueling X chromosomes and developmental factors outside the control of the nucleic DNA.""" http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SU/SU102001/copycat.html I read some reports where some scientists were suprised about this but it seems perfectly understandable when we know that 'genes' are only part of the story. You ask about what happens when the aeon ends and before a new aeon begins. In the Brahmajala sutta the Buddha says "there comes a time, bhikkhus when after a long period this world contracts. While the world is contracting (disintergrating) beings for the most part are born in the abhassara brahma world there they dwell mind made feeding on rature..and they continue thus for a long time..But sooner or alter there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. When the world begins to expand an empty palace of brahma appears.Then a certain being, due to exhaustion of his lifespan or merit arise there....." I could add more if you like. best wishes robert - "Lucy" wrote: > Dear Larry > > I feel rather guilty at letting you on your on with this . Thing is, I am > hopelessly behind. I took the text with me but it all > remained in the aspiration state. > > But this is a chapter that really interested me. Though > I guess most of those questions have to wait until enlightenment > to be answered. > > Only one for now: just HOW is the body / rupa appropriated ??? This isn't > at all clear to me, is there a heap of rupa out there (where???) waiting to > be taken by a nama (re-becoming) ? Doesn't this contradict what the Visdm. > say about there not being a store of skandha out there waiting to be > appropriated? I can understand one citta being the cause for the next one > to arise, and a succession of these going on endlessly since beginningless > time ... but what about "matter"??? Is it out there following its own > course? Why? How? What happens before a Big Bang when all matter may be > condensed into a super-duper-atom about to become a Universe? And why does > Dependent Origination say that "name-and-form" arises in dependence upon > "consciousness"??? It doesn't say that rupa is harvested by citta > from among a selection of rupa following its own course somewhere else - or > does it? And how come that the birth citta manages to find itself a chunk > of rupa (genes, parents, environment, etc.) that is exactly suitable to its > ripening karma and to the death citta ... Has anyone worked out the > mathematical / > probability implications of this? > > Lucy 13623 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jun 2, 2002 7:02pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Satipatthana - realisation of the 3 characteristics Rob Ep You question whether in fact seeing the ti-lakkhana (3 characteristics), and particularly anatta, in the arising object can be anything more than a kind of conceptual understanding. I think it's clear from the texts that the realisation of these attributes is meant to be a direct (i.e., non-conceptual) one. The texts also indicate that this realisation requires a relatively highly developed level of direct knowledge of dhammas to be significant. The difficulty of experiencing dhammas to the degree that the characteristic of anatta can be perceived is mentioned in the passage from the 'Dispeller of Delusion' quoted below. From our studies, we know that in fact that these characteristics are not truly known until enlightenment is attained. Penetration of the 3 characterises is one of the indicators of magga citta. I agree that the reflection on something one has just experienced can only ever bring observations that are 'thought-related and deductively drawn'. In fact, I would say any such 'understanding' should correctly be viewed as a kind of thinking, nothing special, which may or may not be kusala. Only the understanding that comes from direct knowledge can give the perception of the ti-lakkhana *in* the object. It is the Buddha's teaching that this can be realised each person for themselves, but no doubt it needs a lot of patience and careful study to be possible to verify this. Jon From Sammohavinodani, commentary to the Vibhanga -- 'Dispeller of Delusion', Pali Text Society, p. 59 & 60: "The characteristic of no-self is unobvious, dark, unclear, difficult to penetrate, difficult to illustrate, difficult to make known. The characteristics of impermanence and dukkha are made known with or without the arising of the Tathagathas. The characteristic of no-self … is only made known on the arising of the enlightened ones. … "The characteristic of no-self does not appear owing to not keeping in mind, not penetrating the resolution into the various elements (nanadhatuvinbbhoga) owing to its being concealed by compactness.... But when ... resolving of the compact (ghanavinibbhoga) is effected by resolution into the various elements, the characteristic of anatta appears in accordance with its true essential nature." --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Hi Jon. > Comments below. ... > ... I have a hard time seeing the discernment of anatta, > anicca and dukkha in the arising object as being a non-conceptual > understanding. > I mean, it is a realization that these qualities exist in the object, not > something that can be directly perceived. Where does 'anatta' live in a > rupa or > nama in the moment? Anatta is the absence of something, it cannot be > perceived as > a direct quality, same thing for anicca. It is only upon reflection on > the > momentary nature one has experienced, immediately afterwards perhaps, > that one can > deduce anatta or anicca as a quality of the object. It seems to me to > be a very > direct but thought-related insight. If I am used to assuming that an > object has a > fixed and substantial nature, and I suddenly see with clear discernment > that it > lasts only a moment and then changes into something else, then I can > draw the > conclusion; 'there is no fixed entity here [anatta], and there is no > permanent > reality but only a very fleeting one [anicca]. Buddha seems to describe > this kind > of insight as a kind of statement in many, many suttas, and it seems to > me that > this is an insight, an understanding, that is deductively drawn from a > direct > discernment, rather than being directly discerned itself. > > If you disagree with this, please explain how anatta or anicca can be > perceived > through a sense-door. If it is a nama, then it is a thought *about* a > rupa that > has just been perceived and that has passed. And this is different than > perceiving anatta, anicca and dukkha *in* the object in the moment. > > The reason I am emphasizing this, is that I think the role of useful > concepts may > be a very strong one, when they are based on direct discernment. 13624 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jun 2, 2002 7:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. Howard I agree with your comment below about the overwhelming thrust of the Abhidhamma, and I have no argument at all with the passage from Nyanaponika Thera's book. Just to state what I have read about this, I believe the abhidhamma holds that the rupas we take to be inanimate objects are conditioned by utu (temperature), and by that alone and no other condition. It follows necessarily from this, I think, that those dhammas arise independently of any experience of them. Not that I see this as being any big issue, but just to try to clarify this point of detail. Jon --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 6/1/02 3:33:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Jon writes: > > > > Talking about (a) then, I see that as not being a correct statement > (as I > > think I've indicated in another post or posts). I'd be interested to > know > > what part of the Abhidhamma you have in mind here. Thanks. > > > ================================= > Statement (a) is: The Buddhist perspective, and most explicitly > so in > Abhidhamma, doesn't countenance objects existing independently of > experience. > As you know, my ignorance of Abhidhamma runs deep ;-)), and, > thus, I'm > not in any position to give useful detail. The answer is merely that the > > overwhelming thrust of Abhidhamma as I have so far encountered it is > that of > a detailed description of *experience*. It appears to be more of a > phenomenology than an ontology. Nyanaponika Thera, for example, in his > ABHIDHAMMA STUDIES, wrote: "The Abhidhamma system, however, is not > concerned > with an artificial abstract world of 'objects in themselves'. In so far > as > it deals with external facts at all, the respective concepts refer to > the > relation of those 'external facts' to the bondage or liberation of the > human > mind; or they are terms auxiliary to the tasks of the understanding and > mental training connected with the work of liberation." That certainly > seems > to express a phenomenological and pragmatist/utilitarian perspective. > > With metta, > Howard 13625 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jun 2, 2002 7:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities. Howard You quoting CMA back at me … Now, there's an interesting turn of events!! ;-)) --- Howard wrote: > Hi again, Jon - > > Here is another example of seeing Abhidhamma as a > phenomenological > enterprise. The following is from the introduction (by U Rewata Dhamma > and > Bhikkhu Bodhi) to a Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma: > *************** > The Abhidhamma's attempt to comprehend the nature of reality, contrary > to > that of classical science in the West, does not proceed from the > standpoint > of a neutral observer looking outwards towards the external world. The > primary concern of the Abhidhamma is to understand the nature of > experience, > and thus the reality on which it focuses is conscious reality, the world > as > given in experience, comprising both knowledge and the known in the > widest > sense. For this reason the philosophical enterprise of the Abhidhamma > shades > off into a phenomenological psychology. > ************************* I have no particular disagreement with this passage (except that I can't comment on the last sentence). But I don't think it suggests that the Abhidhamma is altogether silent on the point of our discussion. Jon 13626 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jun 2, 2002 7:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pointing us to treasure Dear Christine & All, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear All, > > Recently in a discussion with a dhamma friend, something was > mentioned that seemed a little different to how I'd previously > regarded relations with others, and which I'm still thinking over. > The friend said that if another person points out our (true) > faults, "regardless of this other person's intentions", we should see > it as someone pointing us to treasure. ***** I’m no expert when it comes to the graceful acceptance of criticism (quite the contrary), but I have been reflecting a little over the weekend and I’d like to offer a few comments about aspects I find helpful in this regard. I also learn a lot from my students in this regard -- some can really hear and appreciate criticism which tends to encourage the teacher to help more (and with more goodwill, I find). For others, their inclination is to react and argue which tends to discourage assistance and goodwill. I think that usually, the problem with hearing adverse comments or criticism -- and surely the reason we find it easier to pounce on our perception of the speaker’s unwholesomeness-- is mana (conceit) and clinging to self again. As we know conceit ‘has haughtiness as characteristic, self-praise as function, desire to (advertise self like) a banner as manifestation....’. When we hear the adverse comments, the banner can be so apparent, I find. We’ve discussed before the list of objects on account of which mana arises from the Vibhanga (17) and these include “...pride of gain; pride of being honoured; pride of being respected; pride of prominence; pride of having adherents; pride of wealth; pride of appearance; pride of intelligence; pride of being a knowledgeable authority;...”. We also know that because of the attachment to self and finding oneself so important, we cling to the 8 worldly conditions and very seldom see the value of being a ‘nobody’ or a dust-rag as Sariputta did. On one of our trips to India, K.Sujin talked a lot about the value of reflecting in this very way. When I first heard it, again the banner would start waving and I was aware of how much discomfort there was at considering the value of being a door-mat that anyone could criticise or trample over. Gradually, I’ve come to appreciate these reminders more and more and to see what precious ‘treasure’ they are. The following are two passages that Nina wrote in letters about K.Sujin’s example of the dustrag on that trip: ***** 1.http://www.dhammastudy.com/lv9.html “Khun Sujin had reminded us in India to become like a dustrag which serves for wiping the feet. A dustrag takes up filth and is undisturbed by it. One should become as humble as a dustrag. Sariputta, who could forgive anybody, no matter whether that person treated him in an unjust manner, compared himself with a dustrag. He had no conceit. When right understanding has been developed one will cling less to the self, there will be more humbleness. During the discussions Khun Sujin said again: I would like to be a dustrag. I follow the way to be one, it is my resolution. Our resolution means that we take action by developing understanding and metta. . It is beneficial to be reminded again of the dustrag, because humbleness seems to go against our nature. As understanding develops it must lead to letting go of namas and rupas. What we take for self are only impermanent namas and rupas. When their impermanence has been realized can they be as important as before? ' We read in the "Vinaya" (VI, Parivara, Ch XII) how the monk should behave when he approaches the Sangha when it is convened for the investigation of a legal question. We read: ...he should approach the Order with a humble mind, with a mind as though it were removing dust. He should be skilled about seats and skilled about sitting down. He should sit down on a suitable seat without encroaching on (the space intended for) monks who are Elders and without keeping newly ordained monks from a seat. He should not talk in a desultory fashion, nor about inferior (worldly) matters. Either he should speak Dhamma himself or should ask another to do so, or he should not disdain the ariyan silence... The commentary (the Samantapasadika) adds to "with a mind as though it were removing dust" : "like a towel for wiping the feet." ***** 2.http://www.dhammastudy.com/lv6.html “There is conceit if we have an idea that we should be "somebody with great wisdom". We should follow Sariputta's example who compared himself with a dustrag, a useless rag without any value. If we do not consider ourselves "somebody", but rather a "nobody", it will prevent us from pretending, even to ourselves, that we are more advanced than we in reality are. We also need the perfection of truthfulness (sacca) to keep us on the right track. We have to be sincere, truthful to reality. Do we want to avoid being aware of akusala? We have to be aware of it in order to know our true accumulations. If we are not aware of akusala we will take what is akusala for kusala. We need to develop the perfection of equanimity in order to learn to accept with kusala citta the vicissitudes of life. Praise and blame are only realities which arise because of their own conditions, in reality people are not the cause of praise or blame. When people do wrong to us we can develop metta if we see the value of metta. Instead of having aversion about people's bad points we will try to remember their good qualities. If they have none there can be compassion or there can be equanimity. There can be equanimity when we remember that the real cause of unpleasant experiences through the senses is not a person but our own kamma. We should carefully consider the different perfections and then we will be reminded to develop them in our daily life, they are needed in each situation. Khun Sujin said that while she prepares lectures for the radio she needs many perfections, such as metta, patience, energy and equanimity. When there is equanimity she does not feel hurt when people do not want to listen to her or when they criticize her." ***** When we listen to and consider the teachings, as we read in the Simile of the Snake, they should be ‘grasped’ in a way which leads to less mana and clinging to self importance rather than the reverse. I know this is getting rather long, but at risk of over-testing everyone’s patience, I’d like to requote two paragraphs from ADL (ch 5) which Larry wisely repeated in a post to Dai Wen as an offering of assistance for the difficult office situation, emphasising the value of understanding phenomena as namas and rupas, not self: -------------------- "All degrees of lobha, be it coarse or more subtle, bring sorrow. We are like slaves as long as we are absorbed in and infatuated by the objects which present themselves through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body-sense and mind. We are not free if our happiness depends on the situation we are in, and the way others behave towards us. One moment people may be kind to us, but the next moment they may be unpleasant. If we attach too much importance to the affection of other, we shall be easily disturbed in mind, and thus become slaves of our moods and emotions. We can become more independent and free if we realize that both we ourselves and other people are only nama and rupa, phenomena arising because of conditions and falling away again. When others say unpleasant things to us there are conditions which cause them to speak in that way, and there are conditions which cause us to hear such words. Other people's behaviour and our reactions to it are conditioned phenonomena which do not stay. At the moment we are thinking about these phenomena, they have already fallen away. The development of insight is the way to become less dependent on the vicissitudes of life. When there is mindfulness of the present moment, we attach less importance to the way people behave towards us." ***** “At the moment we are thinking about these phenomena, they have already fallen away” Hoping you find these offerings to be of some use. Sarah ======= --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear All, > > Recently in a discussion with a dhamma friend, something was > mentioned that seemed a little different to how I'd previously > regarded relations with others, and which I'm still thinking over. > The friend said that if another person points out our (true) > faults, "regardless of this other person's intentions", we should see > it as someone pointing us to treasure. 13627 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Sun Jun 2, 2002 8:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pointing us to treasure --- This is all great stuff, Sarah. Christine wrote a very nice passage along similar lines about dosa(aversion ) on d-l today. I think I can't hear enough about these matters. The posts by Sukin and Dan especially, over the last few weeks, about wrong practice have been so sagacious that we might overlook these points below, because we(or I am- no offense to anyone) are so conceited that we often don't even know it is present: but the thing is that conceit is a papanca that prolongs samsara and when we are not awake to it we are contented and deluded, living in a fools paradise. It applies just as much to one who studies the Dhamma as one who doesn't. Dispeller of delusion part 11 p225 notes that one may study the Dhamma with an attitude of grasping, wanting to be better and wiser than others: "it is not permissible to learn (the discourses) actuated by presumption(or competitiveness,sarambho); that is on the unprofitable side and it is the path which leads to hell". It is one of the things I always get from Acharn sujin - that the Dhamma is learnt for the purpose of giving up self not for accumulating: but easy to forget and get swept along in the current of conceit and view and craving. best robert Sarah wrote: > > The following are two passages that Nina wrote in letters about K.Sujin's > example of the dustrag on that trip: > ***** > 1.http://www.dhammastudy.com/lv9.html > "Khun Sujin had reminded us in India to become like a dustrag which serves > for wiping the feet. A dustrag takes up filth and is undisturbed by it. > One should become as humble as a dustrag. Sariputta, who could forgive > anybody, no matter whether that person treated him in an unjust manner, > compared himself with a dustrag. He had no conceit. When right > understanding has been developed one will cling less to the self, there > will be more humbleness. During the discussions Khun Sujin said again: > > I would like to be a dustrag. I follow the way to be one, it is my > resolution. Our resolution means that we take action by developing > understanding and metta. . > > It is beneficial to be reminded again of the dustrag, because humbleness > seems to go against our nature. As understanding develops it must lead to > letting go of namas and rupas. What we take for self are only impermanent > namas and rupas. When their impermanence has been realized can they be as > important as before? ' > > We read in the "Vinaya" (VI, Parivara, Ch XII) how the monk should behave > when he approaches the Sangha when it is convened for the investigation of > a legal question. We read: > > ...he should approach the Order with a humble mind, with a mind as though > it were removing dust. He should be skilled about seats and skilled about > sitting down. He should sit down on a suitable seat without encroaching on > (the space intended for) monks who are Elders and without keeping newly > ordained monks from a seat. He should not talk in a desultory fashion, nor > about inferior (worldly) matters. Either he should speak Dhamma himself or > should ask another to do so, or he should not disdain the ariyan > silence... > The commentary (the Samantapasadika) adds to "with a mind as though it > were removing dust" : "like a towel for wiping the feet." > ***** > 2.http://www.dhammastudy.com/lv6.html > "There is conceit if we have an idea that we should be "somebody with > great wisdom". We should follow Sariputta's example who compared himself > with a dustrag, a useless rag without any value. If we do not consider > ourselves "somebody", but rather a "nobody", it will prevent us from > pretending, even to ourselves, that we are more advanced than we in > reality are. We also need the perfection of truthfulness (sacca) to keep > us on the right track. We have to be sincere, truthful to reality. Do we > want to avoid being aware of akusala? We have to be aware of it in order > to know our true accumulations. If we are not aware of akusala we will > take what is akusala for kusala. We need to develop the perfection of > equanimity in order to learn to accept with kusala citta the vicissitudes > of life. Praise and blame are only realities which arise because of their > own conditions, in reality people are not the cause of praise or blame. > When people do wrong to us we can develop metta if we see the value of > metta. Instead of having aversion about people's bad points we will try to > remember their good qualities. If they have none there can be compassion > or there can be equanimity. There can be equanimity when we remember that > the real cause of unpleasant experiences through the senses is not a > person but our own kamma. We should carefully consider the different > perfections and then we will be reminded to develop them in our daily > life, they are needed in each situation. Khun Sujin said that while she > prepares lectures for the radio she needs many perfections, such as metta, > patience, energy and equanimity. When there is equanimity she does not > feel hurt when people do not want to listen to her or when they criticize > her." > ***** > > When we listen to and consider the teachings, as we read in the Simile of > the Snake, they should be `grasped' in a way which leads to less mana and > clinging to self importance rather than the reverse. > > I know this is getting rather long, but at risk of over-testing > everyone's patience, I'd like to requote two paragraphs from ADL (ch 5) > which Larry wisely repeated in a post to Dai Wen as an offering of > assistance for the difficult office situation, emphasising the value of > understanding phenomena as namas and rupas, not self: > -------------------- > "All degrees of lobha, be it coarse or more subtle, bring sorrow. We are > like slaves as long as we are absorbed in and infatuated by the objects > which present themselves through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body- sense > and mind. We are not free if our happiness depends on the situation we > are in, and the way others behave towards us. One moment people may be > kind to us, but the next moment they may be unpleasant. If we attach too > much importance to the affection of other, we shall be easily disturbed > in mind, and thus become slaves of our moods and emotions. > > We can become more independent and free if we realize that both we > ourselves and other people are only nama and rupa, phenomena arising > because of conditions and falling away again. When others say unpleasant > things to us there are conditions which cause them to speak in that way, > and there are conditions which cause us to hear such words. Other > people's behaviour and our reactions to it are conditioned phenonomena > which do not stay. At the moment we are thinking about these phenomena, > they have already fallen away. The development of insight is the way to > become less dependent on the vicissitudes of life. When there is > mindfulness of the present moment, we attach less importance to the way > people behave towards us." > ***** > "At the moment we are thinking about these phenomena, they have already > fallen away" > > Hoping you find these offerings to be of some use. > > Sarah > ======= > > > > --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear All, > > > > Recently in a discussion with a dhamma friend, something was > > mentioned that seemed a little different to how I'd previously > > regarded relations with others, and which I'm still thinking over. > > The friend said that if another person points out our (true) > > faults, "regardless of this other person's intentions", we should see > > it as someone pointing us to treasure. > > > 13628 From: yuzhonghao Date: Sun Jun 2, 2002 8:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pointing us to treasure > It is one of the things I always get from Acharn sujin - that the > Dhamma is learnt for the purpose of giving up self not for > accumulating: but easy to forget and get swept along in the current > of conceit and view and craving. > best > robert Robert and all, See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/udana/ud5-01.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-002.html Dhamma is learned not for the purpose of giving up self. Regards, Victor 13629 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jun 2, 2002 9:42pm Subject: lokasutta and commentary Dear Howard and all, here is Howard's quote of the sutta , and the commentary I have in Thai and Pali. The quote here should be completed, by stating the opposite, and I have the PTS edition. See below. Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. > For free distribution only. Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One > addressed the monks: "I will teach you the origination of the world & the > ending of the world. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you > say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said: > "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms > there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is 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. This is the > origination of the world. " My additions: the same is said about hearing and sound...etc. mind and things experienced through mind-consciousness. The opposite is also stated in this sutta: Just one remark for Kelvin who heard it said that the Abhidhamma is not taught by the Buddha. This sutta is one of the countless examples that the Buddha taught Abhidhamma all the time. This sutta is about the conditions for seeing, etc. and about the Dependent origination. Is that Abhidhamma or not? Now I continue with the Commentary: the world: < lokassaa ti, sankhaara-lokassa. Ayam ettha viseso. Of the world, meaning, the world of sankharas. This is here the meaning.> My remark: the world is here the conditioned dhammas, sankhaara dhammas. In the Thai edition it is said, for the commentary, go to the commentary of the preceding sutta, about dukkha. The same words are used here, we just have to substitute for dukkha, the world. What is the arising of dukkha? because of sight and visible objects, visual consciousness arises. Therefore, I go now over to the commentary to this sutta which is also relevant to the sutta about the arising of the world. (K. II, Niddaanavagga, Kindred Sayings on Cause, Ch 5, §43): Now I only render the text in short (lack of time): Of dukkha: dukkha of vatta, the cycle of birth and death. Samudaya, origination: of two kinds: momentary origination and origination by paccaya, condition. When the bhikkhu sees the origination by condition, he also sees the momentary origination, and the opposite is true.The commentary explains also that there are two kinds of cessation: complete falling away and the breaking up (Pali: rodha, meaning obstruction, prevention). My remark: the first way of cessation is momentary such as citta that falls away now. The second one: falling away for good, no more condiitons for arising again. The Co explains that when the Bhikkhu sees the first kind of cessation he also see the second one, and the opposite. My remark: when there is the association of eyesense, visible object and seeing, there is the manifestation of contact. The Commentary states: My remarks: the four noble Truths have been taught here, is this Abhidhamma or not? It is a good reminder that the bhikkhu sees origination and cessation with regard to a twofold meaning. If the arising and falling away of nama and rupa at this moment are not realized, there cannot be the realization of the dependent origination, the arising of the condiitons leading to rebirth, beginning with ignorance, and the conditions leading to the end of the cycle, the end of rebirth, through panna that has eradicated ignorance. I have more to say on this sutta, but I finish now. Nina. 13630 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jun 2, 2002 9:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg]lokasutta and phenomenology op 01-06-2002 13:57 schreef Howard op Howard: Dear Howard, Do you teach higher mathematics? I would like to know, because I really try to understand the philosophical terms you use. At first I was scary of these terms, but slowly I get used to them. Did you read Plato in Greek? For me it is long ago, but I enjoyed his precision, nuances, expressed by all these small particles. For the same reason I like Pali and the Abhidhamma. I like to find out about the ideas you want to express. You express yourself in a measured way, and I do not think you are inclined to go into extremes. I collected the posts of your long dialogues with Jon, in order to figure out what you mean by phenomenology, pragmatism. Your quotes from Nyanaponika and also from the Manual are interesting. I shall come back to these quotes. Some of the other things you said: a challenging definition of rebirth: change in realm of experience instead of change to externally existing plane. Well, what do you think of this: the plane of existence is a condition for the objects that will be experienced after rebirth-consciousness? In this line we speak of the animal world, but it is not a specific place, I see dogs all around. But there are specific conditions for their experiences in life as an animal. They have their limitations, can develop kusala but not panna. I gather that your main point is that the Abhidhamma does not countenance objects existing independently of experience. For this I shall go back first to the Lokasutta: Eyesense is a rupa that is able to receive visible object, another rupa. When visible object impinges on the eyesense, there is a condition for seeing. Rupa lasts longer than citta, in fact seventeen times longer than citta. We do not count cittas here, but this is a mode of comparison of the duration of rupa and nama. Thus, visible object is seen, and apart from seeing, other cittas in the eye-door process also experience visible object. These cittas do not see but perform other functions, adverting, receiving the object, investigating it, determining it, reacting to it with kusala or akusala. In fact a whole process of cittas experience visible object which has not fallen away yet. Rupa that arises is weak at its arising moment, it cannot be object yet, neither can it be base. It is there, it is real, but it is not experienced yet for that short moment. After the arising moment it can be object that is experienced. Or something else can happen: visible object arises, and it makes the bhavangacitta (life-continuum, arising in between processes) vibrate, but, since it had already arisen for a while, it was time for its falling away, before eye-door process cittas had an opportunity to experience it; it cannot last longer than seventeen moments of citta. In that case the process does not run. We read in the Book of Analysis: Ch 16, Analysis of Knowledge, 319, under 1. Singlefold Exposition: When we consider rupas such as visible object or sound, these arise and fall away but they are not experienced all the time. They arise and fall away in groups of rupas consisting of the four great Elements and other derived rupas. Even if we see the Abhidhamma as a phenomenological enterprise (a challenging definition again, isn't it quite an enterprise to develop understanding) still, when we consider also those phenomena that are not experienced yet, such as the pre-existing object, it helps us to see conditions. It is good to stress : study and be aware of what can be experienced now. But also: there are many more phenomena that are not experienced, but these can form up conditions for experience. The fact that they are not experienced now does not make them less real. Now the quotes: ================================= H: Statement (a) is: The Buddhist perspective, and most explicitly so in > Abhidhamma, doesn't countenance objects existing independently of experience. The answer is merely that the > overwhelming thrust of Abhidhamma as I have so far encountered it is that of > a detailed description of *experience*. It appears to be more of a > phenomenology than an ontology. Nyanaponika Thera, for example, in his > ABHIDHAMMA STUDIES, wrote: "The Abhidhamma system, however, is not concerned > with an artificial abstract world of 'objects in themselves'. In so far as > it deals with external facts at all, the respective concepts refer to the > relation of those 'external facts' to the bondage or liberation of the human > mind; or they are terms auxiliary to the tasks of the understanding and > mental training connected with the work of liberation." That certainly seems > to express a phenomenological and pragmatist/utilitarian perspective. N:The Abh. does not deal with abstractions, I agree. Here Nyanaponika seems to think that external facts are the same as concepts. But see above re: rupa as object. He mentions the goal of the study and that is right: liberation from bondage. H: Here is another example of seeing Abhidhamma as a phenomenological enterprise. The following is from the introduction (by U Rewata Dhamma and Bhikkhu Bodhi) to a Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma: *************** The Abhidhamma's attempt to comprehend the nature of reality, contrary to that of classical science in the West, does not proceed from the standpoint of a neutral observer looking outwards towards the external world. The primary concern of the Abhidhamma is to understand the nature of experience, and thus the reality on which it focuses is conscious reality, the world as given in experience, comprising both knowledge and the known in the widest sense. For this reason the philosophical enterprise of the Abhidhamma shades off into a phenomenological psychology. ************************* N: he wants to stress that the Abh is for practice by using the words phenomenological psychology. I think that all such terms are loaded with specific notions that may not entirely cover the meaning of the teaching. You also said this in one of your posts. He uses them in order to make the Dhamma understandable for the western reader, but, we have to be careful here. Just some of my personal ideas. I am glad you brought up these questions and the lokasutta, it was good and enjoyable for me to consider all this. As to Katavatthu: I quote again: The Kathavatthu deals in the first chapter, no. 1, with the question ²Is > the person known in the sense of a real and ultimate object?² The Sakavadin > (Theravada) and the Paravadin (those of other beliefs) debate about this. > The commentary gives a definition of ³In the sense of a real and ultimate > object²: > magic, a mirage and the like; actual. ³Ultimate² means that which is not to > be accepted as hearsay; highest sense...> > N: I find this last part: very clear and an > excellent reminder to verify whatever appears. Like pain: can we verify it, > is it real, not imagination? It is there just for a moment, but very real. > We do not doubt about it. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I share your liking of this last part. It gives a good sense for 'real'. The first part, however, is not to my liking. For example, see the mirage-like terminology used in the Sutta Nipata (in the Uragga Sutta?), and, elsewwher, especially see the Phena Sutta. All conditioned dhammas are like foam, mirages, dreams - are hollow, fleeting phantoms. N: I like the Phena Sutta, also what Num wrote about it. It stresses: no core, no essence, no self. Now the first part of Katavatthu quote you do not like: here is not a denial of the impermanence of realities (actualities), it merely stresses: they are impermament but still very real, no nonsense, not an imagination. The other texts of mirage you mention etc. stress : we think of a person we find so important, but really, they are only fleeting phenomena. To solve this contradiction, could it be that we should look at what is stressed in a particular text? Again, to speak with Num: just my own ideas. With appreciation, Nina. 13631 From: <> Date: Sun Jun 2, 2002 11:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Merit Making Jon, you wrote: "To my way of thinking, it is more important to have a better understanding of one's own citta than to concern ourselves with the quality of others' kusala." This reminds me of a long held doubt concerning the meaning of "internally and externally" in the Satipatthana Sutta. The usual explanation for contemplating the body, for example, externally is that this means contemplating the body of another. This seems extremely unlikely to me. I don't see what a monk is doing contemplating the body of another in an empty hut. At the moment, I can think of two alternative explanations: observing the body from 'outside', like a mirror; or observing the body in space, similar to stage presence. Of the two, I think I prefer the second just because mirroring oneself is a little tricky and complicated. So observing the breath very closely would be observing internally and observing the breath in the space of this hut would be observing externally. Do you, or anyone else, have any thoughts on this? Larry 13632 From: Howard Date: Sun Jun 2, 2002 7:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts and realities Hi, Jon - In a message dated 6/2/02 2:48:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jon writes: > Howard > > --- Howard wrote: > > Hi, Jon - > ... > [Howard:] > Well, it's hard for me to say exactly how I find the pragmatist - > phenomenalist view helpful in understanding the Dhamma, but I will try. It > provides me with a conceptual perspective for seeing the Dhamma in an > integrated fashion, and it makes sense out of various parts of the > teaching that I would find more difficult to grasp without it. It seems to > fit well, and to make clear much that would not be clear to me. As an > example, rebirth becomes change in realm of experience, rather like > "changing channels", as opposed to somehow moving to a different > externally existing physical place or realm. There is no problem of > explaining how, without a transmigrating "soul", rebirth occurs - there is > no need to come up with some external physical mechanism for one's kamma > to induce a physical rebirth, because the physical is just a mode of > experience, and rebirth is just a switching to a new channel of > experience, the switch occurring, of course, only when the conditions for > it are in place. Mentality and materiality hang together, being merely > differing modes of experience. A constant stream of > citta-cetasika-arramana events, the flow of experience: that is the world. > That is "The All". > > Jon: > Thanks for explaining this, Howard. I do appreciate that you feel your > understanding of certain aspects of the dhamma has been helped by your > interest in phenomenalism. > > Of course, it's not phenomenalism as such that helps make sense of the > dhamma for you, but your predisposition towards the views and concepts > that underlie the dhamma (and phenomenalism). --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think it's a bit of each, but I do not at ALL dismiss your point about my predisposition. Everyone of us filters our experience through our predispositions - through a glass, darkly ;-), and it is important not to lose sight of our own blinders. --------------------------------------------------- > > I suppose I would just like to sound a note of caution, that when it comes > to other aspects of the teachings, having this particular perspective may > predispose you towards a view that is not in fact in accord with the > teachings, and then it wouldn't be such a help. But I'm sure you're > already alert to this possibility. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, I have, but I very much appreciate your putting some emphasis on it. We cannot be reminded too often of what is really important. ----------------------------------------------- > > 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) 13633 From: Lucy Date: Tue Jun 11, 2002 0:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Antidotes to lobha Hello Jon Long time, long ago (we were talking about expedient means) you wrote: > I'm sure we would all like to have less kilesa (or at least less of the kind of > kilesa that we recognise as such). But while less kilesa does indeed result from > the development of the path, this doesn't mean that the development of the path is > 'tied' in any sense to having less kilesa in our lives now. > > From my reading, the > path is developed if there is awareness of a presently arising reality, whatever > that reality may be, and it doesn't matter whether it is kusala or akusala, nama or > rupa, internal or eternal. The reduction of the kilesa is something that occurs as > a natural consequence of the development of awareness and the ensuing understanding, > but should not be the focus of that development. > > Having the objective of having less kilesa in our life now is, I believe, to fall > into the trap of expectations. It inevitably inclines us to a form of practice that > involves suppression in one form or another. Not sure I follow your argument correctly. I understand that the awareness + understanding itself is the development of the path and that the object of that awareness could be of just about anything - even a murder.. presumably. But doesn't that awareness + understanding influence what a coming set of actions or behaviour is going to be? Suppose you become aware of strong lobha towards an object - do you leave things there ? Then the next time the object appears, the same strong lobha crops up and you're again snared. Isn't it that when the understanding arises one becomes determined to be free from strong lobha sometime? I'm oversimplifying, things are rarely so simple - all seems to be a lot more indirect and many more factors are involved so there's rarely a 1 - 1 relation. The point is, though, that the understanding leads to some change of behaviour (whether we do this knowingly and willingly or not !) - In Mahayana, aspiration is given a lot of emphasis, as you know, so I try to keep it at the front of my brain a much as possible - but I don't think aspiration is at all lacking in Theravada, only that there is less fuss made of it : ) > > It's training only if it's kusala and, in particular, if it's right view :-). > Yes, agree there. By offering anything with a view to rebirth in a deva realm (or even with the aim of liberation !), one is up for a great disappointment some time soon. But there is the training that happens little by little and through which one ends up doing things (like offering) or avoiding doing things just for the joy of it. Not for "storing merit" or even for mind purification - but because it feels the only way there is. For instance, none of us would go out with a gun to kill ducks - it's unthinkable, isn't it? Another example, if someone in need comes to ask us for food we would immediately and without any second thought share our meal, or give it all away - not to do so would also be unthinkable.... .... .... But this stage hasn't arrived out of nothing and it isn't common to all humans, I think it is the result of a long process of training and purification - which isn't "mine" but manifests as this "me" for the time being. And one can project this to those habits that appear in citta now (and that's all they are, bad habits!) and take up training in some way with the idea of freeing citta from them ... because the idea of freeing citta from them feels like the only way to go ! Not sure I'm being clear - What I try to say is that the awareness leads to understanding, the understanding leads to aspiration + determination (where "effort" is probably involved) and, eventually, change of a trend of behaviour patterns (a change of MIND !!!). This isn't me or mine, but it's ongoing and has been forever. Perhaps this is what you're saying too, but you make it sound too easy ! : ( > > > Glad you enjoyed the holiday - ours is on Monday. > > Ah, that was May Day- next Monday (and Tuesday!!!) is the Queen's holiday Best wishes Lucy 13634 From: Lucy Date: Tue Jun 11, 2002 0:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 10 (1) and so-on Dear Robert Thanks! There's a lot to reflect in what you write ...and breed further questions. Is the "heart base" something similar to the senses' base ? So it would be even "smaller" than the first fertilised egg cell ? I can see now that even from a biological viewpoint some of my questions were based on flawed assumptions. Taking up rupa only needs one cell for humans and animals (won't try to think what it's like for the spontaneously arisen ones